Is "Back To The Future" becoming the greatest movie trilogy?

[Hobbes829]

I hate Lord of the Rings. Sure, I've never seen it, and I have no interest in seeing any of them, but it's popularity disgusts me, and my feeligns were hurt when the thrid one won 13 oscars in the same year (I mean, jeeze, give some other movies a chance to win).

The implications of this quote are disconcerting to say the least to say that you don't like something because other people do. So you don't have an opinion that's your own? Your opinion is based on how other people percieve something? if so, i feel so sorry for you.

I know that star wars has 6 instalments but couldn't you count it as 2 trilogies? They have 2 very different and rather jarring feels to them. You have the original trilogy and the prequal trilogy.

I might have to go with back to the future.

Bourne might end up getting taken off this list as their is serious discussion of turning one of the other bourne novels not written by the original writer into the 4th film.

 

[mr.happy]

I don't get where you're seeing the mess. It's pretty simple, clear-cut Joseph Campbell stuff.

Yes, "simple" sums it up quite nicely. In some ways, the movies reminded me of a videogame in the sense that any flow seems incidental, and random character motivations serve no other purpose than to set up the endless tedium of dull CGI sequences. I can understand how movies like this would appeal to the World of Warcraft generation.

And the movies are A) not dull (except the Ent scenes, those got pretty boring) and B) the melodrama just adds to the crazy fun of it all.

But where's the "crazy fun"? I don't remember laughing or even smiling at all at any point during these movies.

On a tangential note, have you ever read the books?

No.

There are plenty of people who loathe those too, and I'd bet good money that he'd be one of them.

Sounds like a safe bet.

I know that star wars has 6 instalments but couldn't you count it as 2 trilogies? They have 2 very different and rather jarring feels to them.

But they're still 1 continuous storyline with many of the characters appearing in all the movies.

I might have to go with back to the future.

A wise choice.

Bourne might end up getting taken off this list as their is serious discussion of turning one of the other bourne novels not written by the original writer into the 4th film.

I'm sure several of these will be taken off the trilogy list. As someone else said, there's a new Terminator movie out soon, and Spidey and Pirates are confirmed for more installments as well.

 

[HG Revolution]

Yes, "simple" sums it up quite nicely. In some ways, the movies reminded me of a videogame in the sense that any flow seems incidental, and random character motivations serve no other purpose than to set up the endless tedium of dull CGI sequences. I can understand how movies like this would appeal to the World of Warcraft generation.

Still, you're contradicting yourself. Simplicity and messiness don't seem to exactly go together. I don't get why you're seeing the character motivations as random. It's all pretty logical: Frodo has to destroy the ring yet is addicted to the ring's power, Sam wants to protect his best friend from said addiction, Gandalf is the classic Yoda-style wiseman-badass concerned with a moral war, Aragorn is dragged into the conflict by Gandalf as an outsider but realizes how central he is to the solution, Legolas and Gimli are comic foils both in the fellowship for their own pride but eventually overcome their racism to become friends.

And do you consider your parents and grandparents to be part of the "World of Warcraft" generation? Tolkein wrote the books in the '50s to attempt to recreate England's lost mythology while acknowledging his own experiences fighting in World War 1 and his concerns about World War II. They were hugely popular in the '60s when they came to America. Inspired most modern fantasy.

 

[mr.happy]

Still, you're contradicting yourself. Simplicity and messiness don't seem to exactly go together.

There's no contradiction. I meant "simple" in the way I refer to dumb people as being simple.

I don't get why you're seeing the character motivations as random. It's all pretty logical: Frodo has to destroy the ring yet is addicted to the ring's power, Sam wants to protect his best friend from said addiction, Gandalf is the classic Yoda-style wiseman-badass concerned with a moral war, Aragorn is dragged into the conflict by Gandalf as an outsider but realizes how central he is to the solution, Legolas and Gimli are comic foils both in the fellowship for their own pride but eventually overcome their racism to become friends.

And if LOTR was a 2 hour movie, that might have been fine, but the movies are padded with irritating, uneven characterisations and repetition that once again only serve to underline the fact that these movies are simply too long, and almost purely for the sake of being long, because apparently some people think that long is synonymous with epic.

And do you consider your parents and grandparents to be part of the "World of Warcraft" generation? Tolkein wrote the books in the '50s to attempt to recreate England's lost mythology while acknowledging his own experiences fighting in World War 1 and his concerns about World War II. They were hugely popular in the '60s when they came to America. Inspired most modern fantasy.

Like I've already said, I haven't read the books, so I can't really comment on that, nor is it particularly relevant.

