Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Best Trilogy of Films Ever!
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedBest Trilogy of Films Ever!

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 456
Poll Question: Choose the best film trilogy
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
2 [3.03%]
2 [3.03%]
13 [19.70%]
2 [3.03%]
0 [0.00%]
5 [7.58%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
3 [4.55%]
0 [0.00%]
21 [31.82%]
0 [0.00%]
18 [27.27%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message
UndercoverBoy View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 10 2009
Location: Tulsa, OK, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 5148
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2010 at 00:15
Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

The one thing that may truly differentiate the two trilogies is the special effects department. The prequels have effects that look much more convincing to me. Now, Yoda actually shows emotion and 'acts' with believability. Do people who hold the first trilogy up so high honestly think a stiff, expressionless rubber muppet looks better? No, no, no . . . there is something wrong with the whole picture. All the films are equally ridiculous, but I still love them. I choose to love them despite their flaws, but let's not pretend they were the greatest films in cinema history; they simply weren't.
Yes.
Back to Top
CinemaZebra View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 13 2010
Location: Ancient Rome
Status: Offline
Points: 6795
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2010 at 00:23
Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Originally posted by CinemaZebra CinemaZebra wrote:

Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Originally posted by manofmystery manofmystery wrote:

Hey, Star Wars guys: There are 6 f'n movies!
YOU CAN'T JUST DECLARE IT TWO SEPERATE TRILOGIES!

Well, when the first three films are lauded as untouchable master works by the sentimental fanboys, it's pretty impossible to get them to admit that other films even exist. 

The fact that Return of the Jedi is one of the cheesiest, most implausible films in the whole saga always seems to slip by those particular people. 
More like the fact that ALL SIX STAR WARS MOVIES are some of the cheesiest, most implausible films in film history always seems to slip by their fans. [/BITCHRANT]
The one thing that may truly differentiate the two trilogies is the special effects department. The prequels have effects that look much more convincing to me. Now, Yoda actually shows emotion and 'acts' with believability. Do people who hold the first trilogy up so high honestly think a stiff, expressionless rubber muppet looks better? No, no, no . . . there is something wrong with the whole picture. All the films are equally ridiculous, but I still love them. I choose to love them despite their flaws, but let's not pretend they were the greatest films in cinema history; they simply weren't. 
It's a nostalgia thing. People who loved the first movies when they were young would naturally despise any kind of re-invention be it good or bad. When they see modern Yoda, they think "That bitch Lucas just focused on special effects and not the actual story, what a tease". And in a way they're right. If only they would realize that the first trilogy had a retarded story as well.
Back to Top
Henry Plainview View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2010 at 00:29
Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Originally posted by CinemaZebra CinemaZebra wrote:

Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Originally posted by manofmystery manofmystery wrote:

Hey, Star Wars guys: There are 6 f'n movies!
YOU CAN'T JUST DECLARE IT TWO SEPERATE TRILOGIES!

Well, when the first three films are lauded as untouchable master works by the sentimental fanboys, it's pretty impossible to get them to admit that other films even exist. 

The fact that Return of the Jedi is one of the cheesiest, most implausible films in the whole saga always seems to slip by those particular people. 
More like the fact that ALL SIX STAR WARS MOVIES are some of the cheesiest, most implausible films in film history always seems to slip by their fans. [/BITCHRANT]

Yes, but I can enjoy them on their own merits. What gets me all the time, however, is how many people seem to be under the delusion that the second trilogy is any worse than the first. All the films have very poor dialogue, all the films have childish humor, all the films have continuity errors out the ears. RotJ just happens to be the pinnacle of everything bad about Star Wars. It has the most annoying comic relief character in the Ewok (much more irritating than the Gungan, I say), poor, rushed pacing, error after logical error in this supposed 'grand empire''s defenses and tactics, and the most drawn-out, ridiculous final battle I may have ever seen on the screen. Teddy bears stoning to death military men in armor? Give me a break. 

The one thing that may truly differentiate the two trilogies is the special effects department. The prequels have effects that look much more convincing to me. Now, Yoda actually shows emotion and 'acts' with believability. Do people who hold the first trilogy up so high honestly think a stiff, expressionless rubber muppet looks better? No, no, no . . . there is something wrong with the whole picture. All the films are equally ridiculous, but I still love them. I choose to love them despite their flaws, but let's not pretend they were the greatest films in cinema history; they simply weren't. 

