View Full Version : Best Movie Trilogy
Hard Ball Get
9 Nov 2007, 13:45
I did a search and couldn't find a thread on this already so unless I am really crap at using the search function we surprisingly haven't had one.
So what do you think is the best movie trilogy? it MUST be a trilogy. Star Wars has 6 films so is not able to be considered for example.
My nomination is Back to the Future.
Would have been The Godfather if the 3rd wasn't so damn bad.
apollo_creed
9 Nov 2007, 13:50
Indiana Jones, Back to the Future.
Both had three quality films.
(obviously 2 from IJ and 3 from BTTF are considered inferior - but as standalone's they're of appropriate quality. and personally speaking - IJ2 and BTT3 were of high quality)
Star Wars is 2 trillogies. The originals and the ****ups. The originals is the best Trilogy by miles.
ManWithNoName
9 Nov 2007, 14:00
1. Star Wars OT
2. Back to the Future
3. Lord of the Rings
4. The Godfather
5. Indiana Jones
Hard Ball Get
9 Nov 2007, 14:11
Mighty Ducks also deserves a mention.
Robocop
Conan
Evil Dead
The Bourne Movies
Poltergeist
Naked Gun
Missing in Action
The Mexico movies (El Mariachi, Desperato, Once apon a time in Mexico)
But Star Wars OT is the best
Mighty Ducks also deserves a mention.
How awesome is it when Goldberg scores the winning goal in D3!!!!!!11111
What about the Man with No Name Trilogy, does that qualify?
How awesome is it when Goldberg scores the winning goal in D3!!!!!!11111
What about the Man with No Name Trilogy, does that qualify?
Was just about to mention the Dollar Trilogy
A Fistful of Dollars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Fistful_of_Dollars) (1964 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_in_film))
For a Few Dollars More (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_a_Few_Dollars_More) (1965 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_in_film))
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good%2C_the_Bad_and_the_Ugly) (1966 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_in_film))easily the best for me, Godfather second.
Hard Ball Get
9 Nov 2007, 15:25
How awesome is it when Goldberg scores the winning goal in D3!!!!!!11111
What about the Man with No Name Trilogy, does that qualify?
I like when Kenny Wo scores in the second.
Wo Wo Wo Kenny Wo!!
Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance
Old-Boy
Sympathy for Lady Vengeance
Too bad there were eight Police Academy movies as the first three would easily qualify as the best ever.
With the Police Academy classics out of the equation there can be only two contenders. Back to the future and Indiana Jones. I'll nominate them both as I find it impossible to split them.
So BTTF / IJ >>> daylight >> all other trilogies.
chickens_law
9 Nov 2007, 18:56
Also The Terminator Trilogy...Except the third one was pretty weak.
Add Die Hard to the list.
ManWithNoName
9 Nov 2007, 19:01
Also The Terminator Trilogy...Except the third one was pretty weak.
Add Die Hard to the list.
Which of the Top 5 that I put forward is the Terminator trilogy better than though?
chickens_law
9 Nov 2007, 19:04
Which of the Top 5 that I put forward is the Terminator trilogy better than though?
Rush Hour trilogy? :D
Hard Ball Get
9 Nov 2007, 19:05
Also The Terminator Trilogy...Except the third one was pretty weak.
Add Die Hard to the list.
Has 4.
Can't be counted
for me:
1. The Lord of the Rings
2. Star Wars
3. X-men
4. The Godfather
5. Indiana Jones
Monkster
9 Nov 2007, 20:18
Beverly Hills Cop (even counting number 3) :thumbsu:
Bomber32
9 Nov 2007, 21:03
Two of the first three Rocky movies were excellent. The third, fourth and fifth films were pretty crummy but Rocky Balboa was very good, I thought.
Hard Ball Get
10 Nov 2007, 08:18
Two of the first three Rocky movies were excellent. The third, fourth and fifth films were pretty crummy but Rocky Balboa was very good, I thought.