 

[DarkAngel]

And if LOTR was a 2 hour movie, that might have been fine, but the movies are padded with irritating, uneven characterisations and repetition that once again only serve to underline the fact that these movies are simply too long, and almost purely for the sake of being long, because apparently some people think that long is synonymous with epic.

The problem is that the novels are long as well, happy. So just by nature of being an adapatation of LOTR, it has to be long. If Jackson wanted to do something much shorter, he'd have been cutting so much out that he'd have to title it something else and just treat it as a story inspired by LOTR. Which would have been fine if thats what he wanted. But he wanted to adapt LOTR specifically, and so there's an obligation to use as much of the material as is reasonable.

Believe it or not (and I'd have personally not believed if my own brother wasn't one of these), I've heard some criticising the movies for being too short and cutting too much out. I think Jackson found the right balance for the theatrical versions, and it was great that he also filmed more for inclusion for the extended dvds.

I don't know that I've heard of any long movie that didn't have someone calling for something shorter. Understandably, if someone's not drawn in by a long movie's material, they're gonna find it to be hours of torture, whereas if someone is very much into what they're seeing, they could probably sit through 4 hours. It's an issue of preference, I think, more than it is of the quality of the filming/storytelling.

 

[Hobbes829]

the lord of the ring books are BORING. they are long tedious and generally badly written. There's very little sense of dramatic tension. Frodo sits on his butt for months maybe even years before he starts his quest. Tolkien's love for all things nature is annoying and the concept of a ghost army is a horrible device if what you want is drama. He constantly stops the flow of the narative to talk about the scenery. The movies were vast improvements.

I don't agree with mr. happy but i'm not a fanboy either. the movies have their low points. I hate the anti-industry environmentalist message. I hate the ents. I also really dislike the elves. Lets look at it critically shall we. First off, orlando bloom is a terrible actor. secondly, the elves are a holier than thou race that looks down on men (as does tolkien) but when push comes to shove who battles the forces of evil in the face of overwhelming odds? MEN. Who flees? Elves. Why are they leaving? Because the time of elves is over and the time of men has come. What does that mean? Who knows. Finally, they have every concievable advantage. They don't get tired, they can walk on snow, they don't feel cold, they have amazing eye sight and aim. Being immortal, you'd think that time would cease to have meaning to them and they would never leave. They have great balance, oh and they're immortal. Why are they leaving again?

The CGI for gollum is great, but his voice is annoying. I can't tell you how much that voice annoyed me.

Here's what i do like about the films. Aragorn, Gimli, Gandalf and Sam. Those are the best characters in the film. Gimli is good for a laugh and kicks arse. I like the idea of 2 races that hate each other but through dire circumstances come to a mutual understanding and ultimately become great friends. Too bad orlando is a terrible actor. Gandalf had many pearls of wisdom that i think people should take with them. My favorite of which is when he tells frodo that there's no use dwelling on what could have happened and make the most out of the time that is given to you. Also, Sir Ian McKellan. Need i say more? Aragorn's story is tremendous and so well written and acted. I love the idea of a person reluctant to take a position of power. It's very much like George Washington who is the greatest president bar none and a great man. Boromir's death scene is thing of beauty. I get choked up every time at the scene in ROTK where aragorn give his rah rah speech and then says quietly, "For Frodo" just great stuff.

Finally, forget frodo. It's all about sam. It really is more of his story. Sean just knocked it out of the park especially the scene where on mt. doom before he carries frodo. Then that scene where frodo wakes up and he's surrounded by the fellowship and sam comes into the doorway and just gives frodo a look like, "we've been through a lot." I can't do it justice. Just great acting without having to say a word and so much is conveyed.

Bottom line is for the most part it has good battle scenes, good acting, enjoyable story, and some interesting characters.

 

[mr.happy]

The problem is that the novels are long as well, happy. So just by nature of being an adapatation of LOTR, it has to be long. If Jackson wanted to do something much shorter, he'd have been cutting so much out that he'd have to title it something else and just treat it as a story inspired by LOTR. Which would have been fine if thats what he wanted. But he wanted to adapt LOTR specifically, and so there's an obligation to use as much of the material as is reasonable.

Believe it or not (and I'd have personally not believed if my own brother wasn't one of these), I've heard some criticising the movies for being too short and cutting too much out. I think Jackson found the right balance for the theatrical versions, and it was great that he also filmed more for inclusion for the extended dvds.

I don't know that I've heard of any long movie that didn't have someone calling for something shorter. Understandably, if someone's not drawn in by a long movie's material, they're gonna find it to be hours of torture, whereas if someone is very much into what they're seeing, they could probably sit through 4 hours. It's an issue of preference, I think, more than it is of the quality of the filming/storytelling.

