Mustard Death Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Meh... I'm bored. And I didn't see one of these... so here it is! Share with us what your favourite trilogy of movies (i.e. Star Wars IV-VI, or I-III, LOTR etc.) is. Although I am a big fan of Star Wars I-III... I'm going to have to go with... Austin Powers. The first two Austin Powers movies are two of my favourites of all time... I laugh VERY hard every time I watch them. The third one had it's moments as well... So... uh... yeah. POST! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physics23 Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Back to the Future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
circumstantial tree Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Hmmmm, Poltergeist I, II, & III. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 probably a tie between star wars IV-VI and lord of the rings! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anagramking Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 The Godfather trilogy is in a class by itself, though the third didn't quite measure up to the first two. I liked Star Wars IV-VI, and the Austin Powers trilogy was funny, but neither carries the gravitas of the Godfather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-13 Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 Star Wars, LOTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digital Man Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 Lord of the Ring...easily Indiana Jones Trilogy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Grizz Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 LOTR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kazzman Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 Lord of the Rings, followed by The Godfather Trilogy (would be #1 on my list if the third one was better). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anagramking Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 I have to confess that I didn't see the LOTR trilogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
war2112 Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 I suppose it's really a "quadrilogy", but I have to put the Alien films at the top of my list. Although the last two were not quite up to snuff (well the third was at least serviceable and had a good cast of Brits), I think the first two are among the finest examples of sci-fi horror ever made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaine mac Roth Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 QUOTE (war2112 @ Jul 16 2005, 07:16 AM) I suppose it's really a "quadrilogy", but I have to put the Alien films at the top of my list. Although the last two were not quite up to snuff (well the third was at least serviceable and had a good cast of Brits), I think the first two are among the finest examples of sci-fi horror ever made. To be accurate, there is no such word as 'quadrilogy' - I think it was just made up for marketing the DVD box set. The correct word for a series of four is 'tetralogy'. Anyway, I suppose you could say that, with the release of AvP, there are five films in the Alien series which, probably, makes it a franchise. (pedantic head off) As for me, I would have to say Lord of the Rings (although its not really a trilogy - its one film that has been split into three for audience comfort). Following this, I would have to say that its probably Indiana Jones. Can I also give a special mention to the Mad Max films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boz69 Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 Trilogy Of Terror !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tst4eko Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 There's so many... 1. Back to the future 2. Indiana Jones 3. Star Wars 4. Mad Max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeilPeartFan2112 Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 I'm going to go with the original Star Wars Trilogy. Such amazing movies that changed the way we look at movies. Awesome stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schro Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Slaine, love your posts, but.. You really kinda threw me with this nugget: QUOTE (Slaine mac Roth @ Jul 16 2005, 02:45 AM) As for me, I would have to say Lord of the Rings (although its not really a trilogy - its one film that has been split into three for audience comfort). Following this, I would have to say that its probably Indiana Jones. Can I also give a special mention to the Mad Max films. It's just semantics, but why is LOTR not a trilogy? 3 books, 3 movies. Sounds like a trilogy to me. Pretty sure everyone calls the book series a trilogy too. Where did we all go wrong, Slaine. What makes LOTR 1-3 one long film, and other trilogies you recognize (Indiana Jones and Mad Max) as bona fide trilogies? Schro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kazzman Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 QUOTE (Schro @ Jul 18 2005, 12:36 PM) Slaine, love your posts, but.. You really kinda threw me with this nugget: QUOTE (Slaine mac Roth @ Jul 16 2005, 02:45 AM) As for me, I would have to say Lord of the Rings (although its not really a trilogy - its one film that has been split into three for audience comfort). Following this, I would have to say that its probably Indiana Jones. Can I also give a special mention to the Mad Max films. It's just semantics, but why is LOTR not a trilogy? 