No Right Answer: Best Trilogy Ever

[Starik20X6]

No mention of Nolan's Batman trilogy? Those movies brought Batman back off the endangered species list. After the fiery train wreck that was Batman and Robin, Batman was left dead and gone. Then, like a phoenix from the ashes, Nolan's trilogy rocketed Batman back to the top. Hell, The Dark Knight was a bona fide worldwide phenomenon. Even non-fans like Nolan's Batman movies.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Wow Chris, you never heard or seen the "The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles"? In saying so that series was alright I guess (I only seen one or two episodes of it and it wasn't bad)?

 

[cornmancer]

Indy is clearly the best, but I cannot stand for this 'Last Crusade is better than Raiders' tomfoolery. TOMFOOLERY I SAY!

 

[Hitchmeister]

Clint Eastwood, Man With No Name Trilogy, Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, The Good The Bad and The Ugly, case closed.

 

[Woodsey]

Good save with the Lord of the Rings comment at the end, but may I suggest another possible trilogy in the 3 Daniel Craig Bond movies?

Although they do broadly tie together in terms of broader themes, it's not a trilogy.

OT: Should have been between Toy Story, Star Wars and LotR (which most certainly is a trilogy), or the posh-wankingly good The Dark Knight trilogy that's just wrapped up.

 

[Icehearted]

I don't think that excuse at the end really works for LOTR. Star Wars is just as much a 'single story' as LOTR is. Incidentally, I would vote for that.

Also, I read Lord of the Rings was almost 6 movies and the three that were made left out a lot.

I've never heard that. According to the 'making of' for the films, they were going to be two originally, then PJ's first studio demanded he condense it into one or be replaced. Eventually he went to New Line and ended up with three.

I highly doubt any studio would've gone for six. Bear in mind that making a trilogy like LOTR was considered nigh impossible back then.

But yeah, a lot was left out.

Actually, now that I think of it, the number may have been 9 movies (a trilogy per book), though I cannot for the life of me remember where I saw this, but I think someone was posting an interview online. So far the only thing I've found was a comment by a facebook user saying essentially that thee should have been nine.

Your skepticism is totally understandable, and I am afraid I cannot presently cite any part of this.

 

[Hutzpah Chicken]

lol, that's the power of love.

 

[Hitchmeister]

I don't think that excuse at the end really works for LOTR. Star Wars is just as much a 'single story' as LOTR is. Incidentally, I would vote for that.

Also, I read Lord of the Rings was almost 6 movies and the three that were made left out a lot.

I've never heard that. According to the 'making of' for the films, they were going to be two originally, then PJ's first studio demanded he condense it into one or be replaced. Eventually he went to New Line and ended up with three.

I highly doubt any studio would've gone for six. Bear in mind that making a trilogy like LOTR was considered nigh impossible back then.

But yeah, a lot was left out.

Actually, now that I think of it, the number may have been 9 movies (a trilogy per book), though I cannot for the life of me remember where I saw this, but I think someone was posting an interview online. So far the only thing I've found was a comment by a facebook user saying essentially that thee should have been nine.

Your skepticism is totally understandable, and I am afraid I cannot presently cite any part of this.

J.R.R. Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings as a single book. It was split up by the publisher who felt that a single volume of that size would have been prohibitively expensive to publish at the time. Tolkien was never happy with the title they gave the third volume.

 

[Icehearted]

I don't think that excuse at the end really works for LOTR. Star Wars is just as much a 'single story' as LOTR is. Incidentally, I would vote for that.

Also, I read Lord of the Rings was almost 6 movies and the three that were made left out a lot.

I've never heard that. According to the 'making of' for the films, they were going to be two originally, then PJ's first studio demanded he condense it into one or be replaced. Eventually he went to New Line and ended up with three.

I highly doubt any studio would've gone for six. Bear in mind that making a trilogy like LOTR was considered nigh impossible back then.

But yeah, a lot was left out.

Actually, now that I think of it, the number may have been 9 movies (a trilogy per book), though I cannot for the life of me remember where I saw this, but I think someone was posting an interview online. So far the only thing I've found was a comment by a facebook user saying essentially that thee should have been nine.

Your skepticism is totally understandable, and I am afraid I cannot presently cite any part of this.

J.R.R. Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings as a single book. It was split up by the publisher who felt that a single volume of that size would have been prohibitively expensive to publish at the time. Tolkien was never happy with the title they gave the third volume.

I was not referring to Tolkien, though I am already aware of his originally writing a complete book only to have it broken into three parts due to publishing limitations (as I recall it). I was talking about Peter Jackson's film trilogy, and how I'd read that he'd wanted to make a trilogy of each of the Lord of the Rings volumes either before or after the movies were made, due to the sheer amount of material available and the limitations in making a movie. Who would want to sit through a 6 hour movie? What we got were drastically cut versions of the books, and he had said that he'd wanted to make each book a trilogy to fully tell the tale.

 

[RedDeadFred]

The Lord of the Rings may have been one giant book but for the movies, it was adapted into a trilogy. Sorry you're end point is wrong. It's called a trilogy by the people who made it...

They even alter where the Two Towers ends because there's more closure and significantly less of a cliffhanger ending. Here's the definition for a trilogy:
A group of three related novels, plays, films, operas, or albums.

LOTR is one giant book but the movies are a trilogy. Eat it.

Anyway, you can probably guess what my vote is for now...

I wonder how many people will comment LotR before even finishing the video.

I wonder how many people will take the opinion of 3 guys as fact.

Edit: But if you guys really want me to pick something other than LOTR, I'll pick Nolan's Batman trilogy.

 

[leviadragon99]

Huh, interesting theory about LotR, I can see where you're coming from.