That has 6 so it is not a trilogy.
legitimatic
10 Nov 2007, 08:26
Every one of The Bourne movies was terrific, didn't have a weak link in the trilogy, probably a bit too recent to be considered among the greatest ever though, perhaps in a few years.
Indianna Jones would be right up there, people say The Temple of Doom was weak but I loved it :D
Surely Star Wars can be counted as two seperate trilogies? If so then the original is the best of all time.
Dagless
10 Nov 2007, 09:22
How awesome is it when Goldberg scores the winning goal in D3!!!!!!11111
What about the Man with No Name Trilogy, does that qualify?YOU RUINED IT FOR ME JAB!!!! :mad::p
But I agree on the 'Man with no name' Trilogy... Easily takes the cake :thumbsu:
scooterb
10 Nov 2007, 09:38
Recent times -
Bourne movies and
Matrix possibly.
ManWithNoName
10 Nov 2007, 09:40
Recent times -
Bourne movies and
Matrix possibly.
Matrix? It had one good movie. No way on earth can it be considered.
Armwarmer
10 Nov 2007, 09:42
1. Indiana Jones (temple of doom wasn't that great)
2. Godfather trilogy (last one sucked tho)
3. Lord of the Rings
4. Star Wars (originals)
5. Bourne Trilogy
ManWithNoName
10 Nov 2007, 09:53
1. Indiana Jones (temple of doom wasn't that great)
2. Godfather trilogy (last one sucked tho)
3. Lord of the Rings
4. Star Wars (originals)
5. Bourne Trilogy
Back to the Future>Bourne
TheWackedYak
10 Nov 2007, 10:18
another vote for the Bourne's
mad-saint-guy
10 Nov 2007, 10:55
Naked Gun for me.
deeman12
10 Nov 2007, 11:10
Star Wars and Lord of the Rings for me.
Arcadion
10 Nov 2007, 11:15
BTTF.
Indiana Jones won't be a trilogy for much longer.
TheGeneral
10 Nov 2007, 12:48
Godfather
Star Wars
Indiana Jones
Lord of the Rings
Terminator
Mad Max
The Matrix
Back to the future
Bourne
Blade - nothing beats B grade blood, gore and senseless violence. A great anti-hero and they're darker than the X Men.
X Men - the films have dated badly and they're pretty boring now
Three colours. :rolleyes:
Apparently The Thing is the first of a John Carpenter trilogy with Prince of Darkness and In the Mouth of Madness.
Aliens should have stopped at three.
SunKing
10 Nov 2007, 13:05
Back to the Future>Bourne
Back to the future>>>> Bourne
In fact Back to the future probably just pips Indiana as Temple of doom was rather average. But then The last crusade is better then any of the bttf movies..
Also if Superman stopped at 3 and the third one wasn't such a stinker it would be my favorite. The first two were brilliant.
ManWithNoName
10 Nov 2007, 13:18
Back to the future>>>> Bourne
In fact Back to the future probably just pips Indiana as Temple of doom was rather average. But then The last crusade is better then any of the bttf movies..
Also if Superman stopped at 3 and the third one wasn't such a stinker it would be my favorite. The first two were brilliant.
I rate all each BTTF movie as better than any of the Indiana Jones movies. The BTTF trilogy is massively underrated IMO. I think they're regarded as "Good, fun films" but they're actually really well written, directed and performced.
Matrix? It had one good movie. No way on earth can it be considered.
I for one actually didn't mind the other 2 movies. I know this is not the popular view but each to their own.
wce4premiership
10 Nov 2007, 16:47
Mighty ducks and star wars are m personal favourites.
Never did like b2tf
chickens_law
10 Nov 2007, 17:37
The first BTTF was gold. The second was good. I thought the third was rather ordinary but still a brilliant trilogy.
The Dice Man
10 Nov 2007, 17:46
Matrix/Godfather
chris86
10 Nov 2007, 18:14
1. Mad Max
2. Indiana Jones
3. Godfather
4. Matrix
5. Original Star Wars trilogy
6. Bourne
I for one actually didn't mind the other 2 movies. I know this is not the popular view but each to their own.
