Epic or Not Epic

If you bring up the word epic, most people are going to think of LOTR. But that got me thinking: what does epic mean? I've compiled a random assortment of movies, and you tell me if you think each one is Epic or Not Epic (if you want, you can shorten it to E and NE).
Below is the list with my own choices.

The Matrix (trilogy)- E
Indiana Jones (trilogy)- NE
Last Samurai- E
Star Wars (original trilogy)- E
The Mummy (dualogy)- NE
The Scorpion King- E
Alien (Quadrilogy)- NE
Titanic- NE
Pirates of the Caribbean- NE
Kill Bill (Vol. 1)- (haven't seen it, but I thought I should include it anyway)
Gangs of New York- E
Dune- E
A Knight's Tale- NE
Gladiator- NE
Signs- NE
Mission Impossible (Dualogy)- NE
The Musketeer- E
Jurassic Park (original)- NE
The Wizard of Oz- NE
Minority Report- NE

I dont have the time to right all of those down but for the most part ur right. I disagree on a couple of them but over all u have the right idea.

Lord of the Rings is definetely Epic, but other real epics are things like Ghandi, Lawrence of Arabia and Ben Hur.

I believe that one of the main theme's of an EPIC is that it is a "time piece." Even Star Wars, episodes 4-6, are a time piece (time being the future). I really haven't seen any EPIC that has been dipicted in present time..... Maybe when "West Side Story" first came out.

Here is the Webster's Dictionary definiton of 'epic:' [COLOR=blue]a long narrative poem in elevated style recounting the deeds of a legendary or historical hero So anything recounting the explots of a single character in one ongoing story would be considered an epic. In that respect, I disagree with you about Indiana Jones. They were all about one character, sure, and each movie by itself could be considered an epic, but together they are 3 different stories, unconnected to each other.

I must also disagree with you on Gladiator. The story follows one character, one storyline, one quest, which ends in an identifiable resolution (another element of the epic: the ending is always rather final; one that canot be continued further). I agree with all others, however

Sorry, but the definition of 'Epic' in a film is rather more specfic. Here is a handy identifying quote:

"Epic Films often take an historical or imagined event, mythic, legendary, or heroic figure, and add an extravagant setting and lavish costumes, accompanied by grandeur and spectacle and a sweeping musical score. Epics, costume dramas, historical dramas, war film epics, medieval romps, or 'period pictures' are tales that often cover a large expanse of time set against a vast, panoramic backdrop. In an episodic manner, they follow the continuing adventures of the hero(s), who are presented in the context of great historical events of the past."

Gladiator is most DEFINITELY an epic, and the fact that it follows a single charatcer with one plot makes no difference to that.

Other recent epics include films one would not immediately associate with the name- like Titanic and Schindler's List.

LOTR counts, even though it is not historical, because it does the exact same thing, simply with an imagined history.

Birth of a Nation and Gone with the Wind are the films that other films are judged by as far as epic status is concerned.

Indiana Jones is NOT epic. It is an adventure film. George Lucas would be very upset to hear it called an epic, as he based it on Saturday Morning cinema adventure films which were created inndirect contrast to epics- The Adventures of Robin Hood, for example, was the adventure film of its day compared to the epic Gone with the Wind.

Upcoming move 'Troy' is going to ba an epic! 👆

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Upcoming move 'Troy' is going to ba an epic! 👆

Ush is pretty much dead on, Gladiator and Tatinic are indeed epics because they both fall into the exact definition of an epic film. Of course this just shows that not all epics are good films. Many are simply over rated, as these two clearly show.

Originally posted by BackFire
Ush is pretty much dead on, Gladiator and Tatinic are indeed epics because they both fall into the exact definition of an epic film. Of course this just shows that not all epics are good films. Many are simply over rated, as these two clearly show.

No, I meant Gladiator and Titanic actually.

Originally posted by BackFire
No, I meant Gladiator and Titanic actually.

I didn't see any. Titanic was a pointless movie since we all knew how it would end, plus it was extremely over rated, and any movie that is vastly over rated and gets more credit then it deserves automatically goes on my garbage list.

Gladiator...that was just a bad ripoff of sparticus, combined with some aspects of braveheart, with some crap thrown into the mix for good measure. It did nothing special or unique in any way...as Ebert put it.. "it's just another movie about Gladiators"

Originally posted by BackFire
I didn't see any. Titanic was a pointless movie since we all knew how it would end, plus it was extremely over rated, and any movie that is vastly over rated and gets more credit then it deserves automatically goes on my garbage list.

Gladiator...that was just a bad ripoff of sparticus, combined with some aspects of braveheart, with some crap thrown into the mix for good measure. It did nothing special or unique in any way...as Ebert put it.. "it's just another movie about Gladiators"

the special effects in titanic & gladiator were mind blowing to me very believable.
now braveheart theres a epic!

Gladiator was a little historicly wrong, but overall the effects were great and the movie wast that bad ❌

The effects were fine in both movies, but that doesn't make the movies good.

Originally posted by BackFire
Gladiator...that was just a bad ripoff of sparticus, combined with some aspects of braveheart, with some crap thrown into the mix for good measure. It did nothing special or unique in any way...as Ebert put it.. "it's just another movie about Gladiators"

(Note: This wasn't directed at anyone in paticular, I was just commenting)

Well it's hard not to compare it to a movie with the exact same story line and premise (Sparticus) and a movie with a similar message and outcome (Braveheart)

Originally posted by BackFire
The effects were fine in both movies, but that doesn't make the movies good.

I said overall effect were good AND the movie wasnt so bad meaning overall the movie wasnt so bad.

Agreed, but what I mean is that critics are spending too much brain power comparing, instead of devoting attention to the movie itself. Which results in a bad review, because they weren't paying attention. You need to let the story wash over you instead of building a dam