https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQS0y95yAL0
This has got to be the worst acting in a death scene for a picture of this magnitude. It's nigh on comical, I don't know why Nolan didn't reshoot or use a different take.
I don't think I dislike it quite to the extent you seem to, but yeah, it does seem a bit clunky. Like, she's just bounced around so hard she dies from internal bleeding, right after she finishes saying her piece? Convenient. And I like the actress, but yeah, just that scene, like a gasping fish. Should've at least had her impaled by something, didn't have to be gruesome. I guess it's to serve the script. She had to die, but they wanted her to give her speech and have her death be by her own hand
shareShe was in a car crash and she died. It happens. She died thinking she had won. But she hadn't. Not everything follows the same formula all the time.
shareYes it's terrible. Very cheesy looking. I don't know if Cotillard was instructed to close her eyes as soon as she was finished speaking but that just makes it worse. Would have been better if it was one of those 'eyes remaining open and looking vacantly into the distance' deaths.
It's more on Nolan, and that is one of the criticisms of him. He can be slack in letting stuff like this and poor extras/choreography make it onto the final shoot.
it was even worse than I remember it. what trash
shareNot at all I didn’t have any problems with her death. It was a great send off to such an iconic character
A bad death scene would be Kylo Rens
You're delusional. It's school grade acting and her character is far from iconic.
share"It was a great send off to such an iconic character"
Iconic character? She was a throw away character in this movie..
She is one of the most iconic fem fatales of all time.
shareNaw...
shareYep she was a part of one of the most successful comic book series of all time, she was featured heavily in the very successful animated series and she was one of the central villains in one of the most successful trilogies of all time. Face it kid she’s objectively iconic
shareNah. The average moviegoer doesn't even know who the hell Talia Al Ghul is. Everyone knows Joker or Bane on the other hand.
shareCare to back up that claim?
shareTalia is a major character in the Batman mythology. She was portrayed badly in this movie.
shareNo, Marion Cotillard gave a very iconic performance.
shareIconic? Seriously?
shareAbsolutely she's iconic.
shareProve it.
shareShe's the overarching villain to the conclusion of the greatest trilogy ever made. How does that not make her iconic?
shareThat proved nothing. Just because you are a character in a successful film does not mean you are iconic. Also the greatest trilogy ever? According to who?
shareWell I don't know what to tell you, I've given you concrete proof and you won't accept it, sounds like your bias is preventing you from grasping reality even when it's slapping you right in the face.
shareConcrete proof? Lol you call that concrete proof? She was the villain in a successful trilogy that does not mean she was iconic. That is all you can say? You can't give me reasons of why she should be iconic because of a character on her own you have to link her to the film's overall success. That is lazy. Okay so does that mean Donovan is iconic in last crusade then? Same logic I am applying here. Also according to who is it the best trilogy ever?
shareDonovan was not iconic because Last Crusade was a crap film and no one will ever remember Donovan, Talia however was an established character within the Batman universe and concluded one of the greatest trilogies of all time in what is easily the best conclusion of any trilogy ever.
Here is proof it's one of the greatest trilogies ever: https://screenrant.com/best-film-movie-trilogies-ever-all-time/ When you eliminate The Godfather and Lord of the Rings which aren't trilogies and Toy Story which was severely let down by the third one (plus it's not a trilogy anymore), The Dark Knight comes in second and in my opinion it's a hair above the OT Star Wars because ROTJ was kind of weak.
A crap film according to who? No no you can't bring past interpretations of the character into the the discussion. We are measuring them as in films on their own. No one will remember Donovan? Hmm from where I sit Last Crusade seems to be loved by many, you seem to be in the minority on that. You said Marion was iconic specifically.
shareAgain I've given you all the proof you should need. If you want to argue that 2+2=5 then please do it without me because I have no interest in such an asinine conversation.
shareask most people about Nolans batman. would even 1/10 bring up Talia? is her name Talia? okay I had to double check and ive seen it a decent amount of time.
shareDon't know, how do you know that 1/10 would bring up Talia or not? Have you taken a poll? If so may I please see your methodology?
sharewe both now I haven't dont one. we also both know its true. ledger, bane and Ra's in that order will be brought up and Talia almsot never. oh I just looked over your other comments. you are a pyscho I see.
shareThat is an opinion nothing more. Second no if we take that list as truth then that means Lord of the Rings must be accounted for since it is on the very list you provided after all. So umm yeah not even close to being the best trilogy ever. One of sure but not Thee.
shareAgain I have proven it's not a trilogy, the fact that they like it is fine, I actually love the book, but the movie is not a trilogy.
shareOkay cool so that means that list you provided proved nothing then. I mean since it got that wrong it can't be trusted.
