Why Are So Many People Fearing The Trilogy Curse??

[Naite22]

^ That may be, but STILL, having the biatch beeing kidnapped in all three movie's just isn't that good; all we needed then would've been the Lizard! LMFAO, that would've been so lame! then all three movie's would've also involved 3 wacky scientists getting ****ED UP by their own damn experiment! Anyways, it wouldn't have been difficult to come up with something else for this one. EVERY ONE will be thinking about this beeing a lame REPEATER of the previous two films, as far as MJ beeing kidnapped is... It wont ruin anything for me, but I can't help but to think about it though.

 

[El Payaso]

I'm not afraid anymore, maybe curious. Because the trilogy's curse is already fullfilled to me, since I thought Spiderman 1 was crap. So I think the rest of the trilogy must be better. Spiderman 2 was real good so the third one shouldn't go back to mediocre. According to the curse of course.

 

[November Rain]

Yet another personal opinion, it hold no weight to someone who feels differently.

that's not true, all varying opinions hold weight and have the ability to change or at the very least alter another peron's perception of something they love, hate or previously had no opinion on.

besides, we aren't here to get everyone to fall into line but to simply express our own opinions on something, there really is nothing to gain from all this except the ability to voice one's opinion to people who have knowledge on the subject.

 

[Naite22]

The funny thing is as I've said so many times before; it's become so DAMN trendy to call movie franchises that has 3 films in them for trilogies!!! and it's getting real dumb... Spider-Man is NOT A REAL TRILOGY, even though a lot of things in this third one will be tieing up some story-lines, and that's cool! But a real TRUE trilogy it will never be... Trilogies are planned from the begining... they know exactly where they begin and what'll happen in the end (as in number 3)... I garantee that non in spidey 3 was planned way back in 2000 when they began production on spider-man 1.

The Lord of the rings is a true trilogy, and the star wars films also... But not the spidey flicks, so dont worry about no trilogy curse for this one.

 

[November Rain]

wha???

star wars was a one off? only then renamed episode 4 when the idea of money making sequels were put into people's heads, similar to the matrix

both stories had two sequels added to it which then had some sort of flow but the originals stand out as unique separate film entities....

 

[Naite22]

wha???

star wars was a one off? only then renamed episode 4 when the idea of money making sequels were put into people's heads, similar to the matrix

both stories had two sequels added to it which then had some sort of flow but the originals stand out as unique separate film entities....

Agreed on matrix, but not with star wars... I know that the first star wars, a new hope, was this close NOT to even come out because of so many things falling apart during the production.. and you're absolutely right, Lucas didn't add the "episode 4" in the begining, cause he didn't know how it'll turn out. Practickly everything went wrong during the making of the very first star wars... anyways, Lucas had the whole story-line for episode 4-5-6 in his head all along... He even says so on the star wars dvd-box, in the 3 hour making of the old films.

 

[November Rain]

lucas is a left-handed liar

 

[Eggyman]

I think Star Wars is maybe pushing it being called a trilogy if we are thinking within these limits. From what I've seen documented, George Lucas had a better idea of where the back-story was rather than the future of the films when filming A New Hope. We really don't know what goes through that addled brain of George Lucas . . . and do we really want to after the rehash we have all seen come to a close a couple of years ago?

To the point of the Spidey films though, Naite, I completely agree with you; they are three separate stories that have one or two arcs throughout. A trilogy should really be based on a main story, not just have arcs -- say like taking a ring to a big mountain that takes three films and a sh;t load of walking.

As for the Matrix, what the hell are you on about -- there was only one film! There was only one film! There was only one film! Is it right that if you say something enough it will come true?

I have thought for some time that the word 'trilogy' is getting thrown around too much.

 

[ghost_x]

Why do you think that the only definition of a trilogy would be if it was planned from the beginning? thats a far out statement and one that really makes little sense. If they only planned one back to the future movie and planned to wrap up the story at the end, especially considering Zemeckis had little faith in what he thought was a low budget affair. Yet they realised that the film was a success and wanted to carry on the story, then they could have written a script for the continuation of the story. The same as The Matrix. The definition of a trilogy does not relate to how it was planned but how each movie connects the story. I would most certainly say Spiderman has become a trilogy, it has numerous arcs which have continued throughout each movie, which defines a trilogy

 

[ghost_x]

I felt like I should post a real definition of the word trilogy to clean up any confusion;

'A series of three movies that are closely connected by plot. Often, a storyline from the first film of a trilogy is altered, twisted or modified by the second or third part of the series.'

 

[Eggyman]

Why do you think that the only definition of a trilogy would be if it was planned from the beginning? thats a far out statement and one that really makes little sense. If they only planned one back to the future movie and planned to wrap up the story at the end, especially considering Zemeckis had little faith in what he thought was a low budget affair. Yet they realised that the film was a success and wanted to carry on the story, then they could have written a script for the continuation of the story. The same as The Matrix. The definition of a trilogy does not relate to how it was planned but how each movie connects the story. I would most certainly say Spiderman has become a trilogy, it has numerous arcs which have continued throughout each movie, which defines a trilogy

Ok, I concede with the Star Wars point. But that was not my 'only definition'. The main point of my post was regarding the 'main story', and that it should follow from one film to the next. Many sequels have continuing arcs, but I have always felt that with a trilogy the characters have the same goal in the first film as they do in the last . . . with each film they get nearer to what they set out to do. TLOTR's trilogy puts this in a very simple light.

