Could Batman be the trilogy of our generation?

I'm sorry. This is ridiculous. The first and second batman movies were good. But to call it possibly the greatest trilogy of our generation is absurd. It can be reasonably argued that it's not even the best movie of this summer. Nor necessarily the best superhero movie of the summer.

(Personally, I thought Iron Man was a better movie with better direction but a worse story. While Batman had a better story but was a more poorly directed movie. Therefore I call it a tie.)

It's a good summer movie that's better than the most comic films. But between the countless threads and hype, it's not the fucking Godfather. Both Batman movies have plenty of flaws. They're good movies.,even bordering on great. But not the fucking greatest movies of all time, or even "this" generation. Let alone greatest trilogy. Do you even realize that by generation you mean in the last 25 years. Can you really say a future Batman trilogy is the best movie series in the past 25 years? Just looking recently, you got...

LotR
Spider-man
Harry Potter
Infernal Affairs
Bourne Trilogy
John Ryan Trilogy (PG, Hunt for Ro, etc)

And that's off the top of my head. Each one of those could be argued to be better than the Batman trilogy. I'm not saying they are. I'm sayign they could be argued.

I think it was Lilly Tomlin who said, "It's a curse to be good in a sea or mediocrity." And that's what we have here.

This madness has to end now.

picard.jpg


"The line must be drawn here! No further!"
 
[quote name='rapsodist']I'm assuming you mean "not a chance" in regard to Bourne being the best trilogy of our generation, which is not at all what I meant. I simply used it as an example of a successful trilogy based around one character rather than an ensemble cast of heroes.[/QUOTE]

yes. i enjoyed the movies too. its just not the trilogy of our generation.

[quote name='kennistond']I think the Bourne trilogy should get much more recognition that it has.

Ultimatum was one of my favorite movies of all time.[/QUOTE]

god ultimatum was the worst. people complain about the long ending in return of the king... THATS ALL ULTIMATUM WAS! 90 minutes of ending...
 
The Spiderman Trilogy can't hold a candle to the Batman reboot and its sequel, imho. Christopher Nolan has brought philosophical idealism into the world of super heroes with vigor and gusto that I have never seen in such films. While the first two Spiderman movies were pretty decent movies and definitely enjoyable, they were still nothing truly exceptional. Spiderman 3 setting all those (at the time, hello dark knight) box office records just made me wince. I like Sam Raimi, but god, that was a pretty lame and awful movie. Emo Spiderman was, frankly, not all that appealing.

While I personally loved the first two BttF movies and am glad to see it receive much praise and recognition in this thread (I've easily seen each at least 20 times,whereas these days I almost never watch a movie more than 2-3 times in total), the third was pure and utter tripe in my opinion. If this was an isolated opinion, I could understand that I was in the minority, but the same sentiments are shared as well by about 20+ people that I know. The Wild West + BttF was just a disaster waiting to happen. I understand the inherent necessity to create a happy ending for the Doc...but I mean come on...

@Koggit: Would you seriously put Jurassic Park, X-Men, and Pirates of the Carribean in the same class as the original Indiana Jones trilogy and LotR trilogy? Really? If that's the case, then I can understand why a quality trilogy is of little importance to you. Medicore trilogies are still available in spades. I'm not a LotR nut, just like I am also not a Star Wars nut, but I can at least appreciate the quality of film-making that went into those two franchises.

I think it just takes too many quality ingredients (smart writers, great director(s), talented cast) to make a franchise be successful and produce quality films for 3+ films running in a row. And in recent memory, it seems almost like the triple crown in horse racing. There will be 2 very good movies, followed by one in the medicore-disaster range. That's why I marvel at quality trilogies which, in my mind, are very few and far between.
 
did anyone see the episode of Attack of the Show on G4TV, where Chris Gore talks about how the third movie should be like the start of the comic book "The Dark Knight Returns". Its when batman is pretty old and comes back to save the gotham.
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']I'm sorry. This is ridiculous. The first and second batman movies were good. But to call it possibly the greatest trilogy of our generation is absurd. It can be reasonably argued that it's not even the best movie of this summer. Nor necessarily the best superhero movie of the summer.

(Personally, I thought Iron Man was a better movie with better direction but a worse story. While Batman had a better story but was a more poorly directed movie. Therefore I call it a tie.)

