The best trilogy

Well?

  • Total voters
    66
The Monkey

The Monkey

The Freeman
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
16,316
Reaction score
16
Which trilogy is the best, in your opinion?

For those who don't know, the "Dollars trilogy" refer to the three spaghetti westerns starring Clint Eastwood.
 
Toss up between Lord of the Rings and Back to the Future. Pirates comes in third.

Indiana Jones would be close, but it's about to stop being a trilogy anyway. Likewise the Alien movies.

Matrix and Star Wars can **** right off.
 
Don't make me choose between Indiana Jones and Star Wars! I really can't do it.

Mad Max at least deserves a place in the poll - the 3rd may be weaker than the first two, but it is still an awesome trilogy.
 
LOTR and "Dollars" are the only ones named that consist entirely of good movies. Also, it should be noted that Clint Eastwood and Lee Van Cleef both play different characters in the two "Man with No Name" films than in "The Good the Bad and the Ugly," a fact calls the 3 films' status as a trilogy into question. On top of that Leone made other Westerns including one called "Fist Full of Dynamite." Why not include that in the series? Lastly, I've always felt that "Once Upon a Time in the West" was far superior to any of the Eastwood films (though I do love TGTBATU).

"Lord" it is, then.

Honorable mention goes to: the three "Samurai" films, starring Mifune Toshiro, and "The Human Condition" with Nakadai Tatsuya. The "Tsubaki Sanjuro" films with Mifune also kick ass, but sadly, there are only two of them. The first two Romero "Dead" films are great, but the third is a dud and the fourth is just OK. Godfather 3 simply stunk--a monumental betrayal of the first two films, which are justifiably termed "classic." Ditto the Alien tetralogy, whose latter two episodes should be declared non-canonical pronto.
 
I voted for The Godfather. The third might not have been great, but the first two are among the very best movies I've ever seen.

Runner-ups would be LotR, Dollars and Indiana Jones.
 
nokori3byo said:
LOTR and "Dollars" are the only ones named that consist entirely of good movies. Also, it should be noted that Clint Eastwood and Lee Van Cleef both play different characters in the two "Man with No Name" films than in "The Good the Bad and the Ugly," a fact calls the 3 films' status as a trilogy into question. On top of that Leone made other Westerns including one called "Fist Full of Dynamite." Why not include that in the series? Lastly, I've always felt that "Once Upon a Time in the West" was far superior to any of the Eastwood films (though I do love TGTBATU).
Click to expand...

Fistful of Dynamite's original title is Duck, You Sucker.
 
I'm a massive fan of both the Vengeance trilogy and The Lion King trilogy, but as they aren't up there, and I hate choosing "Other", it has to be LotR.
 
DeusExMachina said:
Fistful of Dynamite's original title is Duck, You Sucker.
Click to expand...


Correct, but I still contend that the Dollars films aren't a real trilogy, a position supported by the fact that the first two films clearly are continuous, and the third one is not.
 
Gunner said:
For me, it'd be the original star wars.
Click to expand...

You voted for the newer three.

For me it's LOTR. I love star wars, but LOTR was just amazing. I never read the books and never intend to.
 
Raziaar said:
For me it's LOTR. I love star wars, but LOTR was just amazing. I never read the books and never intend to.
Click to expand...

That's a shame dude. I love the LOTR movies, but they're not a patch on the books. So much was cut - character development, atmosphere. Still, excellent movies.

I'd say Indy and the original Star Wars were consistently good, nokori3byo. More so than LOTR, which, while I do really like each movie, goes down hill after Fellowship. I'd argue the same happens with the books, though, so maybe that was intentional ;)
 
Warbie said:
That's a shame dude. I love the LOTR movies, but they're not a patch on the books. So much was cut - character development, atmosphere. Still, excellent movies.
Click to expand...

I think if Peter Jackson wanted to bore his audience into a coma he could have followed them a little closer. The Fellowship of the Ring would have probably consisted of us watching the four hobbits dance and sing their way across Middle-Earth, humming their gay little tunes.
 
Yeh, all those millions of people who have loved the books over the years must all be wrong.

The lotr novels were obviously a labour of love, wonderfully told and a lovely experience for anyone with an ounce of imagination.
 