shareIt does prove that TDK is one of the greatest trilogies ever and by all accounts it is the second greatest according to that source, I just disagree as I think it is better than the OT Star Wars because the OT Star Wars wasn't amazing from beginning to end, ROTJ was weak in some parts.
shareNope since it got it wrong on LOTR and Godfather it showcases the list's credibility is shot. I mean if it got two of those things wrong how can I consider it credible or reliable?
shareThey simply like The Godfather and Lord of the Rings and that's fine but according to the people who wrote them they aren't trilogies. The guy simply likes a movie called Lord of the Rings more than The Dark Knight Trilogy, fine I like a movie called Apocalypse Now and another called Pulp Fiction more than the Dark Knight Trilogy also.
shareNope I can't trust that list, since it got that wrong I give the list no credibility. So therefore you have not proven TDK trilogy is the best trilogy ever.
shareWell I'm sorry that you are so ignorant that are going to argue with me that 2+2 doesn't equal 4. If that's the case then I'm afraid I'm done with you.
sharehe thinks his opinion on LOTR is a fact
shareIt's not my opinion though, it is fact.
shareWhat is fact?
shareLOTR isn't a trilogy
sharethe funniest part is when I googled the definition to make sure you couldn't use any loopholes. this was the first
"a group of three related novels, plays, films, operas, or albums.
"J.R.R. Tolkien's epic fantasy trilogy, The Lord of the Rings""
They even used LOTR as an example hahahah
Google doesn't override the word of Tolkien, sorry.
shareand nor does yours. if I make a movie based off 5 books. the movie isnt a pentalogy just because the original is. you have issues
shareIt's not my word though it's Tolkien's, he said it wasn't a trilogy but a collection of volumes. It would have been released as one had it not been for a paper shortage. Now the burden of proof is on you to explain how the narrative structure of the movie differs from the book that constitutes the movie being a trilogy but not the book. In the words of Van Halen "I'll Wait....."
sharetolkeins original vision was also 6 books.
so by your logic what was released on film wasnt a movie, it was 6 books. because that was tolkiens original vision. this is how much sense you make
BY DEFINITION the films were a trilogy. a trilogy is "a group of three related novels, plays, films, operas, or albums."
which they are.
There was nothing about the narrative structure that justifies calling it six books. In the novel there are six very distinct segments, the movie doesn't have this because it keeps moving back and forth between narratives.
The movie is just one story that was too long to release in one part. The individual pieces didn't have their own narrative or plot, therefore it's just one movie. I agree that the narrative structure is different than the book but that doesn't justify calling it a trilogy.
its not about narrative structure. its about terms and how we use and define them. whether he intended it to be 100 short stories, different volumes, different contained narratives ect.
it does not change the FACTUAL and real way the books and film were released
https://screenrant.com/lord-of-the-rings-tolkien-6-books-why/
"According to Tolkien's private letters released to the public in the 1980s, the writer did not envision or create The Lord of the Rings as a three-part saga. Instead, the entire story from Bag End to Mordor and back again was penned as a single, giant tome.Upon completion, The Lord of the Rings was divided into six books by the author, and although he wanted it published in one hit, Tolkien confirms in his letters that he thought of this new Middle-earth adventure as six separate books."
But THIS ISNT RELEVANT! because the movies are still a trilogy by definition!
Actually it is, it has been clearly established that the novel isn't a trilogy but you claiming the movie is that would have to mean there was something that the movie had that the novel didn't. Just saying it's a trilogy isn't proof, by that logic I could say Pulp Fiction is a trilogy, heck it's more of a trilogy than LOTR (although neither are).
shareand guess what. the film ISNT the novel. crazy I know. that they are two separate things.
no you couldn't say pulp is a trilogy because it doesnt meet the definitions. LOL
words have definitions and meanings. no matter how inconvenient
And I'll ask again: What about the film makes it a trilogy that the novel doesn't have? You finding some definition that you twisted to fit your narrative isn't evidence, kid.
sharethe fact it was produced in three films not two, one, 4, 5 or six. as simple as that.
there is not twisting of definitions. I went to 5 sources and chose the first one.
no twisting at all. definitionally it is a trilogy.
again THE SOURCE MATERIAL HAS NO EFFECT ON HOW THE FILM IS BROKEN UP FOR PRODUCTION AND DISTRUBTION.
you are welcome to a rogue its actually 8 separate stories or volumes whatever.
and yet that doesnt change that it is in fact a trilogy.
and ill say it again. just how me writing 4 books and it being crammed into one film doesnt make the film a quadrilogy.