It's a good summer movie that's better than the most comic films. But between the countless threads and hype, it's not the fucking Godfather. Both Batman movies have plenty of flaws. They're good movies.,even bordering on great. But not the fucking greatest movies of all time, or even "this" generation. Let alone greatest trilogy. Do you even realize that by generation you mean in the last 25 years. Can you really say a future Batman trilogy is the best movie series in the past 25 years? Just looking recently, you got...

LotR
Spider-man
Harry Potter
Infernal Affairs
Bourne Trilogy
John Ryan Trilogy (PG, Hunt for Ro, etc)

And that's off the top of my head. Each one of those could be argued to be better than the Batman trilogy. I'm not saying they are. I'm sayign they could be argued.

I think it was Lilly Tomlin who said, "It's a curse to be good in a sea or mediocrity." And that's what we have here.

This madness has to end now.

picard.jpg


"The line must be drawn here! No further!"[/quote]
i dont think many people kno about infernal affairs, which by the way is like my favorite trilogy of any kind:D. I was like in 9-10 yrs old when i saw the first one (im 15 now) and even then i thought it was amazing. But i dont kno of anybody that isnt asian who has seen it..... byt the way i think departed killed the infernal affairs story. Sorry about that people, back to batman;).
 
[quote name='gotrice415510']did anyone see the episode of Attack of the Show on G4TV, where Chris Gore talks about how the third movie should be like the start of the comic book "The Dark Knight Returns". Its when batman is pretty old and comes back to save the gotham.[/quote]

What? That's ridiculous of Gore to bring up DKR. This Batman is still green! Nearly everything that happens in The Dark Knight is a first for the character; the film depicts his first battle with the Joker and the origin story for Two-Face. Heck, Gordon just got the commissioner title. That's how early this story is! We've got a long way to go before anyone should entertain the idea of an graying Batman.

[quote name='gotrice415510']i dont think many people kno about infernal affairs, which by the way is like my favorite trilogy of any kind:D. I was like in 9-10 yrs old when i saw the first one (im 15 now) and even then i thought it was amazing. But i dont kno of anybody that isnt asian who has seen it..... byt the way i think departed killed the infernal affairs story. Sorry about that people, back to batman;).[/quote]

Ah, the Infernal Affairs trilogy... I'd forgotten about that. That is a good candidate but I don't know if people want to include foreign films.

I really thought that the second and third films would disappoint me. I never expected them to be on the same level as the first film, but I really thought they would disappoint me. Replacing Tony Leung and Andy Lau for IA II with teen heartthrobs? Yech. But somehow it all worked out. And third movies rarely perform well. That was actually true of IA III three-quarters of the way through. But the final act brought it all together, and I begrudingly admit that it made up for the dreck that came before it.
 
I have yet to see Infernal Affairs but I have wanted to since The Departed came out. As for the trilogy of this generation I would have to say The Jersey Trilogy. Ok all jokeing aside I really dont think we have one and dont think we ever will. I tried to read this thread before I posted seeing how it is only 3 pages however I couldn't . All I was reading is how great LOTR is or how much it sucked. I have to say I never saw all three.

I saw the first one when it come out on dvd and have inteded to pick them up at some point in time when buying them is cheaper then renting them or when they come out on BD I may think about it. However i could not make it past the first 20 minutes of the first one. I had to stop watching it. After a few days later I thought I would give it another shot and forced myself to watch all or atleast half of it. I have had to force my self to view other media in the past and some I was glad I did. The first Silent Hill game is one of them. Could not stand the first 20 minutes of the game. However a week or so later I made my self play it. I'm glad I did. I had hoped LOTR might be the same. I don't know when I fell asleep but it knocked me right out. When I woke up later much later it was still on. I think it was just about to the end.

So back to our generations trilogy. I don't think we will ever have one. Atleast not unless they remake the first 3 star wars and by that i'm talking about eps 4,5 and 6. I would say I don't see that happening however with the current state of hollywood it could and the current state that it is in is also why our generation will never have a trilogy.
 
The third Infernal Affairs was kind of crappy.

In all I prefered The Departed as I felt it got all the interesting parts of the plot into one movie and made changes to cut out most of the stuff I didn't' like in Infernal Affairs.
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']I'm sorry. This is ridiculous. The first and second batman movies were good. But to call it possibly the greatest trilogy of our generation is absurd. It can be reasonably argued that it's not even the best movie of this summer. Nor necessarily the best superhero movie of the summer.

