Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Poll: Best Trilogy

FortKnox (169099) writes | more than 9 years ago

User Journal 48

Best Trilogy:
A) Star Wars Original
÷) Star Trek 2, 4, and 6
®) Indiana Jones
Q) Matrix
½) Are you one of Em's alter ego's?
12) ellem and btlzu2 have too much time on their hands
) OtherBest Trilogy:
A) Star Wars Original
÷) Star Trek 2, 4, and 6
®) Indiana Jones
Q) Matrix
½) Are you one of Em's alter ego's?
12) ellem and btlzu2 have too much time on their hands
) Other


(stupid character thingy) other (1)

rdewald (229443) | more than 9 years ago | (#10587589)

The Douglas Adams Hitchiker Trilogy, which I think is four, maybe five, books.

Re:(stupid character thingy) other (1)

bofh31337 (521771) | more than 9 years ago | (#10587855)

I agree.

My the power vested in me my myself, I now declare you the offical rdewald.

Re:(stupid character thingy) other (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10588423)

Six books. The Salmon of Doubt was tying it back to the Dirk Gently series- but was never actually completed (this I find clear from the random chapters from his hard drive published under the same title after his death; obviously the population of intelligent kangaroos eventually inheriting the Earth Mark II in yet another timeline was Hitchhiker trilogy in multiverse scope, but I still don't get how Duncan the Rhino and Dirk fit into the story line, and now I'll never find out).

Re:(stupid character thingy) other (1)

TechnoLust (528463) | more than 9 years ago | (#10589005)

I liked Piers Anthony's "Adept" trilogy, which was 3 books, then grew to nine, so it was like a trilogy squared. :)

Re:(stupid character thingy) other (1)

sillypixie (696077) | more than 9 years ago | (#10591794)

Yup - and I _really_ liked his 'Incarnations of Immortality' trilogy (ok well quintology, same same but only slightly different)...


Re:(stupid character thingy) other (1)

Tet (2721) | more than 9 years ago | (#10594107)

I _really_ liked his 'Incarnations of Immortality' trilogy (ok well quintology, same same but only slightly different)

If you're being picky about it, then you mean septology:

  1. On a pale horse
  2. Bearnig an hourglass
  3. With a tangled skein
  4. Wielding a red sword
  5. Being a green mother
  6. For love of evil
  7. And eternity

Again, it was originally only conceived as a trilogy, but later expanded due to demand IIRC.

Re:(stupid character thingy) other (1)

sillypixie (696077) | more than 9 years ago | (#10595359)

You are so right, I completely forgot!

At the time I read the first 5 books, the last two hadn't come out yet, and I read the last two quite a while afterwards...

Thank you for the correction!


Re:(stupid character thingy) other (1)

nocomment (239368) | more than 9 years ago | (#10590015)

the cover of my HGTG says "an ever increasing trilogy" or something to that effect.


aWalrus (239802) | more than 9 years ago | (#10587611)

Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Well, it was a trilogy at one point.

But if we're only talking movies... I'd have to go with Indiana Jones.

Other (2, Informative)

grub (11606) | more than 9 years ago | (#10587704)

Alien, Aliens and (Alien 3 & Alien Resurrection)! (the last two sucked pretty bad and only count as half each :)

Re:Other (1)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 9 years ago | (#10588421)

Ugh, I won't even recognize Alien Resurrection as an alien movie. Thank God Alien and Aliens are what's remembered... those are damn good flicks!

Re:Other (1)

nizo (81281) | more than 9 years ago | (#10588731)

Ohhh alien(s)! I liked the first two and I was excited when I got a free pass to the third one. I remember walking out of the theater feeling like I had been ripped off, even though it was free. I want my two hours back dammit!

0d0a (1)

btlzu2 (99039) | more than 9 years ago | (#10587734)

Don't diss us man.