So I suppose I can see your point with Star Wars, and I never did question The Matrix -- I just thought the last two let down a wonderful film by hollywoodizing a great sci-fi film and turning it into a cheap action franchise . . . loosing track of all the deep stuff that the first film brought up, and then seemingly forgetting -- or in some cases damn right changing -- some of the foundations that they had built that fictional world on.

 

[Eggyman]

Very nice.

 

[ghost_x]

I never mentioned star wars nor was I replying to any of your posts, my post was replying to Naite

 

[Eggyman]

Oh, ok . . . sorry.

I confuse myself; don't do drugs kids.

 

[November Rain]

alright, so if a film has a couple of different story lines and is basically about the same amount of people, then it is a franchise,

i.e. spidey, batman, x-men, harry potter, shrek etc

if a film has an overall plot from the beginning then it is trilogy (or what ever number they have)

lotr, star wars sequels, matrix sequels (last two without their first party), bttf, kill bill vol 1 and 2.

 

[Tempest19]

alright, so if a film has a couple of different story lines and is basically about the same amount of people, then it is a franchise,

i.e. spidey, batman, x-men, harry potter, shrek etc

if a film has an overall plot from the beginning then it is trilogy (or what ever number they have)

lotr, star wars sequels, matrix sequels (last two without their first party), bttf, kill bill vol 1 and 2.

Exactly.

Also, what's funny is that in the making of Spider-Man 1 Raimi said (concerning SM2):

"You're not going to see Doc Ock in this one. But, you might see two other villains."

 

[Eggyman]

I'm still confuzzled -- are we agreeing?

 

[November Rain]

Exactly.

Also, what's funny is that in the making of Spider-Man 1 Raimi said (concerning SM2):

"You're not going to see Doc Ock in this one. But, you might see two other villains."

raimi is a right-handed liar.

 

[ghost_x]

If there is a storyline arc which continues and is a focal point of the narrative throughout all three films than ye, it's a trilogy

 

[Tempest19]

Raimi is NOT a liar. At the time, he didn't know that Ock was going to be in the film. Lol. He also said he never intended to use Venom, and he didn't- Venom actually replaced Vulture in SM3... but, are you going to call him a liar again because Venom ended up in the final product? Lol. That's the way the industry works...

----------------------------

Anyways, I still find this board funny... because ALOT of people are so misinformed or have come to their own ridiculous conclusions that are far off... such as everything being rushed. The characters have STRONGER arcs in this film than both of the previous COMBINED, MJ isn't even "the girl" anymore but contributes her own arc and weight to the film. Yeah, lots of villains- but why the fck do people have to jump up and yell "Batman Forever" or "Batman and Robin"... that has never made sense to me. Lol. This, for the most part, is like an expanded version of the alien suit saga in the cartoon series- only leagues better.

I know the film I'm getting, one of the best superhero films- if not THE best, in EVERY aspect... but, hey you're free to continue thinking what you want... you'll have until May 4th.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Raimi is NOT a liar. At the time, he didn't know that Ock was going to be in the film. Lol. He also said he never intended to use Venom, and he didn't- Venom actually replaced Vulture in SM3... but, are you going to call him a liar again because Venom ended up in the final product? Lol. That's the way the industry works...

Is this true? I never heard this. Do you have a quote or an article you can post that references this? I'm curious to read this. What was he planning to do with Vulture? I'm actually glad he didn't use Vulture, he is one of the lamest villains ever.

I know the film I'm getting, one of the best superhero films- if not THE best, in EVERY aspect... but, hey you're free to continue thinking what you want... you'll have until May 4th.

Jesus! You've only read the book and you are already declaring this? Wait until you see the movie first. LOL Some parts may not come out as good on film as it did in the book, plus, who knows what other parts will be left out.

 

[ghost_x]

I never heard that Vulture rumour, bunch of crap I says

 

[Tempest19]

- Search the art book. Go to amazon, go to spider-man 3, then look at the making of and art book... and no- it's not "crap"- it's the TRUTH.

- And yes, that's true- BUT I know ALOT more than those who haven't. Thus, I can talk more actualization about it than those just seeing the trailers and going "bad characterization arcs"- huh???

 

[Eggyman]

I agree with you on all counts apart from the batman examples you gave. I jump up and yell 'batman forever' all the time, granted I get some funny looks, but it's worth it in the end; if it rained last friday then that means it will do today.

Sorry I am high on flu tablets but it would be nice if you pm'd me some pictures that you may or may not have.

 

[ghost_x]

it's all crap I say