(Personally, I thought Iron Man was a better movie with better direction but a worse story. While Batman had a better story but was a more poorly directed movie. Therefore I call it a tie.)

It's a good summer movie that's better than the most comic films. But between the countless threads and hype, it's not the fucking Godfather. Both Batman movies have plenty of flaws. They're good movies.,even bordering on great. But not the fucking greatest movies of all time, or even "this" generation. Let alone greatest trilogy. Do you even realize that by generation you mean in the last 25 years. Can you really say a future Batman trilogy is the best movie series in the past 25 years? Just looking recently, you got...

LotR
Spider-man
Harry Potter
Infernal Affairs
Bourne Trilogy
John Ryan Trilogy (PG, Hunt for Ro, etc)

And that's off the top of my head. Each one of those could be argued to be better than the Batman trilogy. I'm not saying they are. I'm sayign they could be argued.

I think it was Lilly Tomlin who said, "It's a curse to be good in a sea or mediocrity." And that's what we have here.

This madness has to end now.

picard.jpg


"The line must be drawn here! No further!"[/quote]

Oh I get it. It is a joke. Almost missed the sarcasm.
 
Like many others said, I'd say Lord of the Rings is the only contender thus far and it still has miles to go before it reaches Star Wars levels of cultural immersion.

In fact, as much as I like the movies, the LOTR books have had much more influence on the world in general.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']I still don't see why so many of y'all seem to think our generation needs a trilogy to call its "own."[/quote]

Because the magic number is 3, and we're in the 3rd millenium, and we need a 3rd epic trilogy besides SW and LotR.
 
[quote name='sendme']I tried to read this thread before I posted seeing how it is only 3 pages however I couldn't . All I was reading is how great LOTR is or how much it sucked. I have to say I never saw all three.

I saw the first one when it come out on dvd and have inteded to pick them up at some point in time when buying them is cheaper then renting them or when they come out on BD I may think about it. However i could not make it past the first 20 minutes of the first one. I had to stop watching it. After a few days later I thought I would give it another shot and forced myself to watch all or atleast half of it. I have had to force my self to view other media in the past and some I was glad I did. The first Silent Hill game is one of them. Could not stand the first 20 minutes of the game. However a week or so later I made my self play it. I'm glad I did. I had hoped LOTR might be the same. I don't know when I fell asleep but it knocked me right out. When I woke up later much later it was still on. I think it was just about to the end.[/quote]

For such an impatient guy, you sure expect us to read a whole lot. :lol:

But seriously, I'm glad you realized that LOTR moves past the Shire, aka Hobbitsville. I loved that segment but I can totally understand how someone might be watching for the first half hour and think, "Dwarf farmers? This is not what I signed up for..." I'm not sure what made you fall asleep after that though... Are medieval fantasies just not your thing?
 
I just couldn't get into the movie. I guess it is just not my thing. I don't even remember much of it because I was distracted by anything in the room.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']None of those you list has had near the impact on movies and culture that star wars had. So yes, Star Wars was once in a generation. Hell it still hasn't been topped in terms of a trilogy (or single movie) having such wide spread appeal and impact on the movie industry.[/QUOTE]

Star Wars's importance is more than its story or merchandiscing, Star Wars changed the way movies are made.

Pre-Star wars movies were made with a target demographic of people in their late 20's to early 40's.

Post Star-Wars, movies were made with a target demographic of 12-25 year olds, the people who are more likely to see a film more than once AND be influenced by merchandising tie-in's. By comparion, today...movies are made with a target demographic of WEEE-TARDS who want lots of CGI and..well..a story is nice but not really necessary. :)

Also remember even the concept of the "summer blockbuster" had only been invented a few years earlier when JAWS hit the screen. Kinda freaky to think before that "summer blockbuster" meant nothing to anyone....

Don't get me wrong, the first time I saw Star Wars in a theatre I was 7 years old.....it absolutely, fundamentally blew me (and everyone I knew, girls and boys) away. It was like our entire lives had been made up of Disney movies and weird "dramas" that were obviously for our parents...but Star Wars came out...and it was over the top.

It wasn't a kids movie, it was for adults...with adult overtones....but...kids could see it, kids could buy into the stuff that the adults ignored. Its like Spongebob, it works on alot of levels :D
(The first time I saw the burning skeletons of Aunt Beru and..err..Uncle whowever it was like 'OMG! They killed them and tossed their bodies into the fire? THATS COOOLD!".

