Both seem to get a lot of hate on this board.
IMHO, however, The Matrix sequels are the lesser of the two evils. In fact I think that taken on its own, “Reloaded” is actually a pretty good action flick, but one that gets dragged down by (the deservedly maligned) “Revolutions.” If the third movie had actually delivered on and built upon some of the more promising ideas brought up in the second film, and ditched some of the wackier concepts (so Neo’s magic powers work in the real world as well?) I believe Reloaded would be held in greater esteem. As such, though I can understand why fans see the sequels as so much empty new age philosophizing. What they fail to deliver story and idea wise however, they do make up for in kick ass stunts (well, the second one anyway). And even if you don’t like them, it’s hard to deny that the films (third one included) are visually stunning.
The Star Wars prequels, on the other hand, manage to be both boring and cartoonish. The action scenes come across as little more than the CGI wanking that they are. The special effects manage to look more fake than those that were created for the original a quarter century before. And let’s face it, if these didn’t have the “Star Wars” label slapped on them, would anyone really give a shit about them?
I could see, as I said above, someone enjoying “The Matrix Reloaded” for the stylized cyber-Kung Fu flick that it is, even if they hadn’t seen the first one. But the Star Wars prequels offer nothing in the way of the fun, ultracool fight scenes of the Matrix. Yoda fighting Count Dooku? If this were a YouTube clip you wouldn’t know whether to laugh your ass off or simply utter “WTF!?”
The SW prequels also bears the ignomy of making fans wait 16 years, only to shatter their hopes. Even if you hated the Matrix sequels, you only had to wait four years to see them. Your anticipation level may have been high for the Matrix, but you didn’t spend your the entirety of your teenage years and/or young adulthood dreaming about it.
So, as far as I’m concerned Star Wars wins this battle handily.
What are your thoughts?
The Matrix sequels are easily worse.
The Star Wars prequels have one thing going for them above all else: absolutely balls-to-the-wall Lightsaber battles. Regardless of your feelings of the prequels as a whole, you can’t deny that the three-way battle between Darth Maul and Obi-Wan & Qui-Gon with “Duel of the Fates” swelling isn’t an epic moment. Much like the lobby shootout in The Matrix.
I never had that moment in the Matrix sequels.
The Star Wars prequels are worse, by a mile. When I went to see Revenge of the Sith, I fell asleep in the theatre. My friends say I was snoring and everything.
Sure, I was rather short on sleep that week, but that’s no excuse.
That’s a good point. That lightsaber battle was awesome. But the problem is that such balls to the wall awesomeness was few and far between in the SW prequels. And most of the fight scenes they did have consisted of the good guys fighting off a bunch of random droids in CGI wankfests, instead of the badassery that was the Duel of the Fates.
And of course none of this even gets into the shitty character development or George Lucas’ piss-poor storytelling skills.
I would argue that George Lucas has pretty awesome storytelling skills. Just look at his body of work. Nearly all have really amazing stories behind them. Star Wars (the origina) has an amazing story underlying it. I would, however, submit that he has no ear for dialogue. The stuff between Anakin and Padme is agonizing in parts.
This is a great question, though. Both suck tremendously and both introduce elements that kind of ruin the original movie(s). The mitochondrians or whatever they are that show evidence of the force is compeletely stupid. The force should be a spiritual thing that can’t be proven.
And having Neo’s powers manifest in the real world undercut the whole, 'the matrix is what you want it to be,"angle.
That said, I think the Star Wars prequels had enough awesomeness (lightsabre battles, pod racing) that they narrowly beat out the Matrix sequels.
What’s worse–eating broken glass or being covered in paper cuts and being lowered into a vat of lemon juice?
I feel that question and the OP’s question are equally unanswerable.
That is a great lightsaber duel, without doubt.
But it’s still outshone by the sheer drama on display in the Luke/Vader duel from The Empire Strikes Back. Nothing, to my mind, will ever top this, as far as lightsaber duels are concerned.
ETA: And to answer your question, it’s Star Wars by a mile. But Indy 4 makes both the SW prequels and the Matrix sequels look like they were filmed by Godard.