Lord of the Rings you FOOL! :)

Re:0d0a (1)

Randolpho (628485) | more than 9 years ago | (#10589810)

DAMMIT, I already voted Back to the Future! I hang my head in shame. LotR wins, hands down.

The worst is that I'm in the middle of listening to the soundtrack, and I *still* forgot about it for this poll.

A because they're still great to watch (1)

NeMon'ess (160583) | more than 9 years ago | (#10587735)

The others I don't like so much or want to watch as often. It's timeless really.

Three Colours... (1)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | more than 9 years ago | (#10587846)

Blue, White and Red.

Krzysztof Kieslowski rocks.

Re:Three Colours... (1)

mekkab (133181) | more than 9 years ago | (#10588302)

ehhhhhh, I wasnt down with White.

But Blue and Red more than make up for it.

Re:Three Colours... (1)

sielwolf (246764) | more than 9 years ago | (#10590239)

If we really wanted to go underground but with that "it bleeds into everything in cinema" edge we could mention the Decalogue. Heck, I think every Best Buy has a copy. Its at the corner of Kieslowski and The Realness. At ten movies, it is one of the most consistently good long series of movies. The only great cinema that comes close are the * Up documentaries.

Your boy recommends both.

I'm thinking... (1)

DaytonCIM (100144) | more than 9 years ago | (#10588030)

Trois couleurs

Bleu [imdb.com] starring Juliette Binoche.
Bialy [imdb.com] starring Julie Delpy.
Rouge [imdb.com] starring Irène Jacob.

I have yet to see that one :-( (1)

tuxette (731067) | more than 9 years ago | (#10590217)

We have White and Red here, but we're missing Blue. We need to find it and buy or rent or whatever...just as long as we get a hold of it!

‡) Other(s) (1)

curtisk (191737) | more than 9 years ago | (#10588278)

Living Dead trilogy (Night of, Dawn of, Day of)

Beverly Hills Cop LOL not really

Evil Dead series

Terminator (for now)

Revenge of the Nerds....LOL I'll stop now

Damn theres alot of good trilogies though

Star Wars (1)

linzeal (197905) | more than 9 years ago | (#10588584)

By far the most excitement I had when I was a kid and since I got the new edition [amazon.com] I have been pleasently surprised with some changes even if Greedo shoots first.


sielwolf (246764) | more than 9 years ago | (#10588622)

WTF. Godfather I & II shit down the throats of any other trilogy. No one has a one-two punch like that. And then everyone who badmouths III has no concept anyway and is just regurgitating colloquial pap. Fuck, Eli Wallach, Joe Mantegna, and Al Pacino seal this. Any complaints about Garcia or Sofia are offset by such great scenes as Pacino alone in the funeral parlor or with the cardinal. That ill ending? With the canolis and the guy getting stabbeded in the throat with the glasses? Or the phantom helicopter shooting up the place with the searchlights? Ill. Destroys anything on this list.

The only thing close is the Man with No Name trilogy. And that is basically two good movies and one excellent one. Oh, and Eli Wallach is in those jawns too.


btlzu2 (99039) | more than 9 years ago | (#10590120)

Nah. 3 DID suck. What horrible writing and acting--especially between Keaton and Pacino. I was dismayed I tell you, DISMAYED!

1&2 almost make a good trilogy on their own if you think about it. 2 was two movies in one! :) AWESOME.

However, LotR defeats it hands down. And that's a FACT JACK! ;)

Unless, of course, we're talking about the Police Academy movies. They exceeded a trilogy, but they were life-changing movies! Or Rocky. Who could forget "Clubber Lang"???? I ask you that?


sielwolf (246764) | more than 9 years ago | (#10590447)

LotR was an example of meeting expectations. The Godfather is like the fucking Velvet Underground. Anyone who saw/heard it wanted to make movies/start a band. It defines our modern dialogue of the gangster genre, one of the fundamental three genres of American cinema.