Star Wars was very, mucho super important......but I think LOTR trumps it in sheer spectacle..maybe because its more for adults than SW was. Lets face it, by Return of the Jedi...they were really pushing the preschool stuff even WITH the vader/luke clash at the end.

But there I go again, pulling out my NERD cards..... :p

Batman is fantastic picturemaking, but Batman Begins..while good..was fairly ordinary.
 
[quote name='HeadRusch']Star Wars was very, mucho super important......but I think LOTR trumps it in sheer spectacle..maybe because its more for adults than SW was. Lets face it, by Return of the Jedi...they were really pushing the preschool stuff even WITH the vader/luke clash at the end.[/QUOTE]

Spectacle isn't everything. The Lord of the Rings movies were a lot longer than they needed to be - do you really need ten hours to tell that story, even more if you factor in the extended cuts on DVD?

More importantly, though, they weren't easy to follow if you hadn't read the books. I could be in a minority, but I had a hell of a time trying to tell Merry and Pippin apart, and the same for Aragon and Boromir. Regardless of that, though, trying to keep track of a nine person fellowship and who knows how many plot points and minor characters made my head spin. The battles sort of ran together, too, though that might just be because they were all "orc army vs. good guys" in the end.

Besides, the fact that the movies don't really stand alone at all might be enough to disqualify it as a trilogy - it may be in three pieces, but it's one ten hour long film. Go ahead - watch The Two Towers without having seen the first movie or read the books, and try to make sense of it. With most of the other trilogies being discussed here, that wouldn't be an issue, but it is for LOTR.

For me, a trilogy needs to have three strong pieces - movies that work well on their own but combine to form a greater whole. As odd as it sounds, I'm thinking the best trilogy we might see in the next few years is Toy Story. The first two movies were spectacular, and the second one is arguably better than the original - definitely a rare thing in Hollywood. If the third Toy Story film is up to the same level of quality when it comes out in 2010, I can't think of another series that could challenge it.
 
"Spectacle" is a good way to describe the Star Wars series. Sure, there's a lot of flash, but it all just lacks substance. The prequels were just horrendous. I like to compare the prequels to Halo as I just don't understand the praise it gets. Sometimes, I think fans praise the prequels just because they're in denial and want to end on a positive note.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I've never read the LOTR books, but i understood the movies just fine.:whistle2:?[/QUOTE]

Neither have I and I understood them as well.

Actually, I tried to read one of the books a few years ago, but found it to be pretty boring.
 
I Lump Star wars (Original trilogy) in with Indiana Jones (First 3...Crystal Skull is a stain of doom), all about adventure and some really cool shit. But that's about it.

LOTR ....No.

I'm looking forward to the Daniel Craig/James Bond saga...Casino Royale was fucken TOPS and Quantum of Solace is looking better than I expected.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']LOTR sucked.

My wife and I exclaimed, "That's 3 hours of our lives we'll never get back!" after FOTR amidst a horde of 30 year old virgins and retainer jockeys.[/QUOTE]
:applause::bow::applause::bow::applause::bow:

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, I sat through all three. I guess I really am a masochist.

As per a great line in Clerks 2 "Oh, I'm crazy? Those fuck'in hobbit movies were boring as hell. All it was, was a bunch of people walking, three movies of people walking to a fucking volcano."

But as to the topic at hand. I just hope they don't screw up the next movie.
 
Raz Al'Ghoul, or whatever his name is, was a shitty villain to throw on a casual viewer. They were like Raz Al'Who?
 
[quote name='crunchb3rry']Raz Al'Ghoul, or whatever his name is, was a shitty villain to throw on a casual viewer. They were like Raz Al'Who?[/QUOTE]

And Scarecrow was a better choice?

Scarecrow and Ra's Al Ghul let Chris Nolan differentiate himself from the string of Batman movies Tim Burton kicked off, starting his own version of the character without having to worry about being compared to what Jack Nicholson or Cesar Romero did in the past. The villains he chose worked wonderfully in the context of the script, but it's a lot easier to sell "Batman vs. the Joker" than it is to sell "Batman vs. Semi-Immortal Dude you probably won't recognize" when you're making a summer blockbuster.

If you think about it, though, it didn't hurt Spider-Man either - Doctor Octopus probably would've been the obvious choice, because he's much more recognizable than the Green Goblin.
 
[quote name='Koggit']
zoolander-school.jpg

The world is at least... three times that old[/QUOTE]

You realize this is a thread about Batman, not debating how old the world is, right? Vs. forum is the other way.
 