So then anyone could make a fan edit to any film and it would then be a trilogy? Your definition doesn't seem to be very objective and I honestly don't know where you are getting this from? You seem to just be inventing the rules as you go so it fits your narrative and I have no interest in being a part of such a juvenile exercise.
shareyes someone could make a fan edit................................... they have done it with the prequelsmaking it into one film..
their version would be one continuous film..
no one would claim their single film is a "trilogy"
haha you've been destroyed you know it. man up for once
Got it so according to you Pulp Fiction is a trilogy. Please either step it up a notch or kindly leave the internet, I am getting tired of arguing whether 2+2 = 4 or 5.
shareWatch he will deflect. Facts bounce right off ignorant fools like this. Absolutely hilarious lol! Good Job!
shareby his logic if I make a single film based off 5 books crammed into it the film is a pentalogy.
this guys smart
Never once did I assert that.
sharethat's the same arguement you are making for Tolkien. nice try though attempting to squirm out of that one.
Also Tolkien meant for them to be books. I guess what was released wasnt movies, they were books right? by your "logic"
Not even close. Again if the movie did something with the narrative structure that constituted it being a trilogy I'd call it one, but it doesn't. As of now there are two Middle Earth films: The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings.
shareuh oh crazy man
"A trilogy is a set of three works of art that are connected and can be seen either as a single work or as three individual works."
You still didn't answer the question, I'm guessing that's because you can't and you can't justify calling LOTR a trilogy. It's OK, little boy, we all have our bad days, better luck next time.
shareI did answer it. the "narrative structure" is irrelevant to whether or not it is or no a trilogy. any more than the fact pulp fiction being 4 main characters separate stories loosely connected a quadrilogy (trilogy since two characters are together)
any more than Inglorious is a quadrilogy.
its irrelevant. it is ONE FILM. just as LOTR is factually THREE FILMS.
By your "Logic" no movie exists they are just books. and those "films" are the same in number as the books released for... reasons.
that makes no sense at all
So in that case if I try hard enough I can use whatever logic I want to justify any film being a trilogy, yep Pulp Fiction is a trilogy and it's better than Lord of the Rings.
shareand to Tarantino and the studio it wasnt. the ones who made it in this medium
this is why you live in la la land.
I dont care about your feelings or what you want or wish pulp fiction to be.
I care about reality. which you do not seem to have a firm grasp on.
the definition of trilogy is clear. should I report it or can you actually be a man and admit you are wrong?
So then anyone can decide whether it's a trilogy or not? That means there's no objective definition right?
No you are the one arguing Pulp Fiction is a trilogy, quit strawmanning.
Clearly you don't care about reality because you continue to argue that 2+2=5
A trilogy needs to have 3 pieces that can stand on their own, it needs to have a beginning, middle and end, LOTR doesn't have it, it's one movie.
no the creator, producer and distributor who released the LOTR decided it would be a trilogy aka 3 films.
no pulp fiction can have 3 stories in it, still one film. nice try though troll
yes 3 = a trilogy is exactly like 2+2=5......................
EXCEPT it is three pieces, you can choose to watch any single one. that's how it was released.
oh and look at this
"A trilogy is a set of three works of art that are connected and can be seen either as a single work or as three individual works."
weird how you keep putting your foot in your mouth. keep ramming it in there :) this is tooo easy
So again your definition is not objective, you think you can just assert it's a trilogy and it is. That's as asinine as a male just raising their hand, saying they are a female and therefore they are. You can call a banana an apple all you want but it's still a banana.
And I can choose to fast forward to whatever segment of Pulp Fiction I want to. FOTR, TTT and ROTK are NOTHING without the other ones so therefore it's not a trilogy.
I guess The Count of Monte Cristo novel is also a series of 18 novels since it was released initially in 18 parts.
the films were objectively released as three films. that's how Jackson filmed them and intended them to be. that's how the company that produced and distributes films does so.
lol you are such a failure troll. enjoy being alone im going now.
get your attention elsewhere you sad lonely person
So again, if someone asserts it's a trilogy then it's a trilogy by your definition. That is not an objective standard and you haven't proven anything.
You are beyond pathetic, and you are incapable of thinking for yourself. Go back to your Mommy, little boy, maybe she can nurse your wounds after the savage beating you just received.
oh look im staring at my brand new 4k blu ray I ordered. on Amazon it says "the motion picture trilogy"
it says the same on the box. of course those that produced and now distribute this have no clue it isnt a trilogy. only this random on MovieChat knows better
So the 4K blu ray box overrides the artistic vision of the writer?
shareyes the films are a trilogy. by definition, according to Peter Jackson their creator, and by the studio that produces and distributes them.
if someone writes 5 books and I combine them in to 1 film, the film is not a pentalogy.
it a new piece of work, based off the original in a new form
Peter Jackson didn't come up with the concept, Tolkien did, I am going to believe him over Jackson.
shareso again if I make a single film based off separate books crammed into it.