Samon said:
I think if Peter Jackson wanted to bore his audience into a coma he could have followed them a little closer. The Fellowship of the Ring would have probably consisted of us watching the four hobbits dance and sing their way across Middle-Earth, humming their gay little tunes.
Click to expand...

They say the books are un-filmable, and it's true, providing you want to put everything in the books to the screen, cause it would be a trilogy of six hours per movie, at least. Peter Jackson did a damn ****in' good job though, and LOTR is probably the best film adaptation of a book I've seen. Therefore it gets my vote. Godfather was a close second and Star Wars IV-VI third.
 
Pfffft, I'm the only one who voted Indiana Jones? Its INDIANA JONES!

*Storms out of forum*

Godfather comes in close second for me.

Couldn't get through LOTR's books, the movies were entertaining and thats about it for me, I prefer Fellowship out of all of them (I think I'm the only person who does).

Whoever voted Star Wars (I-III) needs to be shot.
 
I'll add my vote if only to show this forum isn't populated by complete philistines!! :)
 
Warbie said:
Yeh, all those millions of people who have loved the books over the years must all be wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes, because that's obviously what I was saying in my post. Arguably a modern audience would not have responded to LOTR in the same way that they did had Jackson followed them a little closer.
 
My bad then. I took '... if Peter Jackson wanted to bore his audience into a coma he could have followed them a little closer' as a suggestion that the books were boring.

I think Jackson did a superb job with the movies and wasn't suggesting he should have stuck closer to the books, just that the books are, for various reasons, better on almost every level.
 
Voted LotR. Didn't notice BttF, which I also consider to be fantastic. Dunno if I'd change my vote, but I definately would've needed longer to think about it.
 
Warbie said:
That's a shame dude. I love the LOTR movies, but they're not a patch on the books. So much was cut - character development, atmosphere. Still, excellent movies.

I'd say Indy and the original Star Wars were consistently good, nokori3byo. More so than LOTR, which, while I do really like each movie, goes down hill after Fellowship. I'd argue the same happens with the books, though, so maybe that was intentional ;)
Click to expand...

I've heard from so many sources that LOTR books is such a CHORE to read compared to other pieces of literature.
 
Raziaar said:
I've heard from so many sources that LOTR books is such a CHORE to read compared to other pieces of literature.
Click to expand...

You could easily find far more sources that disagree, or even find out for yourself ;)

//edit - if you've seen the films before reading the books I imagine they wouldn't be as magical - you know most of what's going to happen. If you're interested in the genre, though, it can't hurt to give them a go. lotr is up there with the best high fantasy i've read.
 
Raziaar said:
I've heard from so many sources that LOTR books is such a CHORE to read compared to other pieces of literature.
Click to expand...

Although many people will lynch me for saying this, I agree, still a good book though but I agree.

Also I might need to leave as well Matrix was my 3rd choice after BTTF ;(
 
The LOTR books are good, but doesn't compare with the epicness of the movies.

Can anyone motivate why they chose Matrix? IMO, the first one was good (as it has some philosophical debates), the second mediocre (as it has some good battles), the third one sucked ass.
 
The Monkey said:
The LOTR books are good, but doesn't compare with the epicness of the movies.
Click to expand...

It definately helps having read the books. The movies themselves hardly flesh out the charatcers at all, which is Jackson's only failing imo. Read the books and you feel like you've gone on the journey and know the people involved.
 
Warbie said:
It definately helps having read the books. The movies themselves hardly flesh out the charatcers at all, which is Jackson's only failing imo. Read the books and you feel like you've gone on the journey and know the people involved.
Click to expand...
I did read the books, before the movies came, both in Swedish and in English. So I think I'm qualified to speak, don't you?
 
Certainly, I didn't suggest otherwise, just that prior knowledge of the characters/story can only help fill in any gaps Jackson had to make.
 
IMO, the first one was good (as it has some philosophical debates), the second mediocre (as it has some good battles), the third one sucked ass.
Click to expand...

I really must be the only person that liked the 3rd movie. ;(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
HL2.NET HORROR SLAP
Replies
7
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
To Those That Stand, Those That Fell
Replies
6
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Lizardizzle
  • Poll
A proposition: ValveTime Half-Life 1 co-op event
Replies
5
Views
1K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
thanks guys
Replies
1
Views
1K
Shem
Shem
Back
Top