Now I'm all riled up, again. Maybe I'll go start a separate f**king topic about it! LOL
Like all teenagers, I watched and loved Star Wars years ago on VHS, but I saw some of A New Hope on TV the other day, and it was just awful. Although at the time I liked the Ewoks. :(

I honestly can't think of one to vote for. Maybe LOTR, but I have a feeling I would hate it if I watched it again.
if you own a sodastream i hate you
Back to Top
manofmystery View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2010 at 01:01
trilogy winner:
There Will Be Blood
There Will Be Some More Blood
Return of the Son of There Will Be Blood


Time always wins.
Back to Top
JLocke View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2010 at 03:00
Originally posted by UndercoverBoy UndercoverBoy wrote:

Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

The one thing that may truly differentiate the two trilogies is the special effects department. The prequels have effects that look much more convincing to me. Now, Yoda actually shows emotion and 'acts' with believability. Do people who hold the first trilogy up so high honestly think a stiff, expressionless rubber muppet looks better? No, no, no . . . there is something wrong with the whole picture. All the films are equally ridiculous, but I still love them. I choose to love them despite their flaws, but let's not pretend they were the greatest films in cinema history; they simply weren't.
Yes.

Then you're blind.
Back to Top
JLocke View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2010 at 03:07
Originally posted by CinemaZebra CinemaZebra wrote:

 It's a nostalgia thing. People who loved the first movies when they were young would naturally despise any kind of re-invention be it good or bad. When they see modern Yoda, they think "That bitch Lucas just focused on special effects and not the actual story, what a tease". And in a way they're right. If only they would realize that the first trilogy had a retarded story as well.

Well, this puts me in mind of the folks who will say: ''They just don't make cartoons like they used to!'', or ''No good music is made in these modern times'', or ''Vinyl records are superior to CD in every way''. They say these things with a straight face, even when plenty of evidence and simple, unbiased observations prove them wrong. Just because you were getting laid and smoking pot all the time at a certain point in your life, that doesn't automatically make your youth a better time period than any other-- it just makes it seem that way to you. 

I honestly hope I never get like that when I get older. Star Wars is a personal favorite of mine, BUT I ADMIT THAT IT'S BASED ON NOSTALGIA, AND NOT THE ACTUAL QUALITY OF THE FILMS! If I would watch them today for the first time, there is more than a good chance I would ask what all the fuss is about. 


Back to Top
UndercoverBoy View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 10 2009
Location: Tulsa, OK, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 5148
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2010 at 09:23
Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Originally posted by UndercoverBoy UndercoverBoy wrote:

Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

The one thing that may truly differentiate the two trilogies is the special effects department. The prequels have effects that look much more convincing to me. Now, Yoda actually shows emotion and 'acts' with believability. Do people who hold the first trilogy up so high honestly think a stiff, expressionless rubber muppet looks better? No, no, no . . . there is something wrong with the whole picture. All the films are equally ridiculous, but I still love them. I choose to love them despite their flaws, but let's not pretend they were the greatest films in cinema history; they simply weren't.
Yes.

Then you're blind.
Not really.  I much prefer the old Yoda because he was actually an object on the screen that the actors interacted with, instead of a CGI creation edited into the film.  To me, that's more realistic and really creates a character that you care for (and the muppet DID show emotion.  Watch again.)  However, I'm biased since I pretty much hate CGI when it isn't necessary.  And no, I'm not an Old Trilogy fanboy.  They are great action flicks for anyone who wants an uplifting and epic story, but very cheesy and full of holes as you mentioned.  It's not a nostalgia thing either, as I watched all the films at the same time.


Edited by UndercoverBoy - July 12 2010 at 09:35
Back to Top
JLocke View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2010 at 12:03
Originally posted by UndercoverBoy UndercoverBoy wrote:

Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Originally posted by UndercoverBoy UndercoverBoy wrote:

Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

The one thing that may truly differentiate the two trilogies is the special effects department. The prequels have effects that look much more convincing to me. Now, Yoda actually shows emotion and 'acts' with believability. Do people who hold the first trilogy up so high honestly think a stiff, expressionless rubber muppet looks better? No, no, no . . . there is something wrong with the whole picture. All the films are equally ridiculous, but I still love them. I choose to love them despite their flaws, but let's not pretend they were the greatest films in cinema history; they simply weren't.
Yes.

Then you're blind.
Not really.  I much prefer the old Yoda because he was actually an object on the screen that the actors interacted with, instead of a CGI creation edited into the film.  To me, that's more realistic and really creates a character that you care for (and the muppet DID show emotion.  Watch again.)  However, I'm biased since I pretty much hate CGI when it isn't necessary.  And no, I'm not an Old Trilogy fanboy.  They are great action flicks for anyone who wants an uplifting and epic story, but very cheesy and full of holes as you mentioned.  It's not a nostalgia thing either, as I watched all the films at the same time.

Well, you're being honest, which I can respect.  Seriously, though, I think you're letting your personal dislike of CGI to get in the way of the Yoda character's performance. 

Example: there is a scene in Episode II where Palpatine is expressing to Amidala his concerns, and is pushing the matter of a Jedi escort accompanying her, which seems suspicious to Yoda. You see Yoda looking over his shoulder with a stern, suspecting expression on his face. His brow is folded ever so lightly and his eyes are full of emotion. When he talks, his lips match the dialogue perfectly, and he can move his hands as he talks to further articulate the meaning behind his lines. The camera is also freed up to pan and move around like normal whenever Yoda is in the scene, rather than stay static and only show the top half of him like before. This all helps sell the illusion further that Yoda is a living, breathing character within the world. 

