View Poll Results: So is LOTR the best trilogy?
Yes, The Lord of the Rings is without question the greatest film trilogy ever
129
58.11%
No, but it is still one of the best
64
28.83%
No, not even close
27
12.16%
I don't know
2
0.90%
Voters: 222. You may not vote on this poll
Greatest Film Trilogy Ever?
#4
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Taxachusetts
Posts: 2,316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I say I don't know because at this point I really can't answer the question. I might be able to in a couple years when LOTR isn't as fresh in my mind. Right now I regard Indiana Jones as the best trilogy ever, but I can see LOTR overtaking it eventually.
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Michigan
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes. ROTK solidified the trilogy as the best ever for me, knocking Indiana Jones and original Star Wars down a rung. Truth be told, after seeing the first Matrix film, I thought THAT would be the trilogy-to-beat, but I was sadly mistaken.
#7
It's the best Trilogy ever filmed at once.
Thank God no one mentioned the Matrix. Oh jeez, I just did. I hate it when I do that.
Thank God no one mentioned the Matrix. Oh jeez, I just did. I hate it when I do that.
#8
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Philly, PA
Posts: 1,754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A friend asked me after I saw RotK if I thought it was better than the original star wars trilogy, and I couldn't say for sure at the time, but now after seeing it a second time, and also the 2 EEs now, I really feel that now it is. So I'd rank em....
LotR #1, and Star Wars & Indiana Jones tied for second. 3rd, for me, would be the Matrix. I know a lot of people hated the second 2 matrix movies, but I liked em all.
LotR #1, and Star Wars & Indiana Jones tied for second. 3rd, for me, would be the Matrix. I know a lot of people hated the second 2 matrix movies, but I liked em all.
#9
Banned by request
I would say it is. As for other greatest trilogies, I would have to put some things ahead of Star Wars and The Godfather. The Apu Trilogy, The Qatsi Trilogy, The Dead or Alive trilogy, for example.
#11
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Back in the Good Ole USA
Posts: 21,766
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Here is why Lord of the rings was the best ever:
Godfather- Part 3- what the hell is this..
Star Wars- Return of the Jedi- Ewoks ruined it.
Indiana Jones- The last one is not as good as the rest
LOTR- Return of the king was just phenomenal. Everything and more...
Godfather- Part 3- what the hell is this..
Star Wars- Return of the Jedi- Ewoks ruined it.
Indiana Jones- The last one is not as good as the rest
LOTR- Return of the king was just phenomenal. Everything and more...
#12
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
raven56706 has some good points.
For me, it would be the Godfather series, no question, if it weren't for #3. No way that movie holds up to #1 and #2.
Right now, LOTR is the most solid trilogy ever made, right above Star Wars and BTTF.
For me, it would be the Godfather series, no question, if it weren't for #3. No way that movie holds up to #1 and #2.
Right now, LOTR is the most solid trilogy ever made, right above Star Wars and BTTF.
#15
Banned
Not even a close contest. All other "trilogies" are uneven, having been done by separate directors/writers, etc. over a span of time.
Godfather 3 was weak; Star Wars 2 & 3 couldn't compare to the original, which was obviously shot as a self-contained story; Indy 2 had a totally different (and worse) tone from first & third. Most of these criticisms could be applied to any other trilogy (BTTF & DIE HARD, for instance)....or, for that matter, to ANY film series. LOTR--flaws & all--is the only one that can be viewed as an entire story that flows smoothly from one film to the next. In other words, LOTR is actually one LONG movie rather than 3 separate stories...just as Tolkien intended. Also, keep in mind that the other "trilogies" were only made as the result of the success of the first film, whereas all three parts of LOTR were filmed simultaneously. It slays me when some "critics" argue in favor of other "trilogies" and then spend most of their time pointing out the fatal flaws in those same "trilogies"...in effect, basing their preferences on the best individual parts of those films as opposed to judging the 3 parts as a whole. That is why LOTR will stand at the top until someone else takes the same gamble & simultaneously films 3 parts of an already-existing epic. Wouldn't recommend that you hold your breath waiting for that to happen anytime soon.