Sure I can. The battles were boring, choreographed crap. That dude who made the hour-long review of Episodes I and II nailed it–there was no emotion, and the lack of character depth undermined any excitement that scene could have had.
I contest the idea that the prequel lightsaber fights were really all that. They’re flashy and exciting, to be sure, but utterly bereft of drama and tension. Especially in the latter two prequel films, the fights have absolutely no substance, and are CGIed to the point where they might as well be Saturday morning cartoons. Contrary to what George Lucas apparently believes, more computer-generated Jedi doing more backflips while wielding more lightsabers per capita != better action sequences.
The two Luke vs Vader duels in the OT, in contrast, were about something - about a lot of things, really. Father versus son. Father teaching son. Son surpassing father. Son rejecting father’s decisions. What it means to be a Jedi (rejecting hate and anger even at the likely cost of one’s life). Both scenes are also beautifully shot - the muted blue and orange color palette of the “Empire” duel, in particular, augments the flash and flare of the lightsabers in the foreground in a truly stunning fashion. So what if it’s just two guys? Or that the action choreography isn’t full of neato kung fu tricks? It’s still a gorgeous battle scene, and one in which we as the audience feel every moment because we believe in the characters doing the fighting.
The Star Wars prequels are worse by a mile.
They had so much further to fall.
I feel the opposite–the Matrix, to me, is a far better film than any of the original Star Wars trilogy.
The one thing that could have saved the Matrix prequels would have been if it had been revealed that they had merely moved from the one standard matrix to the exile matrix, designed for those who rejected the “real world” matrix. Ie, the Matrix within a Matrix reveal.
That’s the only thing that would have explained the “superpowers in the real world” thing.
The Star Wars Prequels just have entirely too much bad in them, from Jar-Jar Binks to Jake Lloyd and Hayden Christiansen as the very worst possible actors in the worst written multi-movie role ever.
What he/she said. Damned eloquent, sir or madame.
I posit that the two Matrix sequels were worse.
My reasoning is that the because the Star Wars prequels were just that - prequels - we already knew how the story would conclude. The prequels only point (besides making lots of money for Lucas) was to fill in the details. Which they did, poorly.
For the Matrix sequels, I wanted to see where the story would go, since I didn’t already know the ending. When I saw the stupid places they took the story, I had an actual sense of loss, because they squandered all the potential of the original story. I didn’t feel that way with the SW prequels.
Star Wars - We didn’t have to wait 20 years to find out that the Matrix sequels wouldn’t be great (I don’t think they’re awful, but they’re not great).
20 years of hype and then to be presented which such utter crap as the Star Wars prequels is just hard to top.
In the other thread going right now about the Matrix, someone mentioned that the Matrix tried answering questions that no one was asking.
I think that was actually a big problem with the SW prequels. Honestly, was anyone really wondering about C3PO’s origins? Did anyone care about trade alliances in the Republic? Was anyone clamoring for an explanation of how the Force really worked?
And so much of it just felt like gratuitous fanwanking. Look there’s Yoda fighting! There’s Jabba the Hutt! There’s Chewbacca!
And yeah, I can understand Lucas doing this sort of thing to appease the wankiest of fans, but he could of dialed it down a lot, especially when it came to the aforementioned C3PO and R2D2, who didn’t belong at all. Quick, name me one memorable scene from the prequels involving C3PO and R2D2. Can’t do it, can you?
You reminded me of this bit by Patton Oswalt.
Bah. Maybe I’m just easy to please but I liked the SW prequels (except Jar Jar) and the Matrix sequels.
You see, I’d use that to make the argument that the Star Wars prequels were more of a disappointment, but that’s not the same as saying that the movies themselves were worse.
You have 30-year-olds watching prequels to movies that came out when they were 10 and were still designed for that younger crowd, then being surprised that it doesn’t appeal as well to their older sensibilities.
Star Wars fans had 20 years to forget/gloss over/fanwank away flaws in the original trilogy and build their expectations for prequels, I’m not sure it was possible for them to be anything other than a failure in people’s minds.
Matrix sequels. Two movies are shorter than three, and no annoying character in either of the two.