then my single film is now a pentalogy? please dont deny reality for your insane narrative. this is not healthy
I would have to see this film first. What I can say though is the Lord of the Rings movie is not a trilogy. I can attest to Lord of the Rings because I have seen it.
shareand yet Peter Jackson its creator, the producers and all the material disagree. you know, the people who actually made the trilogy and decided to release it as such.
you know "a group of three related novels, plays, films, operas, or albums."
the literal definition of a trilogy :)
unlike irrelevant you. who didn't, had no artistic say and contributed nothing :)
Please explain to me what about the narrative structure justifies it being a trilogy that the novel didn't have. Just saying it's a trilogy isn't going to cut it, little man.
share"A trilogy is a set of three works of art that are connected and can be seen either as a single work or as three individual works."
"a series of three books, plays, etc. written about the same situation or characters, forming a continuous story"
"a group of three related novels, plays, films, operas, or albums."
"a group of three related things."
"A trilogy is a series of three books, plays, or films that have the same subject or the same characters."
Oxford university, dictioanry.com, Cambridge university, collins dictionary are all wrong.
looks like you just got owned. UH OHH Spagettios
You didn't answer the question, my guess is you can't answer it and you are just deflecting like a coward. I accept your concession.
sharehahahah deflecting. by directly defining the terms we are discussing
"A trilogy is a set of three works of art that are connected and can be seen either as a single work or as three individual works."
"a series of three books, plays, etc. written about the same situation or characters, forming a continuous story"
"a group of three related novels, plays, films, operas, or albums."
"a group of three related things."
"A trilogy is a series of three books, plays, or films that have the same subject or the same characters."
You still haven't answered my question and I'm starting to think you are trolling me. Lord of the Rings is one movie.
shareive answered it three times now troll. because the narrative structure any more than the editing or sets. has LITERALLY NO EFFECT on the production and distribution of the film and format that Jackson and the studio chose. which was three films. which is a trilogy. by every definition. you face planted yet again
sharethat the three LOTR films arent a trilogy. he cant admit they are because that would lower the batman trilogy and he cant dare admit something can be better
sharePathetic. He shot himself in the foot though see. He said that list is what proves TDK trilogy is a great trilogy. Well that list has Godfather and LOTR trilogy rated above TDK trilogy. He then claims both of those are not trilogies. Okay if that is the case that means the list is not reliable and he did not prove anything. If we do take it as fact that means LOTR and Godfather are trilogies.
shareI mean I havent been here long but I did skim through some of the other threads. the guy is actually insane.
not even lying he seems to have mental issues related to this film and his defence of it.
Oh trust me I have only been here a short time but I have been warned of this guy by multiple users. I secretly wonder if perhaps he is Nolan's lawyer. Literally simply because he likes it he will gladly be blind to it's faults. The way he defends it it's as if Nolan is paying his rent or something.
shareimagine Nolans lawyer being that desperate. I think its actually worse if the guy is here for free and just this crazy
shareYou do realise that you claim ed that Nolan's Batman trilogy is the greatest trilogy ever and then posted proof that it isn't?
shareActually I did prove it was the greatest of all time learn to read
shareI read the site you posted a link to. Are you saying that the site you used as proof is wrong?
shareYou realize the very website which you listed has several trilogies rated above TDK trilogy. So how did you prove it was the best trilogy by citing that list? Enlighten me.
shareI already explained, learn how to read
shareNo you did not. So does that also mean Indiana Jones is a great trilogy because of that list then? You said if you eliminate Godfather, Lord of the Rings, and Toy Story which is not a trilogy anymore TDK trilogy would be the best. No actually, the original Star Wars trilogy still has you beat. So even with your criteria TDK trilogy still is not the best.
shareIndiana Jones is a good franchise but there are four of them now so it’s not a trilogy. Raiders is one of my all time favorites and temple is also a really good film. That’s where it ends though
shareSo then we can not count Star Wars as a trilogy anymore either then? Since there are technically 11 films now, 9 if you just count the main titles. Also how can I take this list seriously when you are highlighting errors in it and then saying it is legit proof? Seems to me like you pick and choose whatever suits your narrative.
shareStar Wars is not a trilogy however the original Star Wars is as is the prequels. You can subdivide it into trilogies you cannot do the same with Indiana Jones. Not picking and choosing at all in fact I’ve been very consistent that the dark Knight is the greatest trilogy ever
shareStar Wars is not a trilogy? You then say it is? Is it or not? Technically all 11 movies are part of the same continuity. This is not like Nolan's Batman and Burton's Batman where they do not take place in the same continuity. All the Star Wars films are connected by continuity. The originals, the prequels and the Disney films. Why can't you do the same with Indiana Jones? You are ignoring continuity with the Star Wars films by not including the prequels or the Disney films. Impossible to do with Indiana Jones? Please explain. Second okay even if I accept that, that list you provided has the original Star Wars ranked above TDK trilogy. So how is that proof that TDK trilogy is the best ever when that is ranked above it on the very list you provided? You are picking and choosing. You just said the original Star Wars can be subdivided into a trilogy well by that list it is ranked higher than TDK trilogy. So how did that list prove TDK trilogy is the best?
