Movie Trilogies

[on:]

[Reply #1 on:]

So, in conclusion, the third always sucks. Except Indy and LotR. I don't see how Temple of Doom was on par with Last Crusade, and Two Towers was worse than the other two.

And, if you extend some, you'll see IV sucking. Well, other than Star Trek, Rambo, and Rocky (arguably on the last two).


PS: Here's an embroidered version of that image, with some extras:

[Reply #2 on:]

They had to stop at three. 'Batman & Robin' would have required an inverted bar.

[Reply #3 on:]

I have many problems with that chart, most notable LotR not being at the top, and the Matrix sequels being low. They were pretty good, especially the second.

[Reply #4 on:]

ToD wasn't as good as TLC!

[Reply #5 on:]

I have many problems with that chart, most notable LotR not being at the top, and the Matrix sequels being low. They were pretty good, especially the second.

Your opinion privileges have been officially revoked. You are no longer entitled to an opinion without first checking with me to make sure that it is not completely idiotic.

[Reply #6 on:]

The Matrix: 9/10
Reloaded: 8/10
Revolutions: 7/10

Go away.

[Reply #7 on:]

The Matrix: 9/10
Reloaded: 8/10
Revolutions: 7/10

Go away.

You are wrong.

The Matrix: 8/10
Reloaded: 1/10
Revolutions: -10,000/10

[Reply #8 on:]

There should be a PEELie for 'Wrongest PEELer'.

Books would win.

[Reply #9 on:]

What is that embrodiery guy's deal? Lord of the Rings is about one million times better than The Matrix sequels.
Also, the first Spiderman is easily the best.

[Reply #10 on:]

I'm more disturbed that according to the chart, The first Mad Max isn't as good as Beyond the Thunderdome.

The fuck? they do remember that Thunderdome was PG-13, had assloads of child actors and Tina Turner as the villain?

[Reply #11 on:]

For shit sake... Wrath of Khan should rate as high or higher than Empire Strikes Back. So should Spiderman 2 and the original Planet of the Apes - ESPECIALLY if the ridiculous Jaws gets full marks. And I'm sick of everybody dissing the Matrix sequels just because they don't understand them. And why the fucking hell do none of my socks match!?

That's it...

[Reply #12 on:]

Screw I'm you Guys, going Home?

[Reply #13 on:]

I call BS on Temple of Doom being as good as Last Crusade.

[Reply #14 on:]

And I'm sick of everybody dissing the Matrix sequels just because they don't understand them.

Thank you!

[Reply #15 on:]

There should be a PEELie for 'Wrongest PEELer'.

Books would win.

Wouldn't he "lose"?


Khan was very good, but I'm not sure if as good as Empire. Definitely should be in its league, but I'm not sure if "better".

[Reply #16 on:]

And I'm sick of everybody dissing the Matrix sequels just because they don't understand them.

Because we don't understand that filming four hours of pseudo-philosophical mental masturbation somehow renders the need for a cohesive storyline and plot unnecessary?

[Reply #17 on:]

And I'm sick of everybody dissing the Matrix sequels just because they don't understand them.

I understand them perfectly. I understand them and still hate them. Seriously, they're not just crap because they're slightly complicated in one or two not-that-deep and totally not that metaphysical places. They're shit movies. End of.

Also Khan is good, but Star Wars' original trilogy is just that notch better.

Back to the Matrix sequels... there are three places where the second FAILS by its OWN RULES, and there are two similar places in the third. The only decent part of both sequels is the Merovingian saying that French is the best language to curse in "because it feels like wiping your arse with silk", which isn't that great, it's just the only decent part of a pair of shit films. There are parts that are glaringly at odds with the first film, and don't get me started on how the Matrix somehow extends beyond itself and into the real world in the final moments of the third one. Is the real world some kind of matrix itself, and the whole thing just wrapped in layer after layer?

Believe me, I've been over them backwards and forwards inside out trying to like them for the sake of the first film. But I can't. They're shit. I understand them, but that doesn't mean I can forgive them their faults. It's not like there's much to understand anyways, they're not so deep and metaphorical or metaphysical or even metamorphical (see what I did there? Oh so meta!) or even that novel and new that it should be hard to see the basic concepts and how what happens in the films makes sense within their framework - except that some parts break that framework, and... and... and... they're shit, OK? Shit. Shit. Shit. I hate them. The very worst kind of writing and the very worst kind of set design and the very worst kind of acting all meshed together throughout the sequels. The Matrix, that's a decent film. They shoulda just left it at that.

The sequels seem to have been written and directed by stoned high schoolers, and then edited by a really old guy who wants to prove that he's still "cool".

Enemy of the State was better anyway.

[Reply #18 on:]

Well I disagree with you and wish you and yours great misfortune, but you're entitled.

What did Enemy of the State have to do with it?

[Reply #19 on:]

And I'm sick of everybody dissing the Matrix sequels just because they don't understand them.

Because we don't understand that filming four hours of pseudo-philosophical mental masturbation somehow renders the need for a cohesive storyline and plot unnecessary?

Sir, you clearly do not understand the profound philosophical nature of these movies!

Now please excuse me, these Super Mario fan art pictures don't draw themselves.

[Reply #20 on:]

Hey, that was a request, dammit!

