Empire's Greatest Trilogies

Handsome Bob

http://www.empireonline.com/features/trilogy/default.asp

The voting readers of Empire must be a bit dimwitted. :pac: Rating the likes of The Naked Gun trilogy, X-Men trilogy and The Star Wars prequels a head of the Terminator franchise? I know that T3 doesn't get much love but purely on the strength of T1 and T2, the franchise should automatically be at the very least in the Top 10.

The Top 5 is more or less pedestrian, I just wanted to share my outrage with this forum at the treatment of the Terminator franchise.

Duggy747

The Terminator films are terrible, anyways.

Anakin.S

I agree T3 is no worse than Toy story 1, Godfather 3, Spiderman 3, x-men 3, naked gun 2&3 and more.

I don't agree with LotR being first, but I think that is because I had read the books so many times before I saw the movies

johnny_ultimate

LZ5by5 wrote: »

http://www.empireonline.com/features/trilogy/default.asp

The voting readers of Empire are a bit dimwitted. :pac:

FYP

Empire lists always give me a good laugh. The Mighty Ducks trilogy is greater than Ingmar Bergman's Silence of God ones, apparently. Good to know.

AnonoBoy

I think Toy Story is the most entertaining and consistent trilogy I've ever seen.

Galvasean

So, The Pirates of the Carribean trilogy is better than the Die Hard trilogy? Get f#cked.
Star wars prequels... er... doesn't at least one of the movies have to be good?
Don't see how the Matrix trumps Aliens either.

No Jurassic Park trilogy? Damn you to hell JP3!!!! :mad:

Tipsy McSwagger

Toy Story all the way.

Handsome Bob

Hmmm, reading all of your posts, I realise that the list is even more farcical than I originally thought. It's truly a list worthy of a Classic Kermode moment. :pac:

krudler

but there are 4 Terminator movies...

Magic Eight Ball

Empire readers are likely to vote the 'Goal' trilogy as number one. :rolleyes:

transylman

Stopped reading empire magazine when I saw the reviews they were giving major releases in recent years. Any major movie will get a 3 or 4 star review even if it is awful.

krudler

transylman wrote: »

Stopped reading empire magazine when I saw the reviews they were giving major releases in recent years. Any major movie will get a 3 or 4 star review even if it is awful.

"MASSIVE ON SET EXCLUSIVE ACCESS!!"


two issues later: 5 star review.

never saw that coming...

Empire does good interviews and articles but their reviews I wouldnt trust at all

Kess73

transylman wrote: »

Stopped reading empire magazine when I saw the reviews they were giving major releases in recent years. Any major movie will get a 3 or 4 star review even if it is awful.

What is funny about their reviews is to watch when the same film gets it's blu ray/dvd release.


Any film they four starred in their cinema review that flops at the box office suddenly becomes a two star film when it comes out on the home formats.

And they work in reverse when a film that they slated for the cinema review turns out to be a hit.

Empire is the Guillem Balague of film mags.


Has to be the only mainstream film mag that is for people not really into film.



And putting Clerks, Mallrats and Chasing Amy as a trilogy when there was an official sequel to Clerks?

Loose trilogy is right you pack of hacks.

Otacon

Magic Eight Ball wrote: »

Empire readers are likely to vote the 'Goal' trilogy as number one. :rolleyes:

There were three of those? :eek:

krudler

Otacon wrote: »

There were three of those? :eek:

the first ones actually not bad, cliched as hell but its an enteraining bit of fluff, and I have zero interest in football

Jaysis, how is Toy Story not the greatest trilogy ever. There wasn't a single bad one of them and each was an improvement on the last.

bonerm

Interesting we can't have list threads, but we can have discussions about a list threads?

Anyway, Star Wars originals should be #1

A lot of the trilogies on that list aren't even sequels let alone trilogies (eg Viewaskewniverse stuff). Others aren't even "trilogy" just running series (eg Scream).

bonerm

krudler wrote: »

the first ones actually not bad, cliched as hell but its an enteraining bit of fluff, and I have zero interest in football

I'd go as far as to say Goal 3 is the most spectacularly bad "part3" I've ever seen for a series that was pretty decent up to that point.

I almost suggest people watch the first 2 and then watch 3 without trying to think "what the f happened here?" throughout.

The Mad Hatter

Anakin.S wrote: »

I agree T3 is no worse than Toy story 1, Godfather 3, Spiderman 3, x-men 3, naked gun 2&3 and more.

I don't agree with LotR being first, but I think that is because I had read the books so many times before I saw the movies

So had I, and I loved the movies.

I wouldn't consider a film that happens to get two sequels made to be a trilogy, though, as many of the "trilogies" in that list are. Trilogies should be planned in advance, and have an overall, coherent arc. Several of the franchises in the list (Evil Dead, Alien, The Matrix) only have one good film!