I agree with you, many can matrix 2 & 3 but I think they both are enjoyable enough. Obviously the original Matrix was an awesome movie, Matrix 2 has some pretty decent action scenes in it as well. But I know my view is in the minority, but that wont stop me watching them just because some tool looks down his nose at them.
The first back to the future was ok, but I think it got pretty clique by the end. The characters remained the same through all 3. No character growth at all. With Marty continually yelling "Doc!" in that squeeky teen voice and Docs "Great Scott!" it all became very irritating. As movies to entertain kids they are ok.
Mr Sensitive
10 Nov 2007, 20:33
As others have mentioned, Star Wars OT is up there as is Back to the Future. I love all things Michael J. Fox and i couldn't stop watching those flicks when I was a little tacker.
I'll also add Spider-man to the list. I think all three films are kick arse. The first two are damn near perfect. Some people rag on the third but for the life of me I can't understand why because it really capped off a great story.
1. Spider-man
2. Star Wars
3. Back to the Future
I'd add Indiana Jones but there's another one coming so it doesn't qualify really.
Mr Sensitive
10 Nov 2007, 20:35
I for one actually didn't mind the other 2 movies. I know this is not the popular view but each to their own.
I thought the second matrix flick was decent enough, but the third one was just terrible. It had the worst ending for a film ever. After all that build up, everything is still up in the air, you don't even know what happens to the main character ffs. Just awful.:(
I thought the second matrix flick was decent enough, but the third one was just terrible. It had the worst ending for a film ever. After all that build up, everything is still up in the air, you don't even know what happens to the main character ffs. Just awful.:(
Perhaps I had low expectations of the ending anyway but I wasn't too pissed off with it. You know how Channel Nine used to have the scene of the sunset then a giant bottle of Morning Fresh over the sunset as they were the sponsors of the weather update? I'm pretty sure the exact sunset scene was used in the Matrix 3.
BABYBOMBERS2007
10 Nov 2007, 21:51
Star Wars and Lord of the Rings.
Though I do not really like the Harry Potter series, it is vastly popular and all the HP movies are amongst the highest selling at the box office worldwide.
wally funk
10 Nov 2007, 22:03
has anybody pointed out the fact that the fourth indiana jones film is currently being shot? no longer a trilogy, it cannot be on these lists :)
as for mine:
BTTF
godfather
naked gun
thats pretty much it
Gun Barrel Straight
11 Nov 2007, 00:05
Blade for me. Love them.
Terminator is awesome too. Hard to split those 2 trilogy's
Monkster
11 Nov 2007, 07:12
Why are people calling Terminator a trilogy? I don't remember a 3rd movie being made, surely if there was a 3rd movie it would have kicked arse and not been a boring piece of shit that I fell asleep halfway through.
Dagless
11 Nov 2007, 09:37
Why are people calling Terminator a trilogy? I don't remember a 3rd movie being made, surely if there was a 3rd movie it would have kicked arse and not been a boring piece of shit that I fell asleep halfway through.
And then leaving the cinema 20 minutes before it was finished to go and sneak into another cinema...
Gun Barrel Straight
11 Nov 2007, 10:43
Why are people calling Terminator a trilogy? I don't remember a 3rd movie being made, surely if there was a 3rd movie it would have kicked arse and not been a boring piece of shit that I fell asleep halfway through.
T3 was a letdown. T1 and T2 prop it up. :thumbsu: And besides i dont like garbage like LOTR or any of the other trilogys that have been thrown up in this thread.
aron_rox
11 Nov 2007, 13:41
no-one likes potc
TheGeneral
11 Nov 2007, 14:08
I thought the second matrix flick was decent enough, but the third one was just terrible. It had the worst ending for a film ever. After all that build up, everything is still up in the air, you don't even know what happens to the main character ffs. Just awful.:(
He died and returned to the source.