shareI said the original trilogy was a trilogy you moron, Star Wars as a whole is not. The original trilogy told a story while each individual film stood on its own. Indiana Jones is four films. I have been very consistent and I clearly explained why the dark Knight is the best. You not knowing how to read is your own fault
shareOkay then the original Indiana Jones trilogy is a trilogy see how that works? You don't get to omit the other Star Wars films which take place in the same continuity but then omit Indiana Jones because there is a fourth film. Even with that said though okay then the original Star Wars trilogy still outranks TDK trilogy, since we are going off that list you claimed was proof TDK trilogy was the greatest ever. So I ask again how is that list proof that TDK trilogy is the greatest ever when the original Star Wars was ranked above it?
shareSo then the original James Bond (Dr No, From Russia With Love and Goldfinger) are a trilogy then right? You are just cherry picking whatever you have to to fit your agenda, it’s embarrassing. I already explained this to you repeatedly, I’m getting bored debating with someone who thinks 2+2=5
shareEven said though bud lets say you are right. Okay Indiana Jones is not a trilogy, the original Star Wars is a trilogy by your own admission. On that list you provided it has Star Wars above TDK trilogy. We omitted LOTR, Godfather, and Toy Story. However that still leaves the original Star Wars trilogy above TDK trilogy on that list. So how did that list prove TDK trilogy was the greatest trilogy ever?
shareThat's assuming we're omitting LotR, Godfather, and Toy Story.
Also, this list has it at number 10:
https://screencrush.com/best-movie-trilogies/
This one it's number 8:
https://www.goliath.com/movies/the-10-best-trilogies-in-movie-history/
Is there any list available that places it at number 1?
I already explained that ROTJ was a weak entry while TDK had 3 strong entries.
shareI personally love Return of the Jedi.
shareI like it too but compared to TDKR and episodes 4 and 5 it doesn’t measure up. There is far too much kiddie nonsense in the middle, it doesn’t get really good until the third act
shareFor sure, it is my least favourite of the three OT Star Wars films, but it does contain amazing stuff like the final confrontation between Luke and Vader, and although disconnected from the story a bit, the opening set piece at Jabba's palace is thrilling, Luke's ploys are fun, and the unveiling of the green sabre is cool. There's tonnes of other good stuff, too, and while it is lesser than IV and V, those are *high* bars. VI is still a great movie, even with problems.
For my money, I prefer it to TDKR and like it a lot more, but that's my preference.
Everything with Luke, Vader and the emperor was Star Wars at its very best, the remainder of the third act was top notch, what came before it was pretty disposable and Ford and fisher were clearly bored out of their minds. It’s nowhere near the level of TDKR
shareYes, the finale was as grand as it gets. I think because of how suitably and satisfactorily it wound things up, that does a lot for me for why it's such a great third entry.
I also like the first act at Jabba's. It's a bit of a side-quest, sure, but it's still riveting and has tonnes of fun with the tricks within tricks, the "gang" getting back together, and so forth.
After that, we get to see Yoda some more, have the commando mission on Endor - it's good stuff. Yeah, the Ewoks were designed to sell toys, but they don't bring it down that much for me.
As for TDKR, I find that film to be highly flawed and while it has a few scenes or moments of brilliance, those moments are too far apart for my taste, and the best I can say about it is that it's uneven. That was my experience with it, anyway.
The first act in Jabba's doesn't play much of a role in the rest of the story, and honestly once Leia comes into the picture it doesn't serve much of a purpose other than what a porno would.
We saw Yoda for one scene and it wasn't even a good scene.
TDKR was about as epic as it comes, everything about it was amazing, Selina was a good love interest, Bane and Talia are very iconic villains, the sewer fight was rated the best superhero duel ever, the escape from the pit was filmmaking at its best and props to Nolan for taking something as fantasy like as the Lazarus Pit and adapting it to the real world, it perfectly symbolizes Bruce's character arc. A lot of people don't understand why Bruce was able to make it out of the pit like arflexit and I had to educate him, what a pity. There was nothing uneven about it. It was by far my greatest theater experience ever.
Yeah, I know the first act is sort of a side-quest. It's still super-fun, though.
Leia gets to rock the speeder bike! That jungle chase is awesome.
I liked the Yoda scene...
As for TDKR, it had some epic parts, but...jeez, I was disappointed.