Yes, I'd agree with that in principle. Without having read the books, which I have no intention of ever doing, I couldn't say how or if things could have been done better, but it just seemed to me that LOTR suffered from the exact same problems all Jackson's other work suffers from, so I'd probably lean towards putting the blame on him as a director, rather than assume it was just a coincidence.

Finally, forget frodo. It's all about sam. It really is more of his story. Sean just knocked it out of the park especially the scene where on mt. doom before he carries frodo. Then that scene where frodo wakes up and he's surrounded by the fellowship and sam comes into the doorway and just gives frodo a look like, "we've been through a lot." I can't do it justice. Just great acting without having to say a word and so much is conveyed.

Reluctant as I am to say anything positive about LOTR, and as vague as my recollection of the specifics is, I do remember being extremely impressed by that particular scene. A tremendeous performance, which was heads and shoulders above anything anyone else managed to deliver. How Orlando Bloom ever managed to find work as an actor is beyond me.

 

[Hobbes829]

Don't try to argue with guys and convince people of something's artistic merit (especially mr. happy). The best thing to do is ask them why they feel that way and give your point of view fully well knowing that most people are never going to change their mind especially on a forum. Agree to disagree and keep it friendly.

Happy and i have disagreed on many points and i'm sure will in the future. However so long as he's willing to keep it friendly (i'm not saying that you're not) i think a good debate gets me to better understand why i like a certain piece.

Bottom line: don't think the point of arguing is to get people to agree to your p.o.v. Use it as an opportunity to better understand why you enjoy something.

 

[Undrave]

Yes, I'd agree with that in principle. Without having read the books, which I have no intention of ever doing, I couldn't say how or if things could have been done better, but it just seemed to me that LOTR suffered from the exact same problems all Jackson's other work suffers from, so I'd probably lean towards putting the blame on him as a director, rather than assume it was just a coincidence.

Oi... King Kong was dreadfully long! I mean it felt like the bug pit scene lasted for an HOUR! Just showing gruesome deaths after gruesome deaths and a ridiculously uphill battle.

 

[Mikintosh]

Well, it certainly IS, but I'm surprised it's leading by so much...the prequels nudging Star Wars off the list probably helped.

 

[mr.happy]

Oi... King Kong was dreadfully long! I mean it felt like the bug pit scene lasted for an HOUR! Just showing gruesome deaths after gruesome deaths and a ridiculously uphill battle.

Yes, King Kong was further evidence of what a truly mediocre director Jackson is. Not only did it suffer from horrendous pacing problems, not least of which the scene you mentioned, but once again we had tons of contrived setpieces and weak character motivations. It got particularly funny at the end, where Brody's character has in no way, shape or form been established as a credible romantic interest for Ann, and I was literally screming with laughter when the poorly cast Jack Black character uttered the famous "t'was beauty that killed the beast" line, when it was painfully obvious that Jackson had failed to give his movie the subtext for that line to work on any level.

Well, it certainly IS, but I'm surprised it's leading by so much...the prequels nudging Star Wars off the list probably helped.

I'm not the least bit surprised. This poll would have looked different two years ago, but like I suggested earlier, LOTR was somewhat of a flavor of the month which just doesn't have the longevity people thought it would have, while Back To The Future has stood the test of time. I also think King Kong might have helped people see LOTR for the dull, bloated, overrated piece of cinematic mediocrity it really is.

 

[Hobbes829]

I'm not the least bit surprised. This poll would have looked different two years ago, but like I suggested earlier, LOTR was somewhat of a flavor of the month which just doesn't have the longevity people thought it would have, while Back To The Future has stood the test of time. I also think King Kong might have helped people see LOTR for the dull, bloated, overrated piece of cinematic mediocrity it really is.

They aren't flavor of the month. LOTR has been popular since it was published. Just because people still aren't talking about the films is understandable, but they aren't talking about back to the future either. Both are entertaining in their own right. Feel free to disagree about the quality of LOTR, but you can't just make wild statements about the popularity or longevity of the film just because of your distaste. Titanic isn't on people's minds all the time, but that still doesn't take away from it's overwhelming success.

 

[HG Revolution]

I also think King Kong might have helped people see LOTR for the dull, bloated, overrated piece of cinematic mediocrity it really is.

They're separate cases. King Kong was way too padded, while pretty much every scene in LOTR served some purpose. LOTR's source material is really long while the original King Kong is pretty short so the LOTR movies had more to work with for long movies.

