Josh H

Of course it's opinon. Rating films is entirely subjective. I don't see where anyone claimed otherwise.

Everyone's opinion is equally valid.

Supermallet

Well, that may be true for the books, but as for the movies, they each have opening and closing credits. They were released separately, edited separately, and considered separate films for purposes of box office take and awards. They are three separate films that, taken together, tell one story. Thus, by that first definition, they are definitely a trilogy. The TV show thing does not apply because the show is one story, played at one time, with a few breaks in that time. It's not like TV shows have opening and closing credits around every commercial break, and are taken as separate entities. Each episode only has one name. Saying the Lord of the Rings films are one story is like saying all of Seinfeld is one story, and not a series of episodes.

QuiGonJosh

I always really liked Godfather 3 and found it to be a great end to the story...

wendersfan

I would challenge anyone who voted yes in this poll to produce ticket stubs or store/video rental receipts for every other trilogy ever made, please. There's never been a more overrated, hyped series of films that the LOTR trilogy, not even the Star Wars films. To say they are the "best" anything is absurd.

Jepthah

The only trilogy I can think of that can compete with it pound-for-pound is a very different series of films: the Trois Couleurs by Kieslowski.

It is a landmark acheivement in epic filmmaking which will be revered for decades to come. I doubted Peter Jackson and his awesome creative team could pull it off a few years ago and I am happy to report I was totally wrong.

Rivero

Ok, Wim Wenders fan. Name a trilogy you feel is better executed, pound for pound, and I will debate this with you until you finally see the light.

QuiGonJosh

Its an opinion...why change someones opinion...

Look...I love the LOTR Trilogy both books and movies...and I get a little tired of a lot of people going "Their the best movies ever made!"

Anyway...everyone knows Star Wars is better

Skorp

Give me Hobbits over Ewoks any day!

QuiGonJosh

But Ewoks are cool...you know those little bastards are just savage...hell they were gonna EAT Han..Leia..and Luke! I want an unrated version of ROTJ with extreme Ewok violence against the Stormtroopers...

jekbrown

oh fawking brother. Yes, each part of the film has credits... so what? Dont see the word "credits" in any definition of "trilogy". They were released seperately... so what, the books have been released seperately also. Almost all of these issues of seperation you bring up are the result of financial realities and very little else. I mean "released seperately".. DUH.. what are they gonna do, put one 10 hour movie in the theaters? It'd never work and so its broken up... that DOESNT mean that each film is a distinct entity. The film is just like the book, so massive and epic that for easy consumption it has been broken down into seperate parts where its convenient to do so. In a real trilogy, the stories tend to be self contained. Any one of the Indy movies can be watched and appreciated on its own. Compare that with the first third of LotR... I mean if you watched FotR and REALLY liked it, could you consider it a complete experience without going on to watch the other 3 films? Of course not... the story is about the quest to destroy the ring... and NONE of the 3 parts of the LotR even comes close to adequately telling said story... only the entire story can do that. Its NOT like Indiana Jones or something where Raiders is clearly meant from the begining to stand on its own just fine... and then the other 2 films do that same thing with the same characters. THAT is a trilogy. LotR is one story, one adventure, one book, and one film. end of discussion.

j

Supermallet

This is the second time we've had a large debate, and both times, I cannot stand the word "fawking". Just a personal aside.

Do you consider The Silmarillion part of The Lord of the Rings? Is it part of the one story? What about The Hobbit? If The Hobbit were released on its own, would it be its own movie? It's all part of the same mythology. The Lord of the Rings couldn't have happened the way it did without all of the events in The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, and all the other histories of Middle Earth. Where are you going to draw the line? In the end, it is subjective. I happen to draw the line sooner than you.

jekbrown

Im drawing the line exactly where JRR Tolkien did...

j

DVD Polizei

Suprmallet,

This is like arguing about The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. Each are separate, but one. Tolkien did the same via his Catholic heritage.

joshd2012

Its really quite simple. FOTR was the beginning; TTT was the middle; and ROTK was the end. Each part did not consist of a beginning, middle, and end where they could stand alone. The Hobbit is part of the mythology, but also has a clear beginning, middle, and end within its bounds. All trilogies has 3 separate stories (well, not the Jersey Trilogy, but you get the idea) which can stand by themselves. LOTR definitely does not qualify in this league and is therefore, not a trilogy.

Skorp

I agree that LOTR is one story (i.e. one long book and one long movie), so may not be considered a "trilogy" in the purest sense. But then what do we do with Star Wars, The Matrix, and some others?

A New Hope stands alone, but not Empire (no ending) or Jedi (no self-contained beginning).