Selina wasn't used terribly well and the romance between her and Batman was developed quite poorly.
Sewer fight was good, yes. I did like when Batman chucks some distracto-bombs and Bane just stands there. That was cool.
It had good scenes, but not enough. It's pervaded with sloppy writing, it's overstuffed, so it can't take its time with stuff that needs time to develop, everything felt pretty perfunctory to me.
I dunno. It was a letdown.
There are so many messed-up moments like, "My real name is..." Dick Grayson! "Robin!" ...oh. They went for this fan-service tag on the end and they didn't even stick the landing there.
It's very cool and groovy that you had such a great time watching it, and more power to you there. For me, though, it was a disappointment, didn't live up to the previous films, and was - yeah - uneven.
Blake never said his name was sick Grayson and he isn’t Robin, his first name is Robin but he’s not the literal Robin character. I loved the romance between Selina and Bruce , I didn’t find it sloppy at all and the entire pit sequence was filmmaking at its very best
shareYeah, and I thought that doing a shout-out/reference to the Robin character but not actually following through and sticking the landing - that was stupid. I rolled my eyes so hard I barely got them out of my head.
I just didn't get into the Selina/Bruce relationship the way that I got flavour from the same relationship in Batman Returns, for instance.
We disagree on the sloppiness, I guess. The finale of Casablanca, Rear Window, and Seven Samurai are filmmaking at its finest. The Dark Knight Rises was...not.
They did follow through with it, Blake’s first name is Robin and he assisted Batman kind of like Robin does. Selina was a great love interest and was certainly stronger than Rachel Dawes. Those are also great moves aside from Read Window, Vertigo and TDKR are better
shareFollowing through would have been naming him Dick Grayson.
Selina was stronger than Rachel in some ways, sure, although the backstory was pretty strong with Rachel. It just lacked something.
There are lots of great movies. In my opinion, TDKR is not one of them.
That is not the point though. You openly said that list is proof that TDK trilogy is the best trilogy ever. Original Star Wars trilogy ranks above TDK trilogy on that list you provided. So how is that proof it is the best ever?
shareAnd I explained my reasoning, if you don't accept it then fine but at least acknowledge the facts.
shareThere are no facts with subjective taste or personal criteria.
shareYou explained your reasoning. Key word there your! You said THE list you provided proved TDK trilogy was the greatest trilogy ever. That is a contradicting statement since that list has the original Star Wars trilogy rated above it. These are facts. You considering it the best trilogy ever is not what we are debating. We are debating whether that list proves it is the best trilogy ever and that list which you said proved it was the best trilogy ever has Star Wars above it. So what you said was untrue. That list did not prove TDK trilogy is the best ever.
You personally think it is and are entitled to think so. That list does not support that notion. It has nothing to do with whether I accept your reasoning or not, it has to do with what you said was solid concrete proof that TDK trilogy was the best ever is not supporting that claim. It proved nothing actually. If that list had TDK trilogy at number 1 and then you said according to this list it is you would have a platform to stand on, unfortunately though that is not the case.
This has been clearly explained to you and it is apparent to me now that you are trolling, I have no wish to argue with someone who think 2 plus 2 equals 5
shareLol I thought so. Next time you provide a list to prove TDK trilogy is the best make sure it is ranked number 1 on the list you are citing. Epic fail!
shareI honestly dont know what else to tell you, I have effectively demonstrated my premise but you are just blinded by your hatred and bias, it’s pathetic and ridiculous . By all objective measures TDK trilogy is one of the greatest trilogies of all time and TDKR is one of the greatest conclusions to any trilogy and IMO they are the greatest
shareNo I found out you contradicted yourself. Where did I ever deny it being considered a good trilogy? Never did. You said that list you provided proved it to be the best trilogy ever made. Not one of THE best. Problem is on the list you provided it is not number one several trilogies on that list placed above TDK trilogy. We omitted the ones you chose to yet Star Wars is still ranked above it. Admit it you contradicted yourself by saying that list proved TDK trilogy to be the best when it is not number 1 on that list.
shareAnd I explained why TDK was better than the 4 ranked above it, heck two of them aren't even trilogies. I didn't contradict myself at all
shareListen to what you are saying. You explained which says it is according to your criteria. If you said this list proves TDK trilogy is the best and it was at number 1 you would have a case. We are debating how the list proves it to be the best not what your personal opinion is. According to that list Star Wars is a better trilogy.
shareI already explained how it proves TDK is #1, if you don't understand this by this point then it's your own fault.
shareNo you didn't. Toy Story, Lord of the Rings, Godfather and Star Wars rank above it on that list you provided. We disqualified LOTR, Toy Story, and Godfather. That still leaves Star Wars. So um? We are using your criteria now though not that list's criteria. If we go by that list's criteria it is not even close to being number 1. Therefore the list is not reliable according to your criteria.
shareHe keeps citing the evidence you provided.