LotR is like everything else. It is another epic, another G&E. More template, more three-squares of movie going consumption. Frodo is Neo/Luke/Elliot from ET/etc. It is better than many mainstream movies. It might be the peak at the happy warm center. But it did nothing to define the genre, to shift the nexus, to question ourselves.

If you consider the Godfather Saga a single movie (the TV-only chronological reedit of GF1 & 2 including all the deleted scenes such as visiting the dying consigliari after the wedding or young Clemenza getting his dick rode for dresses), it might be #1 all time.

Rocky's IV and V completely nullify that series. And the fact now that it seems the script used in Rocky might actually been significantly ghost written (and not by Stallone) really sullies it.

I also forgot: Herzog's Jungle Cycle. Aguirre/Fitzcaraldo/Cobra Verde. Yeah, them some films.


btlzu2 (99039) | more than 9 years ago | (#10590831)

I was completely kidding about Rocky. Rocky I was pretty good and it just lost it more and more from there.

I stand by LotR because I'm such a nutcase Tolkien fan and to see it all come to life like that--even if it was more the essence of the books than the books themselves. To me, LotR was incredibly more of a challenge to make in so many senses than the Godfather. The Godfather had a great story, but it wasn't anything that complicated. I LOVE the Godfather, it's just that I think the challenges of making a watchable, exciting LotR are much larger than for the Godfather. The scope alone of LotR [Dr. Evil]demands respect.[/Dr. Evil]

There is quite a bit more under the surface of LotR than good & evil IMO too. It's about learning about oneself, relationships, honor, courage, so much more. "The Stand" is pretty much G&E, LotR is that and a whole bunch more IMO.

Beyond all that, I agree with you that Godfather I/II are INCREDIBLE films and revolutionary.

Chaos (1)

sielwolf (246764) | more than 9 years ago | (#10591329)

Yeah the "Where are you coming from" angle is key. I'm a movie guy. So the theory, the history, the science of editing and what not are all very important to me. And that forms much of the rationale for my opinion.

Even movies that are adaptations of books I like (say Ellis' work) I usually hang closer to the film side. I love American Psycho but it comes a lot from Christian Bale (I've been a Balehead for a while), Josh Lucas, Chloë Sevigny, and Mary Harron. Same with Rules of Attraction: Roger Avery, Shannyn Sossamon, and Clifton Collins (who was also the Chicano assassin, Frankie Flowers, in Traffic). I also can't stand Less than Zero even though I love the book. The movie is just rote "Say No to Drugs". It is featureless (and just Brat-pack crap).

So many movies are adaptations (The Godfather, Goodfellas, Shawshank, Bully, Jean-Pierre Melville's work, etc.) that I get more hooked on its own merits in the greater scheme of things.

I guess I would compare LotR to Ran. Another epic. Another adaptation. Basic Shakespeare. But it is so much more for me. The non-computer generated battle scenes that are a blur of color seething over madness. The howling quiet of it. Hidetora walking out of the palace belching fire as a ghost. The dangerous shot of the blind man on the precipice (dangerous in that the rock face swallows 80% of the screen. A lesser director would've made it a bad shot. Its a bold framing, forcing the eye to the upper right). The delivery of the dog's head. The slaughter of Jiro's wife, her blood painting the wall. The black rock of Mt Fuji. The vanity, the cruelty. I can picture them all clearly as I sit here.

Ran is a big epic movie with many intricate parts, like LotR. But it transcends its source. It bleeds light. It-

well, fuck :p Basically Ran excites me. I can write and write and write about it. Other than saying LotR is good, I have trouble saying anything else. Yeah, I find the plots of Boromir and Sam to be excellent and verbose. But I didn't see that on the screen.