Meanwhile, in Episode V, Yoda looks at Luke with that same fixed expression the puppet had, and says ''You will be, you will be''. As he says this, his stiff mouth simply bobs up and down over and over, since the puppet was unable to fully articulate proper jaw and lip movement. Not only that, but the stiff nature of the puppet's movement, the wiggling of the rubber ears and the limited space it can move around in ('fixed' scenes) takes so much away from the scenes, it's not even funny. His hands stay on his cane, and you never see his feet, and the camera is forced to stay in one place for the entire seen for fear of revealing the puppeteers below. And in RotJ, at his death scene, you can see his feet (which actually get shown in this scene!) get caught by the blanket Luke is throwing over him, and the false rubber toes get folded backward, clearly showing that what you are looking at is not a living, breathing creature, but a prop. You're honestly saying to me that just because the puppet was physically there on the set, that somehow makes it superior? 

I would much rather watch a fully-animated CGI creature than a stiff, limited puppet any day. I'm sorry that your bias against modern technology has so clearly distorted your view.


Edited by JLocke - July 12 2010 at 12:14
Back to Top
CinemaZebra View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 13 2010
Location: Ancient Rome
Status: Offline
Points: 6795
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2010 at 12:07
Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Originally posted by CinemaZebra CinemaZebra wrote:

 It's a nostalgia thing. People who loved the first movies when they were young would naturally despise any kind of re-invention be it good or bad. When they see modern Yoda, they think "That bitch Lucas just focused on special effects and not the actual story, what a tease". And in a way they're right. If only they would realize that the first trilogy had a retarded story as well.

Well, this puts me in mind of the folks who will say: ''They just don't make cartoons like they used to!'', or ''No good music is made in these modern times'', or ''Vinyl records are superior to CD in every way''. They say these things with a straight face, even when plenty of evidence and simple, unbiased observations prove them wrong. Just because you were getting laid and smoking pot all the time at a certain point in your life, that doesn't automatically make your youth a better time period than any other-- it just makes it seem that way to you. 

I honestly hope I never get like that when I get older. Star Wars is a personal favorite of mine, BUT I ADMIT THAT IT'S BASED ON NOSTALGIA, AND NOT THE ACTUAL QUALITY OF THE FILMS! If I would watch them today for the first time, there is more than a good chance I would ask what all the fuss is about. 


That's fine. I have some sh*tty films I like purely because of nostalgia as well.
Back to Top
JLocke View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2010 at 12:16
Originally posted by CinemaZebra CinemaZebra wrote:

Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Originally posted by CinemaZebra CinemaZebra wrote:

 It's a nostalgia thing. People who loved the first movies when they were young would naturally despise any kind of re-invention be it good or bad. When they see modern Yoda, they think "That bitch Lucas just focused on special effects and not the actual story, what a tease". And in a way they're right. If only they would realize that the first trilogy had a retarded story as well.

Well, this puts me in mind of the folks who will say: ''They just don't make cartoons like they used to!'', or ''No good music is made in these modern times'', or ''Vinyl records are superior to CD in every way''. They say these things with a straight face, even when plenty of evidence and simple, unbiased observations prove them wrong. Just because you were getting laid and smoking pot all the time at a certain point in your life, that doesn't automatically make your youth a better time period than any other-- it just makes it seem that way to you. 

I honestly hope I never get like that when I get older. Star Wars is a personal favorite of mine, BUT I ADMIT THAT IT'S BASED ON NOSTALGIA, AND NOT THE ACTUAL QUALITY OF THE FILMS! If I would watch them today for the first time, there is more than a good chance I would ask what all the fuss is about. 


That's fine. I have some sh*tty films I like purely because of nostalgia as well.

I wasn't saying it apologetically. I typed that sentence in all caps, because I wanted to make clear that I admitted the faults of those films. I wanted to show how easy it is to admit to liking something while at the same time submitting that it does in fact have tons of problems. Wink

Plus, Natalie Portman is an incomparably beautiful woman, so anything with her in it, I tend to watch over and over. 


Edited by JLocke - July 12 2010 at 12:17
Back to Top
CinemaZebra View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 13 2010
Location: Ancient Rome
Status: Offline
Points: 6795
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2010 at 12:31
Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Plus, Natalie Portman is an incomparably beautiful woman, so anything with her in it, I tend to watch over and over. 
Well, that's a different story completely. Wink I'll watch Tales from the Crypt if Michelle Johnson is in it.
Back to Top
crimhead View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: October 10 2006
Location: Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 19236
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2010 at 13:07
The Good,The Bad and The Ugly,Fistful of Dollars, and For a few Dollars More.

Sergio Leone is a master of cinema.


Nuff said.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 456

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.