Same with The Matrix. Reloaded and Revolutions are really just one story, split in the middle (and filmed as such, too.)

jekbrown

yeah, i consider the matrix series to be 2 films.. reloaded and revolutions each half of the 2nd film. Good point on ESB... I guess star wars eps 4-6 could be considered 2 films as well, sorta like the matrix even though they werent filmed at the same time.

j

Hullo

Whatever, fanboy

Rivero

Can't think of one, can you? Thought so.

veritasredux

LOTR has had nearly as much popular appeal as the Star Wars trilogy, but it won't have the same effect on film or pop culture. There's also the small problem that LOTR was all-around solid, but at no point as brilliant as Empire.

But I do think it's the best non-sci-fi fantasy trilogy of all-time. :P

dave-o

Supermallet has some good points about where we would draw the line with this trilogy debate (i.e The Hobbit). However, it appears that the difference in opinion lies with the question of who or what determines if it is a trilogy. On one hand it was not the author's intentions to create a trilogy, on the other hand it was the publishers, marketers, and distributer's intention to make a trilogy. Herein lies the question, whose intention detrmines what this story should be known as? My personal opinion is that it is not a trilogy, (based on the author's intentions), however, I can certainly understand how other people may think differently.

jaeufraser

You make a very good point, and in the case of the books, it really can be argued both ways quite convincingly about whether it is to be considered a trilogy or not. With regards to the film, there is no question that the series is a trilogy. In no way is it a requirement of a trilogy to have a unconnected story. In fact, I consider that a defining feature of a trilogy. But nonetheless a trilogy is truly..three movies, connected by story or just by character.

Nonetheless, you can't deny that LoTR was made, designed and told as a three story arc. This is not a one story with two breaks, but three distinct films that have certifiable beginnings and ends. Granted they aren't beginnings and ends of the entire story, but subplots and character arcs in the films are started and completed, with only certain elements left for the remaining films. You cannot deny that, had these been made as one large film, you would have a completely different product, edited togther in a different manner. Some might argue against me, and to that I am sorry, but you are wrong. These films exist as separate entities, and are made as such. They do tell one story, they do have an unparalled continuity due to the maknig of at one time, but nonetheless...these are three distinct films.

So is Lord of the Rings, the FILMS, a trilogy? A defnite yes...honestly, it is more than just the credits...it is how these films are put together, and truly it matters not about the source material, or the fact that these may have been done due to financial matters. All that matters is that it WAS done this way. To make the assertion that Tolkien wrote this as one novel ignores the fact that Tolkien did not make these films. That these films were designed as three films, not one film with two breaks. There is an emotional resolution that takes place at the end of each film that, while holding certain plot points open, still defines each film separately.

Nonetheless, greatest film trilogy ever? IMO, yes. I have never seen a better trilogy. Is that an amazing honor? In truth we are not judging this against every series with three films. I'm only comparing against series with a three story movie arc, as how can you really compare this against say, Indiana Jones? Which, is a trilogy by default, but is just three separate movies and does not really relate to the three movie arc that Star Wars, Matrix, and Lord of the Rings follow. That's my two cents.

Jeremy517

Asking this question in a LOTR subforum isn't going to get you accurate results...

Jeremy517

Just my opinion, but I would put all of these above it without any hesitation (and you can't convince me otherwise no matter how much you try):

Godfather
Star Wars
Indiana Jones
Die Hard
Back to the Future
Jurassic Park (even with the gymnastics kick and the abrupt ending to III)

If there hadn't been a Lethal Weapon 4, that would have been above it also, as far as trilogies go.

Supermallet

Jurassic Park? You have to be kidding me. That's obviously not a trilogy, it's one story.

Also, what do you guys think of Back To The Future II and III? II has no self-contained ending, and III has a beginning you can't understand without seeing II. And, in fact, in II, they go back and visit the events of I, so that must be one movie, as well, right?

I just can't believe some of the stuff I'm hearing in this thread. Star Wars episodes IV-VI are two films because Empire has no self-contained ending? Absurd. Each Star Wars film is its own film. Each Lord of the Rings film is its own film. I think jaeufraser put it best in that each LOTR film, while connected two the other two films, has its own arc. Just because a film doesn't tie up everything that happened within that film doesn't mean that it's suddenly really part of a longer film. No, it's two films. Are the Alien films all one long film? They basically detail all of Ripley's life (and death and life) since she encounters the alien.

And, you know, I have to admit, even though Tolkien may have intended LOTR to be one story, even in the books it works quite well as a trilogy. Specifically I'm thinking of the structure of The Two Towers, which tells all of Aragorn's story, and then all of Frodo's. That would have been quite an odd structure to see in the middle of one big book.

Seeker

Here's a "trilogy" out of the blue:

My Neighbor Totoro
Whisper of the Heart
Spirited Away


3 GREAT movies. Ok, I'm just throwing this in here, I know, but does anyone know the thread that makes that a trilogy?