Best Movie Trilogy EVER! thread

[Yuma]

In fact, I will go out on a limb here, and taking it from a quality standpoint, the Terminator trilogy might just be the best trilogy of movies ever made. All three are better than Return of the Jedi, Lethal Weapon 3, Beverly Hills Cop 3, Godfather 3, Back to the Future 2, and the last 2 Jurassic Park films. Think about it.

from Chaplin

Got me to thinking about movie trilogies. He mentions some good ones. However, with a caveat that the third movie in the series isn't out yet, I would have to put my money on the Lord Of The Rings trilogy! By far these first two ROCK! The third looks like the best from the trailers. Whereas, I thought Terminator 2 was kinda lame and sappy at the end. I am probably one of the biggest Schwarzanegger fans there is, but I have to give props to the LOTR. I also love both Matrix movies nad I really enjoy the philosophy in the second, but LOTR is still better! The Indiana Jones movies were pretty darn good when you see them again, but I still have to go LOTR. I think we are in the midst of watching the best movie trilogy ever!!

 

[Chaplin]

You might be right, but is it really fair to name a trilogy that isn't complete yet?

 

[Mike Olbinski]

Originally posted by Chaplin
You might be right, but is it really fair to name a trilogy that isn't complete yet?

Yes

Mike

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Originally posted by Chaplin
In fact, I will go out on a limb here, and taking it from a quality standpoint, the Terminator trilogy might just be the best trilogy of movies ever made. All three are better than Return of the Jedi, Lethal Weapon 3, Beverly Hills Cop 3, Godfather 3, Back to the Future 2, and the last 2 Jurassic Park films. Think about it.

Just wait until Armageddon II and III come out.

 

[Chaplin]

Best trilogies:
Terminator
Star Wars
Indiana Jones
Back to the Future

Best future trilogy:
Lord of the Rings

Worst future trilogy:
Armageddon

 

[FischerKing]

I might have to vote for the LOTR trilogies as well.

Man I can't wait for the Return of the King - it's going to be awesome!!!

Shawn

 

[schutd]

Originally posted by Chaplin
Best trilogies:
Terminator
Star Wars
Indiana Jones
Back to the Future

Best future trilogy:
Lord of the Rings

Worst future trilogy:
Armageddon

Whoa. Back to the Future????? Really????? two and three were LAME. Just plain LAME.

I know Godfather 3 was a turd, but the first two are so superior to anything else in the trilogy list, it gets the nod for me. Its like the first two together forgive that awful final installment.

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by schutd
Whoa. Back to the Future????? Really????? two and three were LAME. Just plain LAME.

You're the first person I know who didn't like the 3rd one--taken as a whole, the story is great, even if it is a little confusing in the 2nd movie.

And boy, everyone gets mad when I do it, but isn't that a harsh post? At least you didn't call me lame...

I thought about Godfather as well, and I probably should have put that in there.

 

[Stout]

I've been castigated for this, but I do not like Two Towers very much at all. The effects were spectacular and the overall story was good (duh!), and some of the acting was good, but overall it was a huge disappointment, both from the viewpoint of a movie and as far as they diverged from the book.

The characters were shallow-they didn't develop much at all, and Faromir especially was played down as a character. In fact, Faromir was simply annihilated as a character.

The movie flip-flopped far too much. We're here, then we're there. We're in the midst of a battle, now we're in a love scene. Terrible writing.

This movie tried to ride the coattails of the first movie and the book popularity, and tried to wow you with effects instead of giving us a quality film. It failed.

Just my two cents.

 

[Ryanwb]

GodFather 3 wouldn't have been that bad if that horrible actress wasn't in it. I don't even need to explain who I am talking about because everybody already knows

 

[schutd]

Originally posted by Chaplin
You're the first person I know who didn't like the 3rd one--taken as a whole, the story is great, even if it is a little confusing in the 2nd movie.

And boy, everyone gets mad when I do it, but isn't that a harsh post? At least you didn't call me lame...

I thought about Godfather as well, and I probably should have put that in there.

Yeah I thought about editing it, it came off as agressively harsh, and I just meant it to be stongly opinionated. Sorry. Maybe I should go back and see part 3 of BTTF. I give it so little credit cause 2 was such a turd IMHO...

 

[Brian in Mesa]

How about the Die Hard Trilogy?

The first is always credited with the genre of action films we see to this day. Maybe it's just me, but I liked all 3 of the Die Hard films. Die Hard 2 was originally going to be on a cruise ship, but Under Siege stole that thunder, so it took place at an airport instead.

Just throwing it out there, not necessarily saying it's the best trilogy ever, but I think it at least deserves a mention when discussing trilogies.

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by Brian in Mesa
How about the Die Hard Trilogy?

The first is always credited with the genre of action films we see to this day. Maybe it's just me, but I liked all 3 of the Die Hard films. Die Hard 2 was originally going to be on a cruise ship, but Under Siege stole that thunder, so it took place at an airport instead.

Just throwing it out there, not necessarily saying it's the best trilogy ever, but I think it at least deserves a mention when discussing trilogies.