Corkfeen

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

So had I, and I loved the movies.

I wouldn't consider a film that happens to get two sequels made to be a trilogy, though, as many of the "trilogies" in that list are. Trilogies should be planned in advance, and have an overall, coherent arc. Several of the franchises in the list (Evil Dead, Alien, The Matrix) only have one good film!

I'm not sure if there's something seriously wrong with me for enjoying the entire Evil Dead series. I was all ready to complain that they were fools for not including "The Vengeance Trilogy". Although I still think it should be a fair bit higher even though it's probably unknown to half of empires readers. :P The Star Wars prequels , someone actually enjoyed them apparently? I'm glad to see that BTTF got to a relatively high position purely because I love the trilogy.

Skerries

another trilogy they forgot is The Exorcist Trilogy with the second definitely being the weakest
and i also love the entire Evil Trilogy
"Hail to the king baby!"

abouttobebanned

Christ, what a terrible, lord of the rings fanboy magazine.

2 stars for Godfather 3 is where I gave up. A class film that gets abused just because it came after two freakishly good movies.

the whole year inn

Would it not be 333 not 33?

Antar Bolaeisk

Iron Man gets voted in even though it's only a theoretical trilogy yet Batman doesn't make an appearance yet it will most likely be up there with Star Wars and Lord of the Rings (which is not a trilogy but, meh) as one of the greatest trilogies ever.

Also, Jurassic Park, where were you? Fair enough number 2 was a bit of a turd but number 3, while a bit stupid, was great fun.

Edit: I must have imagined the inclusion of Iron Man

johnny_ultimate

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I wouldn't consider a film that happens to get two sequels made to be a trilogy, though, as many of the "trilogies" in that list are. Trilogies should be planned in advance, and have an overall, coherent arc. Several of the franchises in the list (Evil Dead, Alien, The Matrix) only have one good film!

I agree with your first comment - after all, plenty of the films on there have now gone to a fourth film and beyond - Pirates of the Caribbean (and people actually liked parts 2 and 3???), Scream, Alien, even Die Hard / Indiana Jones (you can choose to forget part 4 if you wish) have continued on, and there's nothing distinctly 'trilogy like' about the first three parts of the franchise.

As for planned in advance, not necessarily. I'd agree that Toy Story is one of the strongest trilogies around, building on themes and characters from installment to installment - even though it wasn't planned in advance. None of them feel redundant. The Bergman ones (a mere footnote on this list) aren't formally linked, and Bergman himself I'm fairly sure rejected the idea of a trilogy many times, but accidentally or not the three certainly serve as thematic and stylistic companion pieces to each other.

There are very few proper trilogies out there - ones that are consistent and compliment each other. Lord of the Rings, obviously, and the Three Colours films, or the Vengeance ones. I watched 20th Century Boys last year, and despite feeling overstretched, is certainly a trilogy. These are fairly definitive trilogies, and you can add a handful of 'accidental trilogies' to the mix, like the ones mentioned above or even the Bourne films. But so many of the ones listed on this 'list' are spectacularly uneven, and clearly stretching it to reach an arbitrary number (33 - how clever!). Three films do not make a trilogy. Consistency of ideas, themes and story makes a trilogy.

Also, your Evil Dead comment is totally wrong

Otis Driftwood

No outrage for Romeros trilogy of the dead being so low on the list?

For shame.
:P

It should be highest of all horrors on the list in my humble.

Good to see Mad Max on the list,even though Thunderdome is cack.

Also pleased to see The Vengeance Trilogy on the list and Evil Dead.

Kess's description is pretty much spot on re Empire magazine.

A mate of mine buys it every month and has done for years,claims to be a massive film buff yet he has never seen movies like The Godfather (any)Goodfellas,Casino,Raging Bull,Deer Hunter etc to name but a few and he refuses to watch any movie thats subtitled.

Tar.Aldarion

pirates trilogy is pretty meh, i've never seen toystory and the godfather films put me to sleep. now to read more of the list

is that colours trilogy good?

johnny_ultimate

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

Kess's description is pretty much spot on re Empire magazine.

A mate of mine buys it every month and has done for years,claims to be a massive film buff yet he has never seen movies like The Godfather (any)Goodfellas,Casino,Raging Bull,Deer Hunter etc to name but a few and he refuses to watch any movie thats subtitled.

Indeed. Some of their opinions are so outrageous they must be getting paid to write them. Kick Ass five stars was a particular flag - the film certainly isn't bad, but a genre masterpiece (as a perfect rating would dictate)? Ahem. Empire rates sometimes based on what they feel like they should be rating, as opposed to what the film actually deserves.