 

[DarthGonzo]

They're separate cases. King Kong was way too padded, while pretty much every scene in LOTR served some purpose. LOTR's source material is really long while the original King Kong is pretty short so the LOTR movies had more to work with for long movies.

Still...there was no reason King Kong had to be over three hours long. Do not blame the original source for that. King Kong should have been nothing more than a quick, mindless popcorn flick. But Jackson felt it was for some reason necessary to turn a simple story into a 188 minute mess. Someone should have pulled Jackson aside during the making of this "masterpiece" to remind him that this movie was not Lord of the Rings and that it didn't need to be that bloated.

Seriously, I don't think anyone but Peter Jackson is to blame for how King Kong turned out. That's what happens when ego and prestige goes to someone's head.

 

[HG Revolution]

Still...there was no reason King Kong had to be over three hours long. Do not blame the original source for that. King Kong should have been nothing more than a quick, mindless popcorn flick. But Jackson felt it was for some reason necessary to turn a simple story into a 188 minute mess. Someone should have pulled Jackson aside during the making of this "masterpiece" to remind him that this movie was not Lord of the Rings and that it didn't need to be that bloated.

Seriously, I don't think anyone but Peter Jackson is to blame for how King Kong turned out. That's what happens when ego and prestige goes to someone's head.

I wasn't blaming the source for that. I was saying that decisions which were stupid in the context of Kong made sense for LOTR.

 

[Undrave]

LOTR might have been better with more movies then. Just because the original material was a trilogy...

 

[asphaltviking64]

Again, Evil Dead is the best trilogy because as the movies go on the movies and the characters become much more developed.
For example, Ash in Evil Dead was weak whereas Ash in Army of Darkness is butch, savage, and is pretty sick and tired of all of the deadites and the weirdness that goes on. The movies also show a "character development" from a campy horror movie in Evil Dead to a serious, but camp, to "You know since we can't take the series seriously anymore, why not just do whatever we want from it." It was pretty much the one of the only trilogies not to jump the shark out of all of them because that was in the nature of the series.
Even Back to the Future jumped the shark moving the action to a western setting. They could have just elaborated to how Doc and Marty met, but Robert Zemeckis decided to set it in the 1880's.

Thus Evil Dead is, and will always be the greatest trilogy ever...Until Sam Raimi decides to make a new one.

 

[Hobbes829]

Again, Evil Dead is the best trilogy because as the movies go on the movies and the characters become much more developed.
For example, Ash in Evil Dead was weak whereas Ash in Army of Darkness is butch, savage, and is pretty sick and tired of all of the deadites and the weirdness that goes on. The movies also show a "character development" from a campy horror movie in Evil Dead to a serious, but camp, to "You know since we can't take the series seriously anymore, why not just do whatever we want from it." It was pretty much the one of the only trilogies not to jump the shark out of all of them because that was in the nature of the series.
Even Back to the Future jumped the shark moving the action to a western setting. They could have just elaborated to how Doc and Marty met, but Robert Zemeckis decided to set it in the 1880's.

Thus Evil Dead is, and will always be the greatest trilogy ever...Until Sam Raimi decides to make a new one.

What? Where you watching the same movies i was? Evil Dead was meant to be serious but combine a green director and inexperienced actors with a shoestring budget and you've got a recipe for unintentional camp. The second one embraced humor more, and the 3rd one was by far even less serious. Even campbell admitted all this. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy them for what they are.

It's irrelivant how Marty and Doc met. Marty did develop. He was impetuous, then by the end he learned not to be pulled into every little situation by the slightest hint of an insult.

 

[Michael24]

It's irrelivant how Marty and Doc met. Marty did develop. He was impetuous, then by the end he learned not to be pulled into every little situation by the slightest hint of an insult.

Good point. And I'd hardly say BTTF "jumped the shark" just because Part III was set in the Old West. It was a great little side-trip at the end of their main adventure of repairing the Timeline in Part II. It allowed the third and final film some breathing room by staying in one place, and even Doc grew a little due to his interactions with Clara. I also like that the Old West is foreshadowed in the second film when Doc expresses his disappointment at the fact he'll never get to visit his favorite era, the Old West, once he's decided to dismantle the time machine upon their return to 1985.

 

[Terminatah]

Some of these have confirmed part 4's coming out: Spider-Man, Terminator, Pirates, Bourne, X-Men, Shrek, and possibly that Hobbit movie. For others, there's the probability of a part 4, like Austin Powers, and possibly High School Musical.

So I think the real choices on this poll are Back to the Future, Ocean's, The Matrix, The Godfather, and I guess Blade. But where's the Ninja Turtles?

-Terminatah