I guess we're both just trying to draw a perfect circle here. A definitive list of opinions that will end the last 100 years of discussion. Oh well, I guess it makes the work day go faster ;)

Re:Chaos (1)

btlzu2 (99039) | more than 9 years ago | (#10591772)

I see what you mean. I'm definitely not at the same angle. I'm sort of an "advanced amateur movie watcher". I'm learning to appreciate the science of it a lot more, but I know I don't watch it with the perspective you have. I greatly appreciate something that doesn't make me squirm in discomfort and I also have learned to appreciate certain aspects of cinematography. I had a first "Aha!" moment about 5 years ago when watching the outlandish angles used in Citizen Kane. Un-fucking-real.

However, I don't quite have the depth of knowledge that I'd like. Any good ways to come up to speed more on movie theory--did you just watch a lot of them or are there some books you'd recommend? I'd think I know more than the average joe, but I've got a long way to go.

Re:Chaos (1)

sielwolf (246764) | more than 9 years ago | (#10592227)

I always feel the more personal accounts of movies are best. The problem is that reducing art to mechanics removes the very thing we like about it: the humanity.

For this I'd suggest Martin Scorsese's two documentaries. A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese through American Movies and My Voyage to Italy. Both are very long, but touch on movies important to him. He talks about seeing them as a child, his mother's reaction. What he saw in them. Some are Big Important Movies... some are b-movie cast offs. But you've got a lot there. A good starter course.

For Kurosawa I recommend Kurosawa (2001) and A.K. about the making of Ran. Donald Ritchie's books on Japanese cinema are also very very good.

Then there's My Best Fiend about Werner Herzog's combative and creative relationship with Klaus Kinski. From Caligari to Hitler is the basic coda of the golden era of German films (when German films almost eclipsed Hollywood. Fucking Nazis...).

There are two docs about Ingmar Bergman making films: Ingmar Bergman Makes a Movie (about making The Silence) and The Making of Fanny and Alexander. Both are included in two box sets by the Criterion collection.

I haven't found a good doc on the final great cinema: the French. The New Wave by Itself is pretty good. But that only covers, obviously, the New Wave. Great work before or since get short shrif.

Scorsese stops his before the 70's golden era because, well, that's his era. There is a doc called Easy Riders and Raging Bulls which, I must say, isn't that good. It fails where all the above succeed. It is more of a catalog. It doesn't show us why people like these movies. What grips them. A good documentary juxtaposes words with visuals which either contradicts or validates what we see.

That should be a good starting syllabus :p

Well... (1)

Randolpho (628485) | more than 9 years ago | (#10589760)

... I think the best movie trilogy of all time is easily Back to the Future.

But, if I have to go with what's on the list, I gotta go with Star Wars. I'm sorry, but the only half-way decent Star Trek movie was Wrath of Khan [khaaan.com].

the highlander (1)

nocomment (239368) | more than 9 years ago | (#10589987)

But that only counts if you watch the first one 3 times.

Re:the highlander (1)

KshGoddess (454304) | more than 9 years ago | (#10591228)

The horror! The horror! I'm starting to remember that there were others. :'(

I treat highlander the same as the matrix 'trilogy'. The first one counted. The other 2 (or however many) just suck.

The Evil Dead "trilogy" wasn't on the list, so I'm not voting.

books (1)

http (589131) | more than 9 years ago | (#10591582)

Sundiver, The Uplift War, Startide Rising.
David Brin

Oddly, the following three, Brightness Reef, Heaven's Reach, and Infinity's Shore were not bad either.

A "Real trilogy - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1)

Ra5pu7in (603513) | more than 9 years ago | (#10594515)

There are so many good literary trilogies, in fact, that I would have a very hard time picking the best. In fact, the best expand past trilogy into series: Card's "Ender's Game", Stephen Donaldson's "Thomas Covenant", the Dragonlance books come to mind - they were often grouped into trilogies even though the series was massive, - Anne McCaffrey's Pern books do the same thing.

Somehow movie trilogies don't come up to the same high mark - I'll have to think further on why I feel that way.

star wars (1)

subgeek (263292) | more than 9 years ago | (#10594672)

i must be honest. it's star wars. but LotR is up there. it mostly just loses out because i was exposed to it later in life.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account