[quote name='docvinh']You realize this is a thread about Batman, not debating how old the world is, right? Vs. forum is the other way.[/QUOTE]

He doesn't actually believe the world is only 2,000 years old, there's no debate, I'm just correcting his language.
 
[quote name='Koggit']He doesn't actually believe the world is only 2,000 years old, there's no debate, I'm just correcting his language.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I notice you go around correcting everyone a lot in all the threads. I'm just saying that it's off topic in most of the threads.
 
[quote name='Gothic Walrus']Spectacle isn't everything. The Lord of the Rings movies were a lot longer than they needed to be - do you really need ten hours to tell that story, even more if you factor in the extended cuts on DVD?
[/QUOTE]

Apparrantly...that answer is yes.

More importantly, though, they weren't easy to follow if you hadn't read the books. I could be in a minority, but I had a hell of a time trying to tell Merry and Pippin apart, and the same for Aragon and Boromir.
Click to expand...

You mean aside from being completely different actors in completely different clothes with completely different accents, yes I can see them being like freakin identical twins. :p I never read the books before I saw the movies, and I didn't have that particular problem. Were you going to the movies all crazy on the junk? I get loaded I can't even keep Sesame Street straight...

PS: The books are flat-out terrible. I hate to say it, but its true....the movies were made with a very serious nod to the adults.....the books are written clearly for 12 year old british kids. I can barely get through them, what with the Elves always skipping along and singing, and every other minor character breaking into song and poetry...thank Khrist they didn't bring that aspect of the books into the movies.

Regardless of that, though, trying to keep track of a nine person fellowship and who knows how many plot points and minor characters made my head spin. The battles sort of ran together, too, though that might just be because they were all "orc army vs. good guys" in the end.
Click to expand...

Ok you're starting to scare me now...seriously not everyone is going to buy into the D&D shit, so I can grant you that, and I agree that by the time the third movie was into its last hour..out of what..5???...I too was a little tired of the whole Good versus Bad thing. It was like "ok...enough already...enough...80 billion orks have died....we get it....lets get to some finale already".

Besides, the fact that the movies don't really stand alone at all might be enough to disqualify it as a trilogy - it may be in three pieces, but it's one ten hour long film. Go ahead - watch The Two Towers without having seen the first movie or read the books, and try to make sense of it. With most of the other trilogies being discussed here, that wouldn't be an issue, but it is for LOTR.

For me, a trilogy needs to have three strong pieces - movies that work well on their own but combine to form a greater whole. As odd as it sounds, I'm thinking the best trilogy we might see in the next few years is Toy Story. The first two movies were spectacular, and the second one is arguably better than the original - definitely a rare thing in Hollywood. If the third Toy Story film is up to the same level of quality when it comes out in 2010, I can't think of another series that could challenge it.
Click to expand...

Well why are we limiting ourselves to "Trilogies"...technically Star Wars is now 6 films, Star Trek has...what...10 under its belt? Friday the 13th has like 20 :p

Star Wars may be fluff, but its good fluff.....I'm not a drooling fanboy 8 year old anymore like I was when that shit dropped, so today I can look back at Star Wars with fond memories...but about 10 minutes into the first film I'm looking for something with deeper characters.

I have to give the nod to LOTR as the most important film trilogy released so far, the sheer scope of the films is what set them apart...*all* the stories going on and all the work they put into them to make that middle earth world "Come Alive"....big stuff.

For what its worth however I dont ever expect the youth o' today to embrace Star Wars the way my generation did. Its truly a "you had to be there" kind of phenomina......
 
I started reading your post, and most of what we're saying is difference of opinion. Then, I got to this part:

[quote name='HeadRusch']I have to give the nod to LOTR as the most important film trilogy released so far, the sheer scope of the films is what set them apart...*all* the stories going on and all the work they put into them to make that middle earth world "Come Alive"....big stuff.[/QUOTE]

...which, I think, is just wrong. I was going to go off on a tirade about the cultural impact Star Wars has had, but you actually already did that.

So instead, let me ask you: how are you defining "important" here? If Lord of the Rings is truly more important than Star Wars, then what impact have the movies had that the books didn't already have years ago?