You said Star Wars was a trilogy and it's ranked higher than the Dark Knight trilogy on the list you cited as evidence. So how is Dark Knight number one?
Because return of the Jedi was weak, the dark Knight started out amazing and IMO it progressively got better
shareSee, and I feel differently. For me, the Dark Knight Trilogy starts strong, and I love The Dark Knight - great movie - but Batman Begins is really, really great, too, and I think underrated. So, while it's a step up for me, it's not a huge step up. And I didn't care for TDKR much at all - oases of brilliance amid a desert of frustration and missed potential.
So, while Star Wars, for me, does decline, it's not as sharp a decline as with the third entry of the Dark Knight saga.
Not at all, TDK trilogy gets better as it progresses and considering it started with Batman begins that is saying something . TDKR is easily the greatest conclusion to any trilogy
shareOoh, I definitely disagree with that. TDKR can't easily take that from some other entries. The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly; Return of the Jedi; Red (or White, or Blue - whichever order one watches The Three Colours Trilogy in); there are lots of entries that give TDKR a run for its money. I don't think it's easily the greatest conclusion - particularly because I don't really care for the movie much at all!
shareWell I haven't seen those so I guess I can't attest to them. TDKR blows away everything third entry I have ever seen.
shareThe Three Colours Trilogy is one of the best uses of celluloid I've seen. All three are great. White was maybe the weakest, but still excellent.
As for the Dollars Trilogy, man, these are film history in addition to being brilliant works in their own right.
I highly, highly recommend them all.
Awesome although I will say I have never been a fan of westerns
shareIf you're not a fan of westerns, maybe Dollars trilogy is not for you. On the other hand, if you like samurai movies, Leone borrowed so much from Kurosawa that you might dig them. They're amazing movies, though, and I think they probably float above their genre's restrictions.
shareStar Wars has fourteen films in its saga:
Phantom Menace
Attack of the Clones
The Clone Wars (film)
Revenge of the Sith
Solo
Rogue One
A New Hope
The Empire Strikes Back
Caravan of Courage
Ewoks: Battle for Endor
Return of the Jedi
The Force Awakens
The Last Jedi
The Rise of Skywalker
Fifteen if you want to count the Holiday Special, but it seems like that's probably not part of the universe...
You can count the ot as a trilogy because they tell a coherent story from beginning to end and you don’t need the other films to make sense of it, however within the trilogy each episode can also stand on its own, the same cannot be said for lord of the rings
shareI suppose that's a matter of perspective. If you consider Star Wars to be Luke Skywalker's story (I do), then the OT works as a trilogy. But with the PT, they're arguably as much about Vader as Luke, and then with the ST, it's possible to think of them as the Palpatine Saga, in which case a full story isn't given with the OT alone since the Republic's fall and rise isn't chronicled completely.
shareAs I said the ot makes sense without the other as does each individual film within the ot. It tells a constant narrative but each film can stand on its own. Indiana Jones is like James Bond, each movie is just its own separate thing and since Raiders through last crusade aren’t really connected then there’s no reason to separate the first three from crystal skull. Indiana Jones doesn’t tell an over lapping story, lord of the rings doesn’t have three entires that can stand on their own, ot Star Wars and the dark Knight however do both
shareI mean, I'm just not sure I agree with such narrow criteria for "trilogy", going off of dictionary definitions, etymology, the evolution of the word (it used to basically be specific to tragedies, for instance), and the common parlance - I just don't define it under those parametres.
shareWell these are the criteria, I didn't write them.
shareBut other people - including dictionary entries - have evaluated the word differently, so from what I can tell, either you're getting your criteria from another source (which?) or you are writing it yourself.
shareI have not seen one definition that directly applies to LOTR, you are just connecting the dots in whatever direction you need to to get to the conclusion you want, it’s dishonest and creationists do the same thing
shareYou said, "As I said the ot makes sense without the other as does each individual film within the ot. It tells a constant narrative but each film can stand on its own."
I replied that I didn't agree with those criteria. Those criteria don't align with dictionary definitions of "trilogy", so those are requirements that you have for "trilogy" that other people disagree with. You have invented extra elements that the dictionary does not require.
I'm not the one connecting dots in my favour.
I have no problem with you not considering Lord of the Rings a trilogy; that's your prerogative, go nuts. But I'm not changing the definition to suit my beliefs.
oh look V for vendetta was based off a trilogy of comics.
