The perfect trilogy
It has to be right?
shareyep it's the perfect trilogy.
share"Perfection" may be a little above our pay grade but I can't think of any films I've watched and enjoyed as many times as these.
share
MovieChat Forums > The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) Discussion > The perfect trilogy
Pretty much ! I can't even imagine any contender (not even Star Wars OT : ROTJ is only half-good and you know it).
sharebetter than The Hobbit.
shareYes , it is perfection
shareTo be fair though it’s more of a 3 part movie than a trilogy since all the films contain the same cast and crew and were filmed at the same time where as a trilogy like the original Star Wars trilogy had 3 separate productions.
shareIt’s not a trilogy, it’s just one really long movie that had to be split into three pieces. The three pieces have nothing individualistic about them, I could take any popular film out there and chop it into three pieces and it would be just as much a trilogy as Lord of the Rings was.
Also it’s not even that good.
Actually all three movies have a slightly different feel to them due to production choices for each, as well as the story structure.
shareNot even close, Lord of the Rings is just one film that had to be chopped into three pieces. There is no individual plot within the three pieces. The three pieces are basically just different acts of one film. The first two could have ended in different places and it wouldn’t have made much difference, how do I know? Because the book ended the first two acts in different places. (And the book was far better BTW)
shareIt’s not really the same as just taking a three hour movie and dividing it into thirds though. Each movie took an entire year to be edited in post. There were numerous changes between the movies in style and tone.
shareNone of that is relevant, also all 3 pieces were filmed in the same production. There was no individualistic plots within the 3 pieces, the first two have no ending, the 2nd two have no beginning, it’s just one film. There are 2 Middle Earth Films: Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit
shareLol of course it’s relevant, Fellowship feels like an entirely different style of movie at times compared to the sequels. The first is an adventure and the other two are war movies. Even the lighting and direction is different in Fellowship. If it were like your example of just taking another movie and chopping it up into thirds then there would be no difference in the pieces, but there is.
Also of course there were “individualistic plots,” there is an entire character arc for Frodo in the first movie that can stand on its own. Each film ends at a logical closure point, you can’t compare it to the books that actually do feel like one long three-part act.
What is irrelevant is the films being part of the same production. There are numerous examples of a film and its sequel being filmed concurrently. Ever heard of back-to-back?
Fellowship feels exactly the same as the 2nd two acts, I don’t know where you are getting this from. All 3 parts are adventures.
There were no individualistic plots, all 3 acts follow the same plot: Save middle earth and destroy the ring. None of the acts stand on their own, Lord of the Rings Part I: The Fellowship of the Ring means absolutely nothing without the other two.
They were part of the same production, it was all one production, parts of The Two Towers were even filmed before parts of Fellowship.
Face it kid, it’s all one movie, it’s not a trilogy. Even Tolkien didn’t think it was a trilogy.
As I said, Fellowship doesn’t feel exactly the same. In fact, Fellowship is widely considered to be the better movie out of the three. The lightning, script, effects, direction, etc all feel different to the other two.
There was certainly a larger overall plot and story going on, but each film certainly had its own plots. Gollum wasn’t even part of the plot until the sequels. The first film certainly feels more self-contained with character development for different characters, like Boromir, Gandalf, Frodo etc. Each film has its own unique stylistic touch. This is where the magic of editing and continuity changes comes into play.
Also if the movies weren’t a trilogy, then they wouldn’t be marketed as a trilogy either. Also TOLKIEN irrelevant, he died 30 years prior and didn’t even make the movies.
That’s your opinion, it felt pretty similar to me. Also it’s not a movie, it’s one act of a movie.
Whether Gollum was part of the plot or not is irrelevant. Often times in stories characters don’t come in until later in the story. Just look at Goldfinger, Pussy Galore doesn’t even show up until the second half, so is it two movies? The rest of your paragraph is just your subjective opinion and it’s dismissed.
You don’t get to just decide what constitutes a trilogy, there are specific parameters around the definition of a trilogy and Lord of the Rings does not meet them. Uhhhhhh Tolkien is the one who wrote the damn thing, I think he’d know more than you would. Maybe you’d care to explain what about the structure of the movie makes it a trilogy that the book didn’t have? Saying “Because I say so” isn’t going to cut it, junior.
It's a trilogy. It's literally cited as an example of the term in multiple dictionaries.
share