What else do we have? I like Sight & Sound, but I'll readily admit they can be up their own arse a lot of the time and is pretty much the complete opposite end of the spectrum taste wise than Empire. Surely there's a magazine out there that's a nice middle ground? (I do tend to like Kim Newman's down to earth honesty though, and he reviews for both)

don ramo

what a stupid list, a trilogy would mean there are 3 films set around a single/group of protagonist/s, while starwars is considered two trilogies Annikin/vader are in all 6 films, i know its only one protagonist out of probably 20 or 30 but i would consider it enough to say that starwars is a series not a dual trilogy,

jersey trilogy WTF???
mission impossible can be left in for 7 months i suppose
trilogy of the dead huh
screm again not a trilogy
die hard again
pirates of the carribean, i suppose in march technically it was:o
alien seriously again
indiana jones got 6th place 6th:eek:

why trilogy why couldnt they just do series, it would be interesting to see if starwars as a whole would place near the top,

Tipsy McSwagger

I would just like to state that POTC is awful, i hate them all.

My top 5.
1. Toy Story
2. LOTR
3. Star Wars Original
4. Bourne
5. Back to the Future

All trilogies.

BopNiblets

And a few of these too I guess:

losthorizon

By the results I get the feeling that it was voted on by young lads. How did Three Colours Red, Blue and White end up so far down when they are simply some of the greatest films ever made.

As for the Pirates films - I would prefer to watch paint dry.

The Mad Hatter

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I agree with your first comment - after all, plenty of the films on there have now gone to a fourth film and beyond - Pirates of the Caribbean (and people actually liked parts 2 and 3???), Scream, Alien, even Die Hard / Indiana Jones (you can choose to forget part 4 if you wish) have continued on, and there's nothing distinctly 'trilogy like' about the first three parts of the franchise.

As for planned in advance, not necessarily. I'd agree that Toy Story is one of the strongest trilogies around, building on themes and characters from installment to installment - even though it wasn't planned in advance. None of them feel redundant. The Bergman ones (a mere footnote on this list) aren't formally linked, and Bergman himself I'm fairly sure rejected the idea of a trilogy many times, but accidentally or not the three certainly serve as thematic and stylistic companion pieces to each other.

There are very few proper trilogies out there - ones that are consistent and compliment each other. Lord of the Rings, obviously, and the Three Colours films, or the Vengeance ones. I watched 20th Century Boys last year, and despite feeling overstretched, is certainly a trilogy. These are fairly definitive trilogies, and you can add a handful of 'accidental trilogies' to the mix, like the ones mentioned above or even the Bourne films. But so many of the ones listed on this 'list' are spectacularly uneven, and clearly stretching it to reach an arbitrary number (33 - how clever!). Three films do not make a trilogy. Consistency of ideas, themes and story makes a trilogy.

Also, your Evil Dead comment is totally wrong

I accept all your points except the last :P

Also, re: Empire, it's growing up seeing "***** - Empire Magazine" on so many posters for bad and mediocre films that ensured I never bought a copy of that magazine.

mikhail

losthorizon wrote: »

By the results I get the feeling that it was voted on by young lads. How did Three Colours Red, Blue and White end up so far down when they are simply some of the greatest films ever made.

As for the Pirates films - I would prefer to watch paint dry.

Mostly agreed, but given the presumed nature of the voters, I'm actually more surprised Three Colours featured at all.

Otis Driftwood

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Indeed. Some of their opinions are so outrageous they must be getting paid to write them. Kick Ass five stars was a particular flag - the film certainly isn't bad, but a genre masterpiece (as a perfect rating would dictate)? Ahem. Empire rates sometimes based on what they feel like they should be rating, as opposed to what the film actually deserves.

What else do we have? I like Sight & Sound, but I'll readily admit they can be up their own arse a lot of the time and is pretty much the complete opposite end of the spectrum taste wise than Empire. Surely there's a magazine out there that's a nice middle ground? (I do tend to like Kim Newman's down to earth honesty though, and he reviews for both)

Id say it,along with Bergmans films are there to try and show how "cultured" empire readers are.
:pac:

Whippersnapper

If Empire is not the place to look at reviews, where is the best place? What about Total Film?

The Mad Hatter

Whippersnapper wrote: »

If Empire is not the place to look at reviews, where is the best place? What about Total Film?

tbh, the reviews I've found best for me have been Ebert's and those in The Ticket.

Playboy

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

So had I, and I loved the movies.

I wouldn't consider a film that happens to get two sequels made to be a trilogy, though, as many of the "trilogies" in that list are. Trilogies should be planned in advance, and have an overall, coherent arc. Several of the franchises in the list (Evil Dead, Alien, The Matrix) only have one good film!

eh .. Evil Dead triolgy? All are classics. Army of darkness 3 stars .. just lol! Alien and Aliens are phenomenal

Antar Bolaeisk

BopNiblets wrote: »

[noparse]

And a few of these too I guess:
[/noparse]

Wait, there was a third Ghostbusters, and third Short Circuit?