 

[purifico]

Wholeheartedly agree. Back to the Future is the best trilogy out there.

 

[Snownine]

For me it is no doubt the original Star Wars trilogy. It may be blasphemy to some of you but while I like the LoTR films, I feel they are very overrated.

 

[Daveman]

Throughout this I was thinking "Lordoftheringslordoftheringslordoftherings" and then it there was the end.
I have my own ideas for good trilogys that aren't suggested but due to my love of controversy I'll have to say...

The Matrix Trilogy... BOOM, I went there.

Although maybe a shout out to New Batman, Bourne and the Transporter too. I mean people argue that it can't be a good trilogy because one of the films will drag it down then the Transporter is awesome because no one film is particularly any worse than the others.

Or if you're some kind of loser who likes being 100% correct you could answer as such:

Clint Eastwood, Man With No Name Trilogy, Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, The Good The Bad and The Ugly, case closed.

So boring to just say the right answer, it's called NO right answer!

 

[Redd the Sock]

Why do I gain the impression LotR was left out due to no one wanting to go against it?

Well let's see, Indy fails by definition. The word trilogy has certain story structure implications that the movies don't cover. They are 3 stand alone movies called a trilogy because trilogy became a popular buzzword.

Of the other 2, it's a tough call. Star Wars is probably better structured as an overall single story while BttF is more two stories. No one in Star Wars needed a character flaw spliced in with the second film because of some new character journey. Still, Mary felt human while the SW cast were more story archetypes, and SW can get bogged down in its expanded universe while the BttF adventure game from Telltale feels like a decent if somewhat goofy sequel.

Back to the coin toss. I'd go Terminator if Arnold hadn't been such a doof in the 3rd one. I've never sat down for the Godfather but it's movies are well receved.

 

[RandV80]

The funny thing with Crystal Skulls, no it wasn't a very good Indiana Jones movie but the whole 'dimensional aliens' thing actual does fit perfectly fine with the overall series. The problem is unlike the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy Grail no one really knows what a 'Crystal Skull' is, so just look it up on wikipedia. From a mythological perspective they're exactly what the movie portrays them as, psychic enhancing thing-a-majigs left on Earth supposedly by 5th dimensional aliens or whatever, that became popular with the new age movement in the 70's. Considering that's more or less the time period the movie was set in, and during the Cold War both sides did put research towards psychic abilities, Indy fighting the Commies for a Crystal Skull makes just as much sense as Indy fighting the Nazi's for the Ark of the Covenant.

Now what didn't really fit is by the time we get to the Communists Indy's an old man and they're trying to pass the mantle on to Shia Lebouf.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Star Trek 2-3-4 is actually a trilogy in the sense of having a continuing story. Each film has its own central plot but the events of the past films are taken into account. Still a trilogy, especially if BTTF counts. Unfortunately ST3 was rather poor.

This is my pick: The Dollars Trilogy

A Fistful of Dollars
For a Few Dollars More
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Quite simply, three fantastic films which just get better as they go along. Clint Eastwood's hero is a thousand times better and more badass character than Indy, and Tuco is possibly the best movie villain ever even though he's not really a villain. Pseudovillain?

 

[ungothicdove]

Anyone mention Bourne yet? The first is my favorite but I don't really see any movies as being the weak entry in the series. Shaky camera aside I really think it's a solid set of films.

Also, I'm not including Bourne Legacy because Jason isn't in it and I don't actually really like it that much.

 

[jaymiechan]

I don't think that excuse at the end really works for LOTR. Star Wars is just as much a 'single story' as LOTR is. Incidentally, I would vote for that.

Also, I read Lord of the Rings was almost 6 movies and the three that were made left out a lot.

I've never heard that. According to the 'making of' for the films, they were going to be two originally, then PJ's first studio demanded he condense it into one or be replaced. Eventually he went to New Line and ended up with three.

I highly doubt any studio would've gone for six. Bear in mind that making a trilogy like LOTR was considered nigh impossible back then.

But yeah, a lot was left out.

Actually, now that I think of it, the number may have been 9 movies (a trilogy per book), though I cannot for the life of me remember where I saw this, but I think someone was posting an interview online. So far the only thing I've found was a comment by a facebook user saying essentially that thee should have been nine.

Your skepticism is totally understandable, and I am afraid I cannot presently cite any part of this.

J.R.R. Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings as a single book. It was split up by the publisher who felt that a single volume of that size would have been prohibitively expensive to publish at the time. Tolkien was never happy with the title they gave the third volume.

I was not referring to Tolkien, though I am already aware of his originally writing a complete book only to have it broken into three parts due to publishing limitations (as I recall it). I was talking about Peter Jackson's film trilogy, and how I'd read that he'd wanted to make a trilogy of each of the Lord of the Rings volumes either before or after the movies were made, due to the sheer amount of material available and the limitations in making a movie. Who would want to sit through a 6 hour movie? What we got were drastically cut versions of the books, and he had said that he'd wanted to make each book a trilogy to fully tell the tale.

Actually, It is one large tale, but was written as six books. For publishing cost reasons, and the postwar economy, they were released as 3 books instead, 1&2 being Fellowship, 3&4 becoming Two Towers, and 5&6 being Return of the King; the Book number breaks are all still in there.

As for the Jackson films, what with all the removed, added, Director's Cut filled, extra scenes, you probably actually get 6 movies worth out of all the material. Then there's the argument that the trilogies argued were filmed separately, while the LOTR films were all filmed at once and then released yearly. So even the film style was of 'one film', just released in 3 parts.

 

[Akytalusia]

i had completely forgotten about LoTR. probably cause i agree with you and see it the same way, it's just one 11 hour movie split into 3 parts. i don't consider it a trilogy either. though i was thinking toy story was a good candidate.