Godfather 3 was weak; Star Wars 2 & 3 couldn't compare to the original, which was obviously shot as a self-contained story; Indy 2 had a totally different (and worse) tone from first & third. Most of these criticisms could be applied to any other trilogy (BTTF & DIE HARD, for instance)....or, for that matter, to ANY film series. LOTR--flaws & all--is the only one that can be viewed as an entire story that flows smoothly from one film to the next. In other words, LOTR is actually one LONG movie rather than 3 separate stories...just as Tolkien intended. Also, keep in mind that the other "trilogies" were only made as the result of the success of the first film, whereas all three parts of LOTR were filmed simultaneously. It slays me when some "critics" argue in favor of other "trilogies" and then spend most of their time pointing out the fatal flaws in those same "trilogies"...in effect, basing their preferences on the best individual parts of those films as opposed to judging the 3 parts as a whole. That is why LOTR will stand at the top until someone else takes the same gamble & simultaneously films 3 parts of an already-existing epic. Wouldn't recommend that you hold your breath waiting for that to happen anytime soon.
#17
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Philly
Posts: 1,408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It IS the best. There may be single movies from other trilogies that are better than any LOTR films, i.e. T2, ANH, ESB, ROTLA, GF I. but as a whole trilogy, it outdoes the rest. there are weak parts of every other trilogy. ROTJ, GF III, TOD, T3. None in LOTR.
#18
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: vancouver, WA, USA, Earth, Sol, Milkyway
Posts: 1,028
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<best eric cartman voice...>
GD it!!! lotr is NOT a sequel!!!!! one book... three parts... one film... three parts. daaaammmmmmmnnn it!!! how hard is this to understand?!!?
<end cartman voice>
oh brother, SW is a great movie, but ESB is the best film that has ever taken place in a different galaxy.
j
GD it!!! lotr is NOT a sequel!!!!! one book... three parts... one film... three parts. daaaammmmmmmnnn it!!! how hard is this to understand?!!?
<end cartman voice>
Originally posted by creekdipper
Star Wars 2 & 3 couldn't compare to the original
Star Wars 2 & 3 couldn't compare to the original
j
#21
Banned by request
Originally posted by joshd2012
*raises hand*
Umm.. it is not a trilogy. It is a single story/movie that was separated into three parts.
*raises hand*
Umm.. it is not a trilogy. It is a single story/movie that was separated into three parts.
The second definition: "A series of three dramas which, although each of them is in one sense complete, have a close mutual relation, and form one historical and poetical picture. Shakespeare's `` Henry VI.'' is an example."
I don't know if Lord of the Rings falls into that category, because I wouldn't say any one of the three films is complete. You need all three. However, you could probably argue that all three taken on their own are in one sense complete.
#22
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: vancouver, WA, USA, Earth, Sol, Milkyway
Posts: 1,028
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sigh...
uh, no. That definitition fails.. in the first 2 words no less. Its not a "group"... its one literary work. Presenting it as 3 distinct parts is the work of publishers etc. That act by the publisher/studio has nothing to do with whether or not the film was a trilogy or not... if it did, films shown on tv with commercial breaks would instantly become duododecahedrologys or something... and they arent... in spite of breaks its one film. Same thing with LotR, always conceived as one work from the begining.
this one fails too... its one drama, not three and none are even close to being complete without the other 2. Indiana Jones films are a real trilogy... LotR is one flick.
?!
j
Dictionary.com has two definitions for trilogy. The first: "A group of three dramatic or literary works related in subject or theme." In this case, Lord of the Rings falls into the category. It was released as three books and three films. It may have been written all at once, but by virtue of release, the fact they they are now three separate entities, makes it a trilogy.
The second definition: "A series of three dramas which, although each of them is in one sense complete, have a close mutual relation, and form one historical and poetical picture. Shakespeare's `` Henry VI.'' is an example."
However, you could probably argue that all three taken on their own are in one sense complete. [/B]
j
#23
Retired
I'll avoid the semantic debate, as in reality most trilogies are really one long story. I realize the book was all one book, and just split into sections by the publisher, but it's still a pointless debate.
At any rate, in my opinion this is the best trilogy ever. By that I simply mean it's my favorite. It beats Star Wars (my old favorite) in every conceivable area.
At any rate, in my opinion this is the best trilogy ever. By that I simply mean it's my favorite. It beats Star Wars (my old favorite) in every conceivable area.