The other "Ones" didn't return to the source because they chose the path of rebuilding Zion.
Neo is the only One who chose to save Trinity and Zion and the people in the Matrix ahead of rebuilding it entirely and starting the cycle all over again. The Oracle said to Neo everything that has a beginning has an end and he knew he had to make a sacrifice to stop Smith and end the war.
He was called their own personal Jesus Christ in the first film.
Anyway, I think they would have recycled and liquefied Neo's body to feed it to the people in the Matrix. :cool:
I liked the ending and the location matched the road where Neo didn't want to get de-bugged in the first film. Trinity said to him then you know where that road ends and that's not where you want to be, yet he still ended up on that road with Smith of his own accord.
The sequels were pure Silver and didn't do justice to the first film, but at least they ended in a way that rules them out of making any more sequels. Terminator, Stars Wars, Die Hard and Aliens keep coming back and ruining the name of the good films.
deeman12
11 Nov 2007, 16:06
T3 was a letdown. T1 and T2 prop it up. :thumbsu: And besides i dont like garbage like LOTR or any of the other trilogys that have been thrown up in this thread.
Just cause you dont like it, doesnt mean it is garbage. Its way better then the Terminator trilogy and alot of other stuff mentioned here.
anyone remember the Karate Kid Trilogy...wax on, wax off....not the greatest movies ever but popular at the time.
SunKing
11 Nov 2007, 17:56
Big fan of The Karate Kid but never think of it as a trilogy i guess. First was a classic,second very good,third i'm not sure if i even saw it:o
Hawkamania!
11 Nov 2007, 20:40
Star Wars is 2 trillogies. The originals and the ****ups. The originals is the best Trilogy by miles.
I agree. The prequels should be erased from history. They were terrible, just terrible.
IMO, the best Trilogy consists of:
A New Hope.
The Empire Strikes Back.
Return Of The Jedi.
Hard Ball Get
11 Nov 2007, 20:53
The problem is it has 6 movies.
They are slit into two groups of 3 however they can not be considered.
Star Wars is 6 movies.
I think Revenge of the Sith isn't a bad movie. A phantom menace definitely blows and while the clone wars had some ok moments, the clunky love scenes between Padme and Annikan were annoying.
wally funk
11 Nov 2007, 21:01
anyone remember the Karate Kid Trilogy...wax on, wax off....not the greatest movies ever but popular at the time.
there are four karate kid films. 1, 2, 3, and the next karate kid, with hilary swank :thumbsu:
there are four karate kid films. 1, 2, 3, and the next karate kid, with hilary swank :thumbsu:
the Hilary Swank Karate Kid movie should be mentioned in the worst sequel of all time thread. I didn't mention it because it was rubbish.
ManWithNoName
11 Nov 2007, 21:46
The problem is it has 6 movies.
They are slit into two groups of 3 however they can not be considered.
Star Wars is 6 movies.
Lucas wants everyone to see it as one series, but it's generally acknowledged as two trilogies.
AxelFoley
12 Nov 2007, 07:23
Beverly Hills Cop
3rd one isnt half as good but the 1st two are classics
1. Three Colours Trilogy (Blue, White & Red)
2. Dollars Trilogy (Fist Full Of Dollars, For A Few Dollars More & The Good The Bad & The Ugly)
3. Star Wars (originals)
4. Bourne Trilogy
5. American West Trilogy (Once Upon A Time In The West, Once Upon A Time... the Revolution (Fistful of Dynamite) & Once Upon A Time In America)
6. Luna Trilogy (Jamon Jamon, Golden Balls & The *** & The Moon)
7. Terminator
8. Back To The Future
9. Indiana Jones
10. Mad Max
Bender571
12 Nov 2007, 11:09
Cruel Intentions
Just look at this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_trilogies
Also Star Wars is classified as 2 trilogies
Hard Ball Get
12 Nov 2007, 11:25
Why is Star Wars classified as 2?
Time?
Time is irrelivent.