[Reply #21 on:]

For shit sake... Wrath of Khan should rate as high or higher than Empire Strikes Back. So should Spiderman 2 and the original Planet of the Apes - ESPECIALLY if the ridiculous Jaws gets full marks. And I'm sick of everybody dissing the Matrix sequels just because they don't understand them. And why the fucking hell do none of my socks match!?

That's it...

It's not the understanding them part that's the problem.  The original was always going to have been better than the following because it presented something unique... the idea that we all live in some sort of imaginary world (note that this idea is not new, but was not presented in such fashion via film media in quite the same way prior to the Matrix).  With the following movies it quickly melted down into a the simple man vs. robots in the future paradigm we've seen before.

The second problem is all the other ridiculous shit that was thrown into the sequel portions of that series.... c'mon, orgy dance sex scene?  That Reloads my buttons for sure!  Making Smith out to be the uber bad guy was a little lame as well..... And the topper was that the special effects were all good in the first movie.... and then at times they completely sucked in the following movies.

Also.... if you're flying fast enough to have cars follow you via air fluid tsunami, how are you not impacting as much as (if not quite a lot more) force onto a falling body than if they had just hit the ground in the first place?  Magic.  That's what.

[Reply #22 on:]

You clearly stated some of what I would have stated about the Matrix so i'm not gonna add anything.

[Reply #23 on:]

The Matrix is one of those films where I will tell my kids, "it's a shame no sequels were made".

[Reply #24 on:]

I'm with Books. I like the Matrix sequels, but I don't know which one I find better.

[Reply #25 on:]

Temple of doom as good as Crusade?! I think it was less than half as good. In fact, I think it's a pretty lame sequel in the grand scheme of things.

[Reply #26 on:]

A lot of those "trilogies" have had an additional film attached, so I also feel the whole execution is wrong.

And what about the H2G2 trilogy in five parts?!  Where is that?

[Reply #27 on:]

Nobody is contesting the Die Hard trilogy yet?  Even the title of the second film sucked.

The real title of that picture should be "Trilogy Fanboy Bait."

[Reply #28 on:]

EDIT: RE SVIP

More like a quilogy.

[Reply #29 on:]

Future Shock, do you mean a quintology?

[Reply #30 on:]

Future Shock, do you mean a quintology?

W? What the hell is a q --

* Future Shock  looks in a dictionary and finds proof he is a no-brain.

[Reply #31 on:]

We could have told you that, FS.



Should the movie debate stuff be taken to the TV folder to fester quietly out of sight for decades only to return in the form of a radical fundamentalist group that flies planes into buildings?

[Reply #32 on:]

Maybe, maybe not.

And yes. It is a painful thing to see a thread deteriorate into discussion which is in unrelation.
The news thread became a car thread, this thread is now becoming filled with movie talk.
This must regain it's original position. Maybe its another sign of the PEELocalypse, threads going into off-topic discussion.

[Reply #33 on:]

I'm upset I'm the only one fussed over the Mad Max Trilogy screw ups . I'm just going to coldley murder some bikers over said sequal arguments now.

[Reply #34 on:]

Back to the TV thread for you.
 

[Reply #35 on:]

I think these scales would work better if the films in the trilogy were trilogies were only relative to each other and not to other films. Say choose the best fro the trilogy and then scale the rest from that.

For all it's flaws The Godfather Part 3 does not deserve to be considerd to be the same quality as Spiderman 3 and saying Terminator 3 was twice as good is madness.

Just to go on the record I also thought the Matix sequals were poor.

[Reply #36 on:]

What's with the LotR ratings in the latter photo? I think by themselves they're all 9 but together all 10.

[Reply #37 on:]

Here are my thoughts on all of them in the picture:

Star Wars: Only seen the first 1977, it was good but probably a bit overrated.
Indiana Jones: I them all pretty much equally except IV.
Matrix: :|
Superman: Not seen any of the old ones.
Jurassic Park: I hardly remember 3 at all, but 1 and 2 were good.
X Men: 1 was good, 2 was great, 3 blew.
Spiderman: Not a fan. Meh.
LotR: What gudbjorg said. Extended Blu-Ray please.
Mad Max: 1 is good. 2 is the single best action movie ever made alongside Die Hard. 3 is alright, maybe not as a bad as some people say. It had some decent ideas.
Jaws: There were sequels?
BttF: They're all good, but the first is the best, 3rd is second best, and 2nd is third best. But taken all together they're better.
Die Hard: I said what I thought of the first above. I don't remember the 2nd, maybe I didn't see it, was the 3rd the one with the subway bomb? That was pretty good.
Blade: ?
Planet of the Apes: The first was alright. Been years though. I even liked the remake a bit. Mark Wahlberg is an awkward man.
Godfather: sucks
Rocky: never seen
Terminator: First is good, second is also one of the best action movies ever, 3rd was meh.
Rambo: Never seen
Batman: Not sure if I ever saw the old ones
Alien: Never seen but I want to.

[Reply #38 on:]

Oh look, I inadvertently started a thread.

I can't remember the last time that happened..

[Reply #39 on:]

Knocked this mofo up in paint in two minutes. The blue part Beyond The Thunderdome pretty much is the movie right up to the bit after the Thunderdome before everything went wank.