- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Which is the better trilogy?
Posted on 1/23/12 at 12:11 am to OMLandshark
Posted on 1/23/12 at 12:11 am to OMLandshark
quote:
Jedi has a ton of filler... and (King) absolutely no filler
Jedi = Runtime: 134 min
King = Runtime: 201 min
Yea... a movie that is over an hour longer has zero, ZERO, filler.
Further, to that point:
IV = Runtime: 121 min
V = Runtime: 124 min
VI = Runtime: 134 min
Total = 379 min or 6.3 hrs
Fellowship = Runtime: 178 min
Two Towers = Runtime: 179 min
King _____ = Runtime: 201 min
Total = 558 min or 9.3 hrs
I can't see how anyone can suffer through the LoTR more than once. It is 3 hours, THREE HOURS, longer than Star Wars. It is longer than a normal workday to watch all three back to back.
Honestly, be honest now, have any of you guys actually watched LoTR back to back after your initial viewing?
I'll refute some more of your points whenever I get around to it. Probably around the time you finish the Home Alone thread.
This post was edited on 1/23/12 at 12:14 am
2
Posted on 1/23/12 at 6:54 am to Archie Bengal Bunker
quote:
Honestly, be honest now, have any of you guys actually watched LoTR back to back after your initial viewing?
Several times. And it's awesome every time.
Posted on 1/23/12 at 7:19 am to BlacknGold
quote:
have you tried to read the books? there isnt enough material there either. so hard to get through. i had to stop 3/4ths into fellowship.
you're too slow to enjoy reading some of the best fantasy fiction ever writtenPosted on 1/23/12 at 7:41 am to Jumbeauxlaya
quote:
you're too slow to enjoy reading some of the best fantasy fiction ever written
The basic sentiment of this board is if you dislike LOTR then something is wrong with you.
Posted on 1/23/12 at 7:53 am to MSTiger33
scary movie 1-3
Posted on 1/23/12 at 7:56 am to Archie Bengal Bunker
quote:
Jedi = Runtime: 134 min
King = Runtime: 201 min
Yea... a movie that is over an hour longer has zero, ZERO, filler.
Further, to that point:
IV = Runtime: 121 min
V = Runtime: 124 min
VI = Runtime: 134 min
Total = 379 min or 6.3 hrs
Runtime doesn't indicate how much filler is in a film. Some stories need more time to tell, and the Two Towers and Return of the King may have been a little too short actually (theatrical version at least). For instance, what the hell did Jabba's Palace accomplish? They got back Han who in turn does nothing for the rest of the film. That is filler, which is pretty much the first 45 minutes of the film. I can't think of a major scene in the theatrical version that doesn't add to the plot, tone, or character development.
quote:
I can't see how anyone can suffer through the LoTR more than once. It is 3 hours, THREE HOURS, longer than Star Wars. It is longer than a normal workday to watch all three back to back.
Honestly, be honest now, have any of you guys actually watched LoTR back to back after your initial viewing?
I have and it is an extremely rewarding experience.
This post was edited on 1/23/12 at 7:58 am
Posted on 1/23/12 at 8:05 am to MSTiger33
Star Wars
Posted on 1/23/12 at 9:00 am to MSTiger33
quote:
1. LOTR
2. Star Wars 4-6
3. Indiana Jones (yes I purposefully left out 4)
Only one of these is a trilogy, so there's your answer.
Posted on 1/23/12 at 9:21 am to Green Chili Tiger
quote:
Only one of these is a trilogy, so there's your answer.
quote:
trilogy ['tr?l?d??] n pl -gies 1. (Literary & Literary Critical Terms) a series of three related works, esp in literature, etc
LOTR is only one story, actually written as one story until the publisher made the author divide into 3 separate books.
Thank you.
As I have been saying for 3 pages LOTR is not a trilogy, therefore it is disqualified. It is the same story broken up into 3 parts.
However I would say that there is a small case that empire would have a hard time standing on its own, even though it is the best star wars of them all.
This post was edited on 1/23/12 at 9:23 am
Posted on 1/23/12 at 9:23 am to MSTiger33
Out of those three, Indiana Jones.
Posted on 1/23/12 at 9:26 am to LSUtigersarefun
quote:
As I have been saying for 3 pages LOTR is not a trilogy, therefore it is disqualified. It is the same story broken up into 3 parts
It is more of a trilogy than the other examples.
Star wars has six parts and Indy has 4.
Posted on 1/23/12 at 9:33 am to LSUtigersarefun
quote:
LOTR is only one story, actually written as one story until the publisher made the author divide into 3 separate books.
Thank you.
As I have been saying for 3 pages LOTR is not a trilogy, therefore it is disqualified. It is the same story broken up into 3 parts.
So?
It's three movies that are connected to each other. Explain to me how that's not a trilogy..
quote:
A trilogy is a set of three works of art that are connected, and that can be seen either as a single work or as three individual works.
quote:
tril·o·gy /'tr?l?d?i/ Show Spelled[tril-uh-jee] Show IPA
noun, plural -gies.
1. a series or group of three plays, novels, operas, etc., that, although individually complete, are closely related in theme, sequence, or the like.
All three LoTR movies can stand alone as separate entities, even though there is an overarching theme/story throughout.
I understand the point you're trying to make, but that doesn't mean it's not a trilogy. At all.
Posted on 1/23/12 at 9:49 am to MSTiger33
I love all of these trilogies, but I would have to go with LOTR as the best of them.
Posted on 1/23/12 at 9:59 am to Napoleon
LOTR was well made adaptation of the novel but I don't think it holds a candle to Star Wars and Indiana Jones as far as movie trilogies go.
Posted on 1/23/12 at 10:03 am to glaucon
quote:
I don't think it holds a candle to Star Wars and Indiana Jones as far as movie trilogies go.
Star Wars and Indiana Jones are not trilogies no matter how much we wish they were.
Posted on 1/23/12 at 1:02 pm to Green Chili Tiger
quote:
Star wars has six parts and Indy has 4.
Then what will happen after the hobbit comes out?
Posted on 1/23/12 at 1:24 pm to MSTiger33
How about Underworld?
I am not nearly saying that is the best trilogy. But, would anyone give it a consderation? I enjoyed all three. And I am not counting Rise of the Lycans since it is a prequel, granted it's a good movie as well.
I am not nearly saying that is the best trilogy. But, would anyone give it a consderation? I enjoyed all three. And I am not counting Rise of the Lycans since it is a prequel, granted it's a good movie as well.
Posted on 1/23/12 at 1:31 pm to RLDSC FAN
1. Original Rambo Trilogy
2. LOTR
3. Original Stars Wars Trilogy
Soon to be #1: Future Expendables Trilogy
2. LOTR
3. Original Stars Wars Trilogy
Soon to be #1: Future Expendables Trilogy
Posted on 1/23/12 at 1:42 pm to Green Chili Tiger
Instead of just giving an answer, the thread turns into what is and isn't a trilogy. OP should just change the title to "group of movies".
Posted on 1/23/12 at 1:45 pm to OMLandshark
Star Wars. I find that most of the criticisms of Return of the Jedi are hysterical and sometimes disingenuous.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News