It is the same franchise and the same name.
It is one set of 6 movies.
Why is Star Wars classified as 2?
Time?
Time is irrelivent.
It is the same franchise and the same name.
It is one set of 6 movies.
Because the original 3 (IV-VI) were brilliant pieces of our childhood and the second 3 (I-III) raped that memory. You can justify why it's the one series all you want, but those of us who remember know I-III was a sell out and we won't acknowledge them as the same body of work.
ManWithNoName
12 Nov 2007, 12:58
Why is Star Wars classified as 2?
Time?
Time is irrelivent.
It is the same franchise and the same name.
It is one set of 6 movies.
Because they're two different stories. I-III focuses on Anakin and the fall of the Republic. IV-VI focuses on Luke, the Rebellion and the fall of the Galactic Empire. You have every right to call them 1 series, but they are globally acknowledged as two trilogies.
Hard Ball Get
12 Nov 2007, 14:40
Because the original 3 (IV-VI) were brilliant pieces of our childhood and the second 3 (I-III) raped that memory. You can justify why it's the one series all you want, but those of us who remember know I-III was a sell out and we won't acknowledge them as the same body of work.
Means absolutely nothing. How many movies have been made purely for monetary purposes? It matters not what a movie is made for. Sell out or not a sell out is not an issue whatsoever. With your logic Cruel Intentions isn't a trilogy. Nor is the Matrix, nor is Rush Hour. There is no doubting what the sequels were made for.
Because they're two different stories. I-III focuses on Anakin and the fall of the Republic. IV-VI focuses on Luke, the Rebellion and the fall of the Galactic Empire. You have every right to call them 1 series, but they are globally acknowledged as two trilogies.
Again the two different stories is irrelevant.
Wild things has completely differnt characters and completely differnt stories in part 1,2 and 3 yet it is still a trilogy as is Cruel Intentions.
Peninsula Boy
12 Nov 2007, 15:01
Essentially, its how hard or soft you define the word ''trilogy''. When pedantry is involved, it always comes down to semantics.
So you have trilogies like the two Star Wars, Matrix and Lord of the Rings where the trilogies are continuous stories and could basically be one long film.
Then you get one's where the stories take place over different parts of the characters lives. I'll assume Godfather, maybe not. Someone chime in. I repress the third one.
You get something like Alien where it is just a character, albeit a clone that keeps them together.
Then you get a very loose definition of trilogies which are in name only.
I'm sure you can think up plenty more but Star Wars is considered two trilogies and will probably become three trilogies sometimes in the near future, of which all nine films, will be trilogies unto themselves, in the whole scheme of things.
Someone help with examples....
Carolyn
12 Nov 2007, 16:51
1. The Lord of the Rings
2. Star Wars (original)
3. Pirates of the Caribbean
Means absolutely nothing. How many movies have been made purely for monetary purposes? It matters not what a movie is made for. Sell out or not a sell out is not an issue whatsoever. With your logic Cruel Intentions isn't a trilogy. Nor is the Matrix, nor is Rush Hour. There is no doubting what the sequels were made for.
I didn't say I-III weren't made for money, the OT was made for money if you want to argue that point, hell I agree. I'm just saying it's quite easy to call I-III and IV-VI very different bodies of work. One ruled the other sucked IMHO. I would say that while the latest ones are technically part of a set of 6, with the passing of time, the change in Lucas's style, I look at the latest movies as more like a remake on Star Wars then as part of the original. When I say sell out, I mean Lucas took the easy trick CGI option.
Hell, maybe it was becasue I was 6 when I first saw the first ones, and you just can't relive that.
deeman12
13 Nov 2007, 15:14
I think its a generation thing to all the people that think the prequals are crap. Me and most of my friends all like the prequals more then the originals.
ManWithNoName
13 Nov 2007, 15:35
I think its a generation thing to all the people that think the prequals are crap. Me and most of my friends all like the prequals more then the originals.