3 books, 3 movies. Sounds like a trilogy to me. Pretty sure everyone calls the book series a trilogy too. Where did we all go wrong, Slaine. What makes LOTR 1-3 one long film, and other trilogies you recognize (Indiana Jones and Mad Max) as bona fide trilogies? Schro What makes films like Indiana Jones a trilogy is that there's three movies regarding the same character, but each film is a different story in itself. Lord of the Rings is 3 books and 3 movies, yes, but all three flow together and tell one long story as compared to each branching off and being connected only in name and character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaine mac Roth Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 In addition, the original book was intended to be released as a single volume divided into six parts. However, the original publishers were not convinced that this would be a sound economic move and released it in three sections. If you look closely at the books, they are described as being parts 1, 2 and 3 of The Lord of the Rings - not The Lord of the Rings volumes 1, 2 and 3. Furthermore, unlike all the other trilogies mentioned, The Lord of the Rings was filmed concurrantly. Principal photography for all three parts was shot over an 18 month period, unlike most trilogies which are filmed one at a time , often with gaps of a year or so between them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedro2112 Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 LOTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABZ Highlander Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Got to be the Godfather Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freedom_Fighter Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 QUOTE (Slaine mac Roth @ Jul 18 2005, 01:34 PM) In addition, the original book was intended to be released as a single volume divided into six parts. However, the original publishers were not convinced that this would be a sound economic move and released it in three sections. If you look closely at the books, they are described as being parts 1, 2 and 3 of The Lord of the Rings - not The Lord of the Rings volumes 1, 2 and 3. Furthermore, unlike all the other trilogies mentioned, The Lord of the Rings was filmed concurrantly. Principal photography for all three parts was shot over an 18 month period, unlike most trilogies which are filmed one at a time , often with gaps of a year or so between them. actually, yes it was all supposed to be one book, but when they split it up, he actually split it up into SIX books. did you notice the first book is split into "book 1 and book 2" and the second one is "book 3 and book 4" and so on? so really, you said eac book is parts 1, 2, and 3 in lord of the rings, as opposed to VOLUMES 1, 2, and 3, but no actually they ARE considered volumes. The Fellowship of the Ring is Volume 1 containing books 1 and 2 or lord of the rings, and so on with the other two books. but anyway, on to my fav trilogy: MD said he was a big fan of the I-III star wars trilogy, but really the older trilogy is much better in many many ways. that is my fav trilogy of all time. i've got a few other favs though, here's a list: 1. Star Wars IV-VI 2. The Lord of the Rings 3. The Matrix 4. Star Wars I-III 5. Die Hard those are my favorites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaine mac Roth Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 QUOTE (Freedom_Fighter @ Jul 18 2005, 07:22 PM) actually, yes it was all supposed to be one book, but when they split it up, he actually split it up into SIX books. did you notice the first book is split into "book 1 and book 2" and the second one is "book 3 and book 4" and so on? so really, you said eac book is parts 1, 2, and 3 in lord of the rings, as opposed to VOLUMES 1, 2, and 3, but no actually they ARE considered volumes. The Fellowship of the Ring is Volume 1 containing books 1 and 2 or lord of the rings, and so on with the other two books. but anyway, on to my fav trilogy: JRR Tolkien, the author of Lord of the Rings, the man who wrote the books and has his name on the cover, never considered The Lord of the Rings to be a trilogy and, in my opinion, his in the definitive word on the subject. However, what I was saying in my post is that if you look at the original editions of The Lord of the Rings, the word volume is not used. In the synopsis provided at the beginning of both The Two Towers and The Return of the King, they are called parts not volumes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freedom_Fighter Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 oh i see. well, i guess i've never seen the original editions of them, but technically they should be called volumes anyway considering each one is actually supposed to be like two books as opposed to one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esmeralda Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Absolutely LOTR for me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Sawyer Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 QUOTE (esmeralda @ Jul 18 2005, 02:14 PM) Absolutely LOTR for me! Forsure!! But I also really like all the JP's dinosaurs are cool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now