h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I was talking to my a-level media teacher last friday about the trilogy, as well as trilogies in general. Having studied films for the past 18 months i couldnt fathom why people didnt like them. The two most recent trilogies have been marvels of cinematography, and the only thing more impressive then the films is the promotion thats been put with them. Huge companies like AOL Time Warner have been brought to bear on these mamoth projects to increase there maximum earnings, and both me and my media teacher agreed this was sensible and had worked.

However, my original confusion was still there. Having read several reveiws i couldn't grasp why many had said "Its not as good as The Two Towers" - a follow on from last years "Its Not as good as The Fellowship". It was then that it occured to me that perhaps the general public doesnt understand the term of the trilogy.

Look at any trilogy or sequel and you will find that there totally seperate from its previous incarnation. As example Die hards sequel die harder (totally different enemies) was hailed a success and many liked it. However, die hard with a vengance (had connections with the first film) was put down as the worst of the three, and badly critised. Highlander is another good example. The films are in the wrong order, and this confusses your average American. Lethal weapon is the slight exception. each story is individual, but does have elements from the previous films that fans can pick up on.

This is where Lord Of The Rings comes in nicely. Lord of the Rings is totally different to anything that has come before to the mass market. For a start its basicaly one long film totalling around 10 hours - the same time as all four leathal weapons (give or take 30mins). Secondly the release was spread over several years to generate both maximum hype and maximum revenue. Not only that but theres no possibility for a fourth film (okay maybe the hobbit, but thats a prequel and will confuse Joe American even more).

It was then that i understood why people didnt like the last film. Its like the last peice of your favorite meal (or possibly the desert). You eggerly anticpate it, you enjoy it while its on, then when its finished you moan that theres not enough and demand more.

I think thats why you didnt like the trilogy. You may have like the Two Towers, but you were never meant too like it. You were meant to like the Trilogy. This strange concept has confused many reveiwers - mainly because this idea has never happened before and confuses them greatly, so they hide behind the first two films.

As a single film, it is well constructed and filmed peice. Beautifully orcestrated, wonderfully filmed, brilliantly edited, and incredibly detailed. As a film it is the 'triple chocolate fudge cake with ice cream' of films. Having said that, watching just the final film - it makes bugger all sense. 'Whys that guy on a horse?', 'Why have his clothes changed?', 'Whats liv tyler doing with pointy ears?' and so on and so forth.

But as a Trilogy its an unparrelled master peice. This isnt A film, this is a Trilogy. Three films designed to be one. The ultimate confusion for the google generation (put in word, receive everything wanted instantly).

Rambling over - it needed saying.

Please tell me that you haven't told the guy who watches a film a week and writes cracking reviews that he didn't understand the concept of a trilogy!!!

"The two most recent trilogies have been marvels of cinematography"

I'll agree on the Rings trilogy, and the Matrix may have been good cinematography, but absoloutley crap storytelling, which is what Joe Public, aka 99.9% of any film's target audience wants from a film.

"You eggerly anticpate it, you enjoy it while its on, then when its finished you moan that theres not enough and demand more."

Which is totally different to not liking a film. From what I saw, Awix liked it but didn't think it was as good as Fellowship. I've not seen King yet, but I do think that Fellowship is better than Towers by the fact that by being the middle film in a peice designed as one movie, it lacked a proper beginning and end.

"I think thats why you didnt like the trilogy."

Ever consider some people don't like the film? Most people like , but I, much like my father can take it or leave it and prefer other things, so in a way any film is just like chocolate. You seem to think that the Rings is more of a bournville than a dairy milk, but the bournville disliking public seem to disagree. As for the Matrix, that definately is bournville. Possibly coated in marmite.

Sorry if that makes no sense, but I have been on the lash all day and downed a pint of lager in under 6 seconds for a bet.

Thanks, Psy, for that spirited defence.

Asmodai, I *do* like the trilogy. I have seen the first two films a minimum of four times each on the big screen. I fully appreciate the concept that - unlike every other film series I can think of - these are three films telling one story, effectively Beginning, Middle, and End. I also appreciate that it's a hell of a lot harder to finish a story satisfyingly than it is to start or continue one.

And I do think ROTK is a good film. For nearly two-thirds of its length I think it's a *great* film. I just think that the need to bring it in under three-and-a-half hours in length forced PJ and his team to compromise on the storytelling and rush it a bit.

Consider: once the siege of Minas Tirith is lifted many characters and story elements are virtually forgotten about, such as Faramir and Eowyn. The acceptance of Aragorn as rightful heir to the throne by the inhabitants of the city is taken for granted. The final parting of the Fellowship is skimmed over with only a bit of linking narration. It feels *rushed* - the slower, more thoughtful and imaginative moments from earlier in the story, such as Arwen's vision of her future, were all missing in favour of a headlong rush towards the climax. It feels more like a traditional Hollywood blockbuster, which the previous bits don't.

To reiterate: this is a very good film. I have little doubt that the extended cut will prove it to be an absolutely great one and a worthy conclusion to the story. But I can only talk about what I've seen, not what I might see in the future.

To psycorp: For a start i study films, not just watch them. Not only that but its unusal if i dont watch a film a night (occasionaly two). So im well within my right to give my opinion on film reviews.