BLASPHEMY!
deeman12
13 Nov 2007, 15:41
BLASPHEMY!
Lmao. Im telling you, its deinitely a generation thing, most people my age will prefer the prequals over the originals.
Huddo91
13 Nov 2007, 15:53
I think its a generation thing to all the people that think the prequals are crap. Me and most of my friends all like the prequals more then the originals.
I concur - technology issues
ManWithNoName
13 Nov 2007, 15:59
Lmao. Im telling you, its deinitely a generation thing, most people my age will prefer the prequals over the originals.
Then most people your age are idiots.
deeman12
13 Nov 2007, 16:27
Then most people your age are idiots.
No. Most people your age are idiots. Maybe being older and wiser might help you win in a fight about music, but it wont with star wars. It is a generation thing, thats it.
legitimatic
13 Nov 2007, 16:39
No. Most people your age are idiots. Maybe being older and wiser might help you win in a fight about music, but it wont with star wars. It is a generation thing, thats it.
I think you have proved plenty enough on these forums that you are in fact, an idiot. Therefore it's only natural to assume that any friends of yours, purely for the sake of being your friends, are also idiots.
Knockout win to ManWithNoName.
chickens_law
13 Nov 2007, 16:42
gee people here do hate deeman12. I dont see anything wrong with him.
ManWithNoName
13 Nov 2007, 16:51
I didn't call deeman12 an idiot. I called all his friends idiots. And if he prefers the prequals also then yes, he also is an idiot.
legitimatic
13 Nov 2007, 17:08
gee people here do hate deeman12. I dont see anything wrong with him.
Yeah, you wouldn't.
deeman12
13 Nov 2007, 18:16
I think you have proved plenty enough on these forums that you are in fact, an idiot. Therefore it's only natural to assume that any friends of yours, purely for the sake of being your friends, are also idiots.
Knockout win to ManWithNoName.
Is that how you talk to your superior, shame on you young one. Mate i think you are going through a midlife crisis, so im not going to push any buttons because i wouldn't want you necking yourself because of me. Peace and if i am right hold on and get some help.:thumbsu::)
deeman12
13 Nov 2007, 18:23
I didn't call deeman12 an idiot. I called all his friends idiots. And if he prefers the prequals also then yes, he also is an idiot.
Look, i dont think originals are worse or have anything wrong with them. I never said episode 1, 2 and 3 are better, i just like them more because i grew up watching them and not the originals. im pretty sure that if you were my age you would think the same, and if i grew up during your time i would feel differently.
Hard Ball Get
13 Nov 2007, 19:10
Then most people your age are idiots.
Now that right there is where your argument falls down.
It relies on the idea that because someone is older their opinion counts more. Couldn't be further from the truth. Young people drive everything. It doesn't mean that what young people like is better but it doesn't make it the opposite for purely that reason.
Rocca Flys High
13 Nov 2007, 19:20
Back to the future for me, it was well executed.
deeman12
13 Nov 2007, 19:38
gee people here do hate deeman12. I dont see anything wrong with him.
Thanks mate, you see what kind of people there are on these boards. Just because they have jobs they dont like, they come here and take it out on me because my opinions are different from that of a 40 year old accountant.
TheGeneral
15 Nov 2007, 21:05
The Hunt for Red October
Patriot Games
Clear and Present Danger.
Jack Ryan. :thumbsu:
I forgot they screwed up the franchise with Sum of all fears and Ben ****ing Affleck. :o :thumbsd: :mad:
The last film was average, which is just like a trilogy.
Except for Blade Trinity which had Jessica Biel in a starring role. :cool:
ManWithNoName
15 Nov 2007, 21:35
Now that right there is where your argument falls down.
It relies on the idea that because someone is older their opinion counts more. Couldn't be further from the truth. Young people drive everything. It doesn't mean that what young people like is better but it doesn't make it the opposite for purely that reason.
I'll make it simple.
Anyone who thinks the prequels>OT is an idiot. :)
Lmao. Im telling you, its deinitely a generation thing, most people my age will prefer the prequals over the originals.
