No Right Answer: Best Trilogy Ever
- Thread starter Firefilm
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I was wondering why Lord of the Rings wasn't one of them.
As much as I love those movies, yah there are basically just one long movie spilt into three.
Like the new Hobbit movie, don't know if I am happy about that or not.
As much as I love those movies, yah there are basically just one long movie spilt into three.
Like the new Hobbit movie, don't know if I am happy about that or not.
No, the reason things can't remain just trilogies is because executives won't stop ringing every last cent they can out of a property and we as fans won't stop eating it up like pigs at a feeding trough.
I dunno that I agree with that last point that was slipped in, but I'll let it slide. Easily my favourite trilogy, but that's fine.
First of all: as much as I love Star Wars, Jedi was pretty weak once they got to Endor. It starts off fine, but once they touch down, things just go to shit. It's still fun to watch, but not for the same reasons as IV and V.
The only Indy movie I've seen is Raiders. I've just never gotten around to the other two... three, I guess. I constantly forget about Crystal Skull. From the sounds of it, a lot of other people agree.
Hurray for Back to the Future! Love those movies so much. Didn't realize it was made into an animated series, though. That's kind of weird.
First of all: as much as I love Star Wars, Jedi was pretty weak once they got to Endor. It starts off fine, but once they touch down, things just go to shit. It's still fun to watch, but not for the same reasons as IV and V.
The only Indy movie I've seen is Raiders. I've just never gotten around to the other two... three, I guess. I constantly forget about Crystal Skull. From the sounds of it, a lot of other people agree.
Hurray for Back to the Future! Love those movies so much. Didn't realize it was made into an animated series, though. That's kind of weird.
Good show, I like how points were actually taken away in this one. 
Really, when looked at it with the points the debaters raised, you really kinda do have to go with Back to the Future. Star Wars and Jones both have things about them that weigh themselves down, but Back to the Future is just solid.
"Those boards don't work on water, unless you have POWAH!"
Really, when looked at it with the points the debaters raised, you really kinda do have to go with Back to the Future. Star Wars and Jones both have things about them that weigh themselves down, but Back to the Future is just solid.
"Those boards don't work on water, unless you have POWAH!"
The Lord of the Rings was written as one book, it was only published as three books. Ergo, the movie is essentially a three part adaptation of a single story. I guess that's where they were going with the LOTR comment.SonOfMethuselah said:
Two more planned, so not technically a trilogy either.Kuomon said:
We all pretty much agree what Temple of doom was a weak link, a real problem before the fourth came along. Star Wars, if you remember an article posted right here on the Escapist, was deliberately altered in it's final episode to be a toy commercial disguised as a movie, and Back to the Future really didn't have either of these problems. They're great family movies people at any age can laugh with, Marty and Doc have chemistry, Biff/Griff/Buford were great villains, the action was exciting, it just had so many great things going for it. The only part that sticks out in my mind, at all, was when they had to recast Jennifer.
I love Indy, Harrison Ford was one of the best actors of all time (IMO), but ultimately I feel BTTF just nails it all and Zemeckis is some kind of directorial genius.
Also, I read Lord of the Rings was almost 6 movies and the three that were made left out a lot.
When they said Back to the Future I was like " there was a 3rd one?" Then I remembered how horrible it was and how much I tried to forget it.
there was a 3rd one?" Then I remembered how horrible it was and how much I tried to forget it.
I love Evil Dead, but be honest. There's only two movies there. Evil Dead 2 is essentially a remake of Evil Dead.Kordie said:
OT: I'd be hardpressed for a favorite trilogy. I have to go with LOTR (btw - I don't buy the "it's not a trilogy" argument, as it was based and structured on a literary trilogy), if only because it's one of the few trilogies to not be tainted with other movies/prequels/remakes/etc. (until the Hobbit comes out, which is hopefully good). Back to the Future won the debate for this very reason.
Lord of the rings is...
1 Story
published in
3 Volumes
which contain
6 Books
which were adapted into three movies which were spread over
3 theatrical showings, 6 disks for home DVD, 12 disks for the "full story" on home DVD, or 6 Blue rays and 24 hours of viewing pleasure.
Not a trilogy by several interpretations.
1 Story
published in
3 Volumes
which contain
6 Books
which were adapted into three movies which were spread over
3 theatrical showings, 6 disks for home DVD, 12 disks for the "full story" on home DVD, or 6 Blue rays and 24 hours of viewing pleasure.
Not a trilogy by several interpretations.