S.M.B.

transylman wrote: »

Stopped reading empire magazine when I saw the reviews they were giving major releases in recent years. Any major movie will get a 3 or 4 star review even if it is awful.

See now that's not true now is it?

Empire is what it is. Don't see the need for all the little digs tbh.

I used read it and no longer do but i'd put that more down to the dawn of new media as opposed to the magazine itself.

The Mad Hatter

Playboy wrote: »

eh .. Evil Dead triolgy? All are classics. Army of darkness 3 stars .. just lol! Alien and Aliens are phenomenal

Wrote a longish reply, but it's not worth getting into in depth here, I think:)

Basically, I've never seen what the fuss is about either Evil Dead 1 or Aliens (particularly the latter - the more films I see by James Cameron, the less I like him as a director). Evil Dead 3 is pretty bad, aside from the shed scene.

Mickeroo

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Wrote a longish reply, but it's not worth getting into in depth here, I think:)

Basically, I've never seen what the fuss is about either Evil Dead 1 or Aliens (particularly the latter - the more films I see by James Cameron, the less I like him as a director). Evil Dead 3 is pretty bad, aside from the shed scene.

Ah Army of Darkness is gas. The one liners, the cheese, having a total coward as the hero, not to mention that I'm pretty sure Peter Jackson used the battle scene as the blueprint for the Battle of Helms Deep!!

Evil Dead 2 is considerably better than the rest of them though.

I'm curious as to what you dislike about Aliens? I watched it again recently and had actually forgot how downright great it is.

The Mad Hatter

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'm curious as to what you dislike about Aliens? I watched it again recently and had actually forgot how downright great it is.

To me it's just an action film. It's a good action film, but I don't like action films. It's visually unimaginative (the alien queen is just a bigger alien - just imagine what Giger could have done with it), the characters are flat, and an awful lot of the film is spent just shooting at things. I'll grant there are a couple of very good scenes - the one that stands out for me is the turret gun scene (though why a species as deviously intelligent as these aliens were would just run into a hail of bullets is another story). Some of the dialogue is pretty ropey too, and one-liners like Sigourney Weaver's famous "Get away from her, you bitch" just make me cringe. It's too long since I saw it to give a proper critique, but I certainly think it's a huge step down from the first film.

Ridley

They might aswell have put the The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy at number one.

goose2005

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

Wait, there was a third Ghostbusters, and third Short Circuit?

The words "April Fools" at the bottom should be a clue

mikhail

Mickeroo wrote: »

Ah Army of Darkness is gas. The one liners, the cheese, having a total coward as the hero, not to mention that I'm pretty sure Peter Jackson used the battle scene as the blueprint for the Battle of Helms Deep!!

This would be the scene described in excruciating detail in the book published some forty years before that film? Which borrowed from what now?

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

...I'll grant there are a couple of very good scenes - the one that stands out for me is the turret gun scene ... I certainly think it's a huge step down from the first film.

The turret gun scene is only in the director's cut, as it happens. Odd, really, as it's one of the most memorable scenes in the movie. I like it for the relationship arc between Ripley and Bishop - too many of film's most famous robots are villains - and for managing to make a sequel with some merit which isn't a clone of the original - but I'm with you on preferring the original.

Mickeroo

mikhail wrote: »

This would be the scene described in excruciating detail in the book published some forty years before that film? Which borrowed from what now?

Not at all, more a joke flying over your head than anything else and of course i would have been referring more to some of the shots in the actual movies rather than passages from the book :pac:

mikhail

Mickeroo wrote: »

Not at all, more a joke flying over your head than anything else and of course i would have been referring more to some of the shots in the actual movies rather than passages from the book :pac:

I see. So, it was a joke, and also not a joke. Well done; you certainly fooled me.

Mickeroo

mikhail wrote: »

I see. So, it was a joke, and also not a joke. Well done; you certainly fooled me.

Meh, more an observation that I wouldn't have expected anyone to take particularly seriously but not really all that far fetched either. Watch them back to back, there are some shots which are almost identical(not in scale obviously), also Raimi was a massive influence on Jackson's earlier works so a few sly nods would not have been out of the question. I'm not the only one who's thought this. Good Day.

TheoBoone

I'm sure someone has already mentioned this, but I'm not arsed reading the whole thread, but Toy Story beat Godfather. I know these lists can't be taken seriously, blah blah blah, personal opinion, everyone entitled, blah blah blah.....BUT F**K THAT S**T!!!!!!!!!

johnny_ultimate

Toy Story is a better trilogy than Godfather.