Good call, but I thought the 3rd movie wasn't even a "Die Hard" movie. And of course, each of those movies was pretty much self-sufficient. The trilogies mentioned were 3 parts of a larger story, instead of 3 movies based on the same characters. (Like Lethal Weapon)

 

[FischerKing]

Originally posted by Brian in Mesa
Maybe it's just me...

Yep - I think it's just you.

Shawn

 

[schutd]

I dont know if I'd give Die Hard the title of being the action film that designed the genre. I think that goes to Raiders of the Lost Ark. In fact, I feel like the whole scene in the city plaza, with the sword and then Harrison Ford pulls out the gun and shoots the guy is the first ever "one-liner" that seems to be so defining a characteristic of action films today. Sure it wasn't spoken, but the intent was the same. A comedic relief line.

Besides, Die Hard was good, but it really isnt anything much historically. 2 was OK and 3 wasnt very good at all.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Originally posted by Chaplin
Good call, but I thought the 3rd movie wasn't even a "Die Hard" movie. And of course, each of those movies was pretty much self-sufficient. The trilogies mentioned were 3 parts of a larger story, instead of 3 movies based on the same characters. (Like Lethal Weapon)

Well, you could say the same about the Indiana Jones movies. They each stand on their own. Each movie had it's own story rather than a beginning, middle, and end played out over 3 films.

So far Star Wars 4-6, Godfather 1-3, and the Lord of the Rings 1-3 are the only ones mentioned where 1 larger story is told over 3 movies.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Originally posted by schutd
I dont know if I'd give Die Hard the title of being the action film that designed the genre.

I don't know about it either, but there have been many since that use it as a reference.

Speed was "Die Hard on a bus."
Speed 2 was "Die Hard on a cruise ship."
Under Siege was "Die Hard on a boat."
Under Siege 2 was "Die Hard on a train."

Etc.

Basically, any movie where the hero just happens to be an innocent passenger or even an unknown guest...and it's up to them to be the fly in the ointment and mess up the bad guy's big plans.

 

[mdamien13]

I'll throw the Evil Dead trilogy into the ring. I can't pick a favorite trilogy between Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Evil Dead, and the Lord of the Rings.

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by Brian in Mesa
Well, you could say the same about the Indiana Jones movies. They each stand on their own. Each movie had it's own story rather than a beginning, middle, and end played out over 3 films.

So far Star Wars 4-6, Godfather 1-3, and the Lord of the Rings 1-3 are the only ones mentioned where 1 larger story is told over 3 movies.

Back to the Future?

But how would you compare Die Hard to Raiders? Raiders is much better, IMO, even though Die Hard is great too. As a whole, Indy is better than Die Hard, mostly based on the strength of all the movies. Again, I didn't particularly like the 3rd Die Hard.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Originally posted by Chaplin
Back to the Future?

But how would you compare Die Hard to Raiders? Raiders is much better, IMO, even though Die Hard is great too. As a whole, Indy is better than Die Hard, mostly based on the strength of all the movies. Again, I didn't particularly like the 3rd Die Hard.

I would have to see the BTTF movies again. I seem to remember 2 as being 1 all over again with more complexities due to there being 2 Marty's back in time, etc and 3 was a western. 1 and 2 seemed to be a lot closer together than 3, a western set even more into the past.

Raiders is one of my most favorite movies, and so is Die Hard. But the Jones trilogy is far better than the Die Hard trilogy. Jones 1 and 3 go together smoothly, with 2 being a different film altogether in a way that is very similar to Die Hard 1 and 2 going together and 3 being very different (revenge story rather than the "fly in the ointment" formula of the first two).

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by Brian in Mesa


Raiders is one of my most favorite movies, and so is Die Hard. But the Jones trilogy is far better than the Die Hard trilogy. Jones 1 and 3 go together smoothly, with 2 being a different film altogether in a way that is very similar to Die Hard 1 and 2 going together and 3 being very different (revenge story rather than the "fly in the ointment" formula of the first two).

Here's the way I see it.

Indy 2 was totally different than 1 and 3, yet it was still really original and included the swashbuckling we've come to love and respect.

Die Hard 3, though, was more like any other police drama/thriller, and that is why it didn't really impress me. (Plus the subtitling on the German was wrong, but that's another thread)

 

[Cheesebeef]

Originally posted by schutd

Besides, Die Hard was good, but it really isnt anything much historically.

WHAT? Are you serious - Die Hard is one of the best action movies of all time IMO and as far as the media is concerned DIE HARD is constantly praised as one of the best action films in the modern era.

 

[Ryanwb]

I think the first 3 Police Academy movies was a turning point in American Cimema. Steve Guttenberg as cadet Mahoney was certainly disappointed when he was passed over for the Academy Award nomination in 1984 and was never quite the same brilliant actor.

 

[schutd]

Originally posted by cheesebeef
WHAT? Are you serious - Die Hard is one of the best action movies of all time IMO and as far as the media is concerned DIE HARD is constantly praised as one of the best action films in the modern era.

I am serious. The entire action movie genre as a whole could be wiped off the face of the earth, and for the vast majority of the most part, I wouldnt miss em at all.

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by schutd
I am serious. The entire action movie genre as a whole could be wiped off the face of the earth, and for the vast majority of the most part, I wouldnt miss em at all.

I certainly don't agree with that. I like little action movies, especially early Schwartzenegger film...