Discussion in 'Misc. Comics Films' started by DACrowe, May 15, 2013.
You're nicer than me....I would have infracted him for posting like a four year old.
It's the last warning anyone is getting from me...that is for sure. Between the childishness of the FF forum, and certain people in here, starting to have low patience.
Just a disclaimer: I didn't say that.
And I agree.
Surprised to see Iron Man get so much love in this poll. Avengers was pretty good (though not part of the trilogy) and IM1 was.. okay, but I hated both IM2 & IM3. Terrible movies.
Sam Raimi's Spider-Man will always be my favorite, with Nolan's Batman as a close second.
Your opinion. I was far more disappointed with TDKR than I was with SM3.
SM3 was full of flaws, but still entertaining to watch. TDKR makes me fall asleep.
Ah, I wish SM3 could have taken me to a good sleep and spared me the shuddering.
Dude, didn't you like any of SM 3? Yeah, it wasn't great
and a bit of a let down as a trilogy ender, but not the worst
My favourite bit is "Evil disco Peter Parker" when Peter's strutting his
stuff down the street. That was hilarious.
The fight scenes weren't bad, and almost justified so much of the
dross that came between them.
Have to say that I definitely enjoyed the Peter v Harry smackdown, and
that they resolved the love triangle, quite definitively.
But otherwise, not a great movie - but IMO, not a terrible one either.
Catwoman, Elektra and Jonah Hex are still winning that title.
Superman I-III (Christopher Reeve)
Batman/Batman Returns/Batman Forever
No they weren't
Watch out for the name calling, or you could get infracted
Neither of those are a trilogy. That's just picking the first three movies and ignoring the fourth part of those franchises.
So? What does it matter? I can ignore the other sequels if I want to. Like how I ignore the Star Wars prequels.
You can ignore what ever you want, but the fact is that doesn't make those three movies you listed a trilogy. So naming them in a best superhero trilogy thread is not valid. That's all.
I can't call Dr. No, From Russia with Love and Goldfinger a James Bond trilogy just because I want to ignore the other Bond movies after them.
It's a little tricky, i would like to point out the Indiana Jones as one of the best trilogies in general, but the 4th one made it no longer a trilogy.
Indiana Jones is like the Scream franchise. For years it was done and dusted as a trilogy, then they decide to resurrect the franchise years later with a fourth movie.
James Bond movies aren't like a continuous story, though (not sure about the newer ones, as I haven't seen them). They are more like serialised adventures of a British spy.
Superman I & II are obviously connected. Superman III is not a direct continuation from II, but it still retains everything the previous movies have established.
Same thing with the Batman films.
Not true. The James Bond movies retain M, Q, Miss Moneypenny, several gadgets Bond acquires from previous movies like the Aston Martin DB5, they even sometimes verbally reference previous missions from previous movies etc.
The Superman movies were not a continuous story and neither were the Batman movies. In fact Tim Burton even said Batman Returns was not a sequel to Batman, because it doesn't pick up the story from the previous movie and has a lot of new elements in it.
He's right. Wayne Manor and the Batcave for example look totally different to B'89, Knox and Dent have vanished into thin air, and the Mayor is different.
Point is you can't call those three movies a trilogy just because you like to ignore the 4th movies.
The first 7 Bond films, aside from Goldfinger, were one large continuous storyline, dealing with Blofeld's SPECTRE
Well then X-Men isn't a trilogy, neither is Iron Man. Since X Men: First Class is a prequel to the X-Men films, not to mention the Wolverine films. Also, the Avengers movies with Iron Man.
A prequel doesn't negate the trilogy. It's just telling the story of what happened before the trilogy. The Wolverine movies focus on one character, not the X-Men unit as a whole. They're spin off movies.
Iron Man is definitely not a trilogy. In fact Iron Man 3 is more a sequel to The Avengers than to Iron Man 1 and 2.
Does it work that way? I mean, doesn't a sequel expand the story to one side the same way a prequel does to the other? Add to that the upcoming X-Men Days of Future Past.
True. Still I'd say all of them focused primarily on Wolverine and other mutants were around him.
I often ignore Alien Resurrection because Alien-Alien 3 are the perfect closure for that story about Ripley, but Alien Resurrection seems more like a spin-off.
The same with Batman and Robin. Completely ignores the dark themes of the previous three for a campfest. Superman IV I can take or leave.
A sequel carries on the story that was set up by the previous movie. A beginning, a middle, and an end. That's a trilogy. A prequel is like background filler. Going back before the story began and showing what was happening before the main story began.
A common criticism against them, and a valid one, but it was still the X-Men story. Wolverine was just the most focused one of the team. Then Jean.
Ok, because a trilogy with more than 3 movies sounds weird.
Still, the upcoming sequel will break the X-Men trilogy.