Usually, something that's important is significant and has some kind of impact...and the Lord of the Rings movies can't even begin to match the cultural impact of the Star Wars movies. Go into a Wal-Mart or Toys R Us, and there's still plenty of Star Wars merchandise themed around the original trilogy. On the other hand, those stores aren't filled with hobbit and dwarf toys years after release. Aside from an occasional video game, the franchise spawned by the LOTR trilogy seems to have been relegated to DVD and basic cable.

Off the top of my head, the biggest impact I can think of is leading to a string of new films in the fantasy genre...but since Star Wars essentially redefined the sci-fi genre, Lord of the Rings doesn't have an advantage there.
 
[quote name='Gothic Walrus']Usually, something that's important is significant and has some kind of impact...and the Lord of the Rings movies can't even begin to match the cultural impact of the Star Wars movies. Go into a Wal-Mart or Toys R Us, and there's still plenty of Star Wars merchandise themed around the original trilogy. On the other hand, those stores aren't filled with hobbit and dwarf toys years after release. Aside from an occasional video game, the franchise spawned by the LOTR trilogy seems to have been relegated to DVD and basic cable.
[/QUOTE]

There is more merchandising for Star Wars simply because:

1) There are 6 Star Wars films, not 3...and the last one is just a few years old...adding to that CLONE WARS is out now and its clear that Star Wars will stay part of the cultural Lexicon for years to come with the upcoming live-action Tv series due out in another year or so.

Star Wars is to USA as Hello Kitty is to Japan.

2) Lord of the Rings was fairly violent movie aimed at adults, not children. You can let an 8 year old watch Star Wars.....you let an 8 year old watch Lord of the Rings and he's shitting his pants when the Orks arrive and the battles and the blood and the Balrog and so on and so on. While there are moments of mirth and merriment, its a serious movie that you do have to think about to follow along. I mean, its not DUNE, but its a movie you need to pay attention to. I had never read any of the books before seeing the movie and I never felt lost or didn't know who was what. (And for the record, i think the books suck....in that "oh yeah, these were written like 50 years ago for an audience of young boys in England").

PS: There was actually quite a bit of High End LOTR merchandise that sold out completely. Not the action figures you saw at Wal Mart, but the $150 Polystone statues and 1/6scale action figures which sold out, but LOTR was really the wrong audience for action figures and playsets, tho they did exist....so we can't really say merchandising defines success as a series.

While Star Wars is important and changed the industry in many ways....LOTR, I think, updated it and showed that epic, huge films that required some audience thought could make huge piles of money. Not every film needed to be ID4. It also showed the power of film by bringing a "beloved" book series to the screen without sacrificing it to the lowest-common-denominator.

Plus....and I think alot of people will agree with me here....that only the first two Star wars films are really good...Jedi was basically a re-telling of the first movie and more of a Blockbuster finale than good storytelling (another death star battle at the end? Meh).....the rest are ok to bad. Clone Wars and Revenge of the Sith *could* have been great movies if only the writing and diologue wasn't so utterly terrible....

I mean, take it how you want to, but Star Wars is *primarily*....a kids movie...or a young-at-heart movie. Lord of the rings is clearly aimed at a more mature audience. I can watch LOTR till the cows come home, but into my 20's Star Wars thrill had already started to fade (think late 80's, early 90's). Jedi was a fairly stinker of an ending to what was an epic series, to that point.

Off the top of my head, the biggest impact I can think of is leading to a string of new films in the fantasy genre...but since Star Wars essentially redefined the sci-fi genre, Lord of the Rings doesn't have an advantage there.
Click to expand...

I don't think Star Wars re-defined sci-fi, it popularized it. There were plenty of good SciFi movies before Star Wars, but few of them straddled the Adult/Kid genere as well as SW did.

I'm really not trying to sell Star Wars short, but fi you ask me "the best epic film series".....LOTR 1, and Star Wars 2.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='HeadRusch']
PS: The books are flat-out terrible. I hate to say it, but its true....the movies were made with a very serious nod to the adults.....the books are written clearly for 12 year old british kids. I can barely get through them, what with the Elves always skipping along and singing, and every other minor character breaking into song and poetry...thank Khrist they didn't bring that aspect of the books into the movies.
[/QUOTE]

A 1000+ page book, full of tons of descriptive writing (spends more time describing land scapses than battles), songs, poetry, with appendices etc. was written for 12 year olds?

I can buy that for the hobbit, but not for LOTR. Just because you didn't like the books doesn't make them juvenile. Hell there are whole college courses on the books and professors who study Tolkien for a living.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top