What is your favorite trilogy?

**{I}{K}{E}** · 02-13-2005, 02:22 PM

If I forgot 1 please post it

Mine:

Lord of the Rings.

**Guillaume** · 02-13-2005, 02:29 PM

Mmm... Tough choice between Starwars and the Godfather...

meh,

**Peerzy** · 02-13-2005, 02:46 PM

No Evil Dead?

**{I}{K}{E}** · 02-13-2005, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by Peerzy

No Evil Dead?

**Cheese** · 02-13-2005, 02:54 PM

Die Hard.

**Peerzy** · 02-13-2005, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by {I}{K}{E}

Evil Dead's a great trilorgy, i found number 2 was just a rehash of number 1.

Although Die Hard shaped a generation of action movies and number 3 was a really great film.

**Cheese** · 02-13-2005, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by Peerzy

Evil Dead's a great trilorgy, i found number 2 was just a rehash of number 1.

Although Die Hard shaped a generation of action movies and number 3 was a really great film.

Number 2 of the Evil Dead films is the best of the bunch imo.

That trilogy would probably be my second favourite trilogy. LOTR would be a poor last on my trilogy list...

**Snee** · 02-13-2005, 03:37 PM

I figure that there aren't many trilogies that manage to keep the same quality all the way through.

The Star Wars movies you mention manage to do that tho', probably because they were intended to be a cohesive unit from the start.

The Godfather movies work pretty well too, as do Indiana Jones, Back to the Future and Die Hard.

But I still think Star Wars comes out on top. Too bad George Lucas forgot how to make them

LoTR just doesn't measure up to Star Wars IMO, prolly 'cos I read the books first and because they left a couple of things out they had no reason to. But they are decent movies.

As for the Matrix, it could well have become the next star wars, but for some reason it didn't keep it up all the way through, which is a shame. The Animatrix was more interesting than the last movie.

Haven't seen the third blade movie, but it was getting worse with the second one. I think the case here is that everything after the first movie is more a couple of appendices rather than a true extension of the story.

The Evil Dead movies are true classics, but they don't measure up on account of the technical aspects as well as plot inconsistencies between the movies.

The first From Dusk till Dawn is good, the others are just B-ish, without the brilliance of the first one.

Hannibal Lecter and the comedies are too commercially oriented or shallow to be good, just rehashes of the original theme.

A really good trilogy should be planned out from the start, and it should be made with a consistent or mildly increasing budget for each sequel, too much money will only lead to an overdependence on familiar faces or an orgy in exaggerated effects. It should have the same director and producer the whole way through, and the director should be someone willing to experiment. And the people involved shouldn't be making it primarily to make money, and the company behind it shouldn't be allowed to have much influence on the production.

Someone like George Lucas has lost the ability to make good movies on account of having stagnated, much so because of his earlier success and his current overconfidence. He now relies too much on effects, and he can't do the whole casting thing properly for some reason, anymore.

**Peerzy** · 02-13-2005, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by Withcheese

Number 2 of the Evil Dead films is the best of the bunch imo.

That trilogy would probably be my second favourite trilogy. LOTR would be a poor last on my trilogy list...

Evil Dead 2 i only ever watched once and that was kinda half assed and doing other stuff but from what i saw it seem'd like number 1 but re-made with a slightly bigger budget.