May 30, 2009 01:00 PM
0
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 4:11 AM
Wed Feb 10
25 posts in the last 24 hours
Now that we've had some time to think about it, it's time to ask yourself which was worse: the Star Wars prequel trilogy, or the Matrix trilogy? The Oregonian's Shawn Levy thinks it's the latter.
According to Levy, history will ultimately realize that the two Matrix sequels just ruined the original movie so much that even Jar-Jar will seem greater in context:
A factor that I think especially fueled the battering of [The Phantom Menace] was the advent a mere month earlier of a genuine classic of science fiction cinema, "The Matrix." ...At the time, the cool kids were absolutely vivid in declaring the Wachowski brothers' film an immortal stunner and to see in Lucas's reemergence an abject failure. Indeed, if you had polled people in the summer of 1999 and asked them which franchise was going to produce better results over the next two films, I'm pretty certain that 90% or more of respondents would have declared for "The Matrix."
Well, with both trilogies complete and behind us, I'm not sure that those people would have been correct in the least. Lucas improved on quite a bit of "SWEP1" in the subsequent prequels, while the Wachowskis absolutely crash-landed "The Matrix" in their sequels to it. (Let's leave off "Speed Racer," shall we, so as not to be overly cruel....) Especially given a decade of reassessment, I'd call Lucas' three-film enterprise by far the more successful.
I'm an entirely impartial judge of this, having a surreal and unexplainable dislike of the Matrix series, so I'm throwing it open to you, dear readers: Did Keanu leave more of a bad taste in your mouth than Hayden Christensen?
SWEP1 + 10 = ? [Oregon Live] (Via Star Wars.com)
Send an email to Graeme McMillan, the author of this post, at graeme@io9.com.
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
Start a new discussion