hi i need you're help i'm writing an essay and need your views on trillogies. i'm focusing on lord of the rings, starwars, indiana jones, diehard, alien (is it really a trillogy?) and the godfather. any comments will be appreciated
Just remember to explain the content of the film, cover each genre of the film (sci-fi, epic etc.) And remember to relate the films with other trilogies. An idea would be to talk about the terminator movies as the 3rd one has a different director and talk about how its different from the previous films. I've probably just said what your already going to do but hey, i tried.
Talk about if they needed to make a third one, did Terminator 2 round things off nicely, is it getting old, is Arnie getting old, does the terminator go to the toilet. Your the essay writer, im just providing additions to your trilogy collection.
a section of the essay is other peoples views i wanted to get a wide variety of opinions thats why i used this forum probably should have explained myself better in the first message
O right. Lol maybe im just being an drunken idiot (as usual) and not understood. Well my opinion is that old trilogies are much better than new ones. Sure LOTR is cinematic history and probably the matrix aswell as it was something new and original (to my knowlege) but I think the older ones like the godfather were more classy and relied more on skilled actors, props and stunts rather than CAD (computer aided design or CGI (computer graphic interface).
Gender: Male Location: Aberdeen, Scotland, NOT Britain
back to the future trilogy is ace. Indy rules but "temple of Doom" lets it down. Godfather rules, even part III. Star Wars is ace but Lucas is a pish director. Empire and Jedi are better than ANH and the new ones make it more obvious that Lucas is good writer but kak director. (Indy story's good and the Berg directs like he does.)
Lotr, unlike the others, was always going to be 3 films. (Lucas may have had plans for 3 films but only possible after ANH went heowge!)
Continuity in Lotr is apparent. More Flow to them as from the start they knew they only needed a climax at the very end. All the others needed to have climaxes at the end of first act.
Indy, cause they are not 1 long story, doesn't need continuity.
Bttf keeps continuity by revisiting first film in part II. Also any new character is really an old character, so story can flow cos there's no need to introduce them for 10-15 mins.
Godfather I & II are taken from Puzo's novel so story is no problem. part III always going to be difficult to keep continuity as the original story ends well before.
I guess I'm trying to say that continuity is important.
__________________ In football, you use your foot to kick the ball, hence the name.
Americans add throwing, pads, alter the length of the game etc, i.e. change it completely yet still call it football.
Then they call the original soccer, and expect the rest of the world to adopt this bastard name. Pish.
From hence forth American football shall be known as "soccer." by me.
Rent "Scream 3" for some movie lover's insights into trilogies.
My own opinions:
LOTR was conceived as a film interpretation of a book series. It didn't start as a single movie then branch into a trilogy; its very conception was to be a huge story divided into three more manageable sections. All three were brilliant, though I would pick part two as my favorite (for the battle scenes and the action with Gollum and the hobbits).
Star Wars is a little hard to nail down because it started as a single movie that blossomed into a six-movie franchise (plus about four TV and cable movies related to the SW universe, plus a chain of novels and comics). Lucas had a specific story in mind, but it wasn't put into canonized book form prior to the first film's release. Therefore, it's hard to say for sure what his vision was intended to be from the beginning. As for each film's merits (considering the first three to be "the trilogy"), I rate them thus: 1) Star Wars, 2) Return of the Jedi and 3) The Empire Strikes Back (only because of the downer ending and the absence of a big, climactic space battle).
Die Hard: a great idea (for the 80's) about a makes-his-own-rules cop caught up in a situation where his heroism shines (and allows the studios to do some impressive shooting/explosion sequences). The second movie, while it had its merits, was mostly awful, if for no other reason than it was FAR too coincidental that such a similar thing happened to the same cop. The third movie was more realistic in that respect, though it suffered by requiring Sam Jackson's character as a film-length "sidekick" where none was really needed.
The "Alien" series, while technically not a trilogy, suffered the same fate as many other movie franchises; the first movie was original and entertaining, the second took the same characters (Ripley and the aliens) and created a new story around them, while the third and fourth simply re-hashed part two.
"The Godfather" part III was one of the biggest mistakes in cinema history. I would rather have seen a VH1 reunion special; at least that wouldn't have featured Sophia Coppola. The first two movies are legendary, of course, but the third just puts a big dose of Alzheimer's on it.
__________________ Evelle: "Balloons! Hey, these blow up into funny shapes 'n' all?"
Grocer: "Well, no...unless round is funny."
KMC Community Forums
trillogies
Dec 6th, 2004 10:06 AM