I was about 13 when episode 1 came out and I can tell you that the general consensus for most of us who have seen the older movies was that it sucked and the older trilogy was better.
I am not a big Star Wars fan, I think acting on the first IV-IX was bad but the acting on I-III was horrible. The story and plot is much better in the 'original' triology.
There is a thing though when you're that age that anything that is old is just not good and your senses immediately switch off. When you're that age, if you watch a sci fi movie all you want to see is action and cool technology, you don't want to watch a movie older than you with crap special effects. To put it bluntly, at that age, most of us are dumb and uncultured. At that age Scary Movie 3 is funnier than Dr. Strangelove.
PS If you want to get all pedantic about trilogies than The Man With No Name isn't really a trilogy since it is not really confirmed whether or not the 3 movies even have anything to do with each other.
Mr Sensitive
16 Nov 2007, 08:35
Jabso's hit it on the head. I was 13 too when Ep 1 came out and I remember walking out of the cinema thinking that Darth Maul fight was the greatest thing ever, then I went home and rewatched the originals and realised that the OT was inifinitely better.
Still, it's amusing to see that Star Wars can still ignite a petty bitchfest on the net....:thumbsu:
ManWithNoName
16 Nov 2007, 08:55
Qui Gon Jinn and Darth Maul were the only watchable things in the first two movies. And what did Lucas do? Kill them off. F--king idiot.
Bender571
16 Nov 2007, 19:28
I thought 1-3 weren't as bad as most people made out, but whatever chance 1-3 had of being better than 4-6 went out the door when Jar-Jar came on the screen, also i did get the urge to slap young anakin a few times.
I do reckon revenge of the sith was brilliant, I know I'd screw over the galaxy for Natalie Portman ;).
But in the end you can't compete with the awesomeness of Harrison Ford:cool::cool::cool:
The Jar Jar Binks hate is bloody stupid. How is he any worse than C3PO and R2D2 or any other minor alien/robot characters with a comedic role? The worst character from the first episode especially is Anakin and his stupid cute kiddy hijynks. It would be ok if he was a minor character (like Jar jar) but he is supposed to turn into Darth Vadar, give him some credibility.
ManWithNoName
17 Nov 2007, 15:06
The Jar Jar Binks hate is bloody stupid. How is he any worse than C3PO and R2D2 or any other minor alien/robot characters with a comedic role? The worst character from the first episode especially is Anakin and his stupid cute kiddy hijynks. It would be ok if he was a minor character (like Jar jar) but he is supposed to turn into Darth Vadar, give him some credibility.
C3-PO and R2D2 are legendary movie characters. Jar Jar Binks is Star Wars' kryptonite.
Monkster
18 Nov 2007, 08:07
C3-PO and R2D2 are legendary movie characters. Jar Jar Binks is Star Wars' kryptonite.
Rose Coloured Glasses, C3-PO was nothing but a whiny little bitch.
ManWithNoName
18 Nov 2007, 09:33
Rose Coloured Glasses, C3-PO was nothing but a whiny little bitch.
In Ep IV, Luke was the whiny little bitch.
"But I wanna go to Toche Station to pick up some power converters"
Owen should've belted him across the face.
Mr Sensitive
18 Nov 2007, 21:04
i'm in the same boat as bender... I don't hate the new trilogy. Phantom Menace was crap, no two ways about it (expect for the saber duels)... Episode 2 was alright. But Revenge of the Sith was seriously kick arse. It really made up for the ho-humness of the first two. I don't know how Star Wars fans can dislike it. I rate it higher than Return of the Jedi. Seriously dark and twisted always gets the thumbs up from me!!
Still, all the Star Wars films have some seriously bad acting and dialogue. Lucas shouldn't be allowed to write dialogue for any film anywhere, not even for a commerical selling fabric softener. It's no coincidence that Empire is by far the best of the bunch when Lucas didn't direct or write the dialogue.