I guess the single film is now a trilogy! makes no sense
By your logic it does.
shareno by your logic. which claims that if the source material was one format (ie 10 volumes) then another adaptation of it is therefore automatically that many as well....
which makes no sense except to a crazy person like yourself.
again the LOTR is a trilogy because it is three films. by DEFINITIOn its a trilogy. by every definition of trilogy ive found.
you are wrong , but not man enough to admit it
No I didn't, I said that if the source material isn't then the movie would have to do something different that justifies it being a trilogy, since you can't explain how the movie constitutes a trilogy when the novel didn't then it's not a trilogy.
Those "3 films" are not films, they are just pieces of one film, it would be like if I fan editted Pulp Fiction into its 3 segments, there's no difference.
Please, little boy. I have demolished you, man up and admit that I'm right.
which it did. it released as three films. aka a trilogy by every single definition of the word. doesnt matter what Tolkien intended for his book or original story.
again a film based off 4 books is not a quadrilogy. it did something different than the books. it came out as a solo film not four. your brain is malfunctioning
"A trilogy is a set of three works of art that are connected and can be seen either as a single work or as three individual works."
oh look! a trilogy. time for your meds
And yet you still haven't proven that's the objective criteria of a trilogy, you are just making this up. Finding one random definition on google isn't going to cut it. You still have to explain what about the movie makes it a trilogy that the book didn't have.
By your logic it is a quadrilogy, heck if I just say it's a quadrilogy that should be enough for you.
First prove that definition is the objective standard, until you do all you've done is pull crap out of your anus.
finding one random definition. aka 5 definitions from the most respected sources of them.
hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah. enjoy your lonely life troll. get attention elsewhere you sad old man
"Letter 136
P.S. I have given some thought to the matter of sub-titles for the volumes, which you thought were desirable. But I do not find it easy, as the 'books', though they must be grouped in pairs, are not really paired; and the middle pair (III/IV) are not really related.
Would it not do if the 'book-titles' were used: e.g. The Lord of the Rings: Vol. I The Ring Sets out and The Ring Goes South; Vol. II The Treason of Isengard, and The Ring goes East; Vol. III The War of the Ring, and The End of the Third Age'?"
Tolkien refers to the Lord of the Rings as six books in three volumes. Is it six books?
It's one story broken up into 6 acts, it is certainly not a trilogy.
shareBut Tolkien said it was six books in that quote; Tolkien said six books.
shareRight, but they told one story so it's basically a story broken into 6 acts, regardless it's not a trilogy. Your quote even says that Volumes III and IV are not relatable.
shareNo, it doesn't.
"...the 'books', though they must be grouped in pairs, are not really paired; and the middle pair (III/IV) are not really related."
He refers to them as "volumes" only when talking about the groupings of the six books into pairs for publication.
And if by his own admission they aren't related then that disqualifies it from being a trilogy. You are really drowning here.
shareSo, then if they're not related, then how are they one book or one story? Wouldn't that make them multiple entries in a series?
shareSometimes events in a story that are not directly connected to each other can still tie together an overarching theme, such as the 3 segments of Pulp Fiction, or the subplot about Tony's job and the subplot about Tony's brother in Saturday Night Fever.
shareYou said you take Tolkien's word, his definitions.
Tolkien said, "Six books."
And you said that book III and IV aren't really related therefore the narrative of Lord of the Rings is much like Pulp Fiction, it has subdivided acts or "books" which don't directly impact each other but tie together a universal theme or idea, neither are trilogies.
shareI didn't, Tolkien did.
So, these stories don't directly impact each other and are published in multiple books, but they're one story?
I already explained how they constitute a story, you haven't explained convincingly why it's a trilogy, in fact you admitted that it's not a trilogy.
shareDon't put words in my mouth, I haven't said anything here about its being or not being a trilogy, and I don't know why you think that, since I've only asked you questions to clarify your statements and quoted Tolkien. I haven't made any statements on my own behalf in this conversation.
shareThe novelizations of the original Star Wars trilogy was published as 3 separate books but are now available compiled into one single book. Does this mean the original movie trilogy is no longer a trilogy?
shareShe was the main villain, not Bane.
shareI think it’s about on the same level as Thomas Wayne’s death in Batman Begins. It seems like people pay more attention to this one because the actress has won an Oscar.
shareTo be fair, there's a big difference between a secondary character like Thomas who's death motivates the hero, and a primary antagonist like Talia who's death is an integral part of the climax of the film and the drama of the plot.
share[deleted]
Yeah, she's been phoning it in since her Oscar.
shareGo watch Inception, Rust and Bone, and “Two Days, One Night” and then come back and repeat that comment.
This film was not Marion Cotillard’s best film by a long shot, but she’s a phenomenal actress, and certainly hasn’t been phoning it in at all since her Oscar. Her eyes can emit more emotion than most actors’ and actresses’ entire performances.
People also forget that English is her second language. Go see some of her French films. She’s brilliant.