Awix:
Arwen's vision of the future looked fine, tying in nicely with the first vision in two towers.
If it looks rushed to you at three hours long then id watch it again. The battle sceens were hectic and violent (the staple diet of all yanks), the diplomacy was sacrificed yes but was it cruicial to the story Peter Jackson was trying to tell? Straight from the word go the man himself said that its all about frodo, with the rest being various sub-plots (although they are big ones). As aragorn himself says its all about giving frodo a chance.
I was wondering when i was going to find the B word in your reply. It came when you looked at the film, which was my point and which is one which will probibly baffle most people for a good long while. My point is this: It is not *A* good film, it is a great trilogy. The second film got stick because theres no set begining (standard charecter intro's, detailed mise-en-scene etc) and no clear end ('what happens now gandalf').

Do a reveiw of the trilogy, then ill nod and smile, because then you'll understand it. No offence im sure your a great writer and a skilled reveiwer, but on this your way off the mark.

When seen through the trilogy perspective you begin to realise how big this has been.
Lets look at it another way - PJ has shot the films back to back, realesing them on extremely set dates (no one screws with AOL TIME WARNER), he has produced what has been the most difficult book to film project ever (well, perhaps the bible or other holy texts might be hard, but still), has produced a mise-en-scene true to tolkien and his works (the writing is all correct for a start), then you start to realise hes spent seven years of his life doing this and hes still working on it now!!! If you had any idea how much work has gone into the films then you'd probibly have as much respect for the trilogy as i do.
But like i said, its a trilogy. Use any angle you want to if you have to look at each film individually, but it is a trilogy pure and simple.

"So im well within my right to give my opinion on film reviews."

I'm an opinionated Internet hack who exists only to provoke you into greater depths of discussion (read: Argument), so so am I! Don't have to be an expert to have an opinion, as Homer Simpson says, "I knows what I likes!"

Mmmm, Tolkien based trilogy...

Any time Awix, I like defending people!

It is a strange fate that we should suffer so much over so small a difference of opinion.

Strewth! I liked it! I liked it a lot! Obviously not as much as you, but if you're expecting me to change my mind and say 'yes, The Return of the King is a perfect work of art' then you are going to be disappointed.

I wasn't complaining about Arwen's vision of the future. That to me was of a whole with the tone and pace of the previous parts of the trilogy. My point was that near the end the pace picked up a little too much (it had to pick up a bit, obviously) and there wasn't time for that kind of moment.

PJ's always said he wanted to stay true to the spirit of the book. The book spends a lot of time going into Aragorn's reluctance to enter Minas Tirith before the people acclaim him king. Winnowing some of that out was inevitable, but for once I think they lost too much in the edit.

I am *entirely* aware, thankyou, of the magnitude of the filmmaker's ambition and accomplishment in even getting this trilogy made. By any standards it is a stellar achievement. But it's not easy to make even a crappy film, and simply getting a film made isn't reason enough to cheer it unconditionally. To repeat for the umpteenth time: this is a very good film, part of a superb trilogy. But it ain't flawless.

I don't claim to be doing anything more than giving my opinion when I write, and you're welcome to disagree with me. But I don't understand why you're giving me such a hard time when other, more eminent names than mine (not that that's saying much) have called ROTK 'bilge' and 'stupid' and 'fundamentally shallow'.

Highlander was never in any order...

It had three sequels to the orignal for smeg's sake!

And it stands that each of the Lord of the Ring films need to tell their own story aswell as the main plot.

To me RotK took away from the main plot- that the Ring must be destroyed... so did the Two Towers actually.

Regarding Highlander, I think it's a reference to the fact that 'present day' in the original is 1986, in number 2 it's about 2020 (?), in number 3 it's 1994, and in number 4 it's about 1999ish (part of it's set in the Millenium Dome, isn't it?).

I always preferred the TV show anyway.

Argh!!!

That was my point though. Why should trilogy films (lord of the rings, matrix) have to have a storyline per film. Watched individually, it dont make much sense, but if watched as one film, then it does (like the matrix in a way)

The thing about highlander HPB is that the order in which they were realesed confused a lot of average americans, which never goes down well, so it was only through the fans that four got released. The order still confused joe yanky

But Highlander was never intended to be a series of four.


Of course the order was confusing because the chronological order within went Highlander, 3, Endgame, II.

Highlander 3 wasn't created to be a mid point film. It was created with the idea that Highlander II never existed.

The four films don't go together. The plot holes are such that only a vague idea is repeated in the four sequels.
Let's not forget that Connor McCloud DIES in ENDGAME.
How did he get the 'Quickening' in Highlander if in Highlander 3 there were three Immortals inside a cave in the Far East if 'there can only be one'??
And, oh yes, the Immortals in II are aliens!

I think what confused people about the later Highlander films was not the peculiar order of the narrative but the way that the scripts were confusing rubbish.

(I'm quite surprised The Raven wasn't a bigger hit, but I suppose it does show who was watching the show and why.)

Mm. Yes. Not the other series or the cartoon eh?

My perception is that the main TV show had a big following amongst those ladies who go for fantasy shows with husky blokes in them (possibly why Duncan's bird was so unpopular and killed off).

Obviously Duncan-fanciers would not be so taken with Amanda, and in any case the franchise alienated a lot of its fanbase when the ginger guy got decapitated.

Did anyone actually watch the cartoon? It made not the slightest attempt to adhere to the same continuity as the other shows, did it?

I rather liked it.

You can't have young Quentin lopping people's heads off!

I think Remiraz was in it.

Ramirez, sorry.

That was my point about the highlander films HPB, the fact that they weren't in order annoys your average veiwer

I'm not sure the average viewer would care either way. None of the films are *that* great, it's not like the hopscotch narrative ruins an otherwise outstanding series.

Well they were 'cult' films.