Poll of the Day > What's the most disappointing trilogy out of these movies?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Well?
---

I wasn't at all aware they made more than one Dark Man.
---

Far-Queue posted...

I wasn't at all aware they made more than one Dark Man.

There was at least 3 that I'm aware of. 3 was really bad.
---

star wars, easy. people waited over 20 years for......THAT

Star Wars was bad, but for me it was The Hobbit that hurt the most. The Hobbit was my most read book as a child. I've only managed to get through the movies once.
---

Tough question, since "disappointing" has multiple connotations. If it's just a matter of "bad," then obviously the Troll trilogy (which isn't an actual trilogy, unless you're not counting Troll 1 and instead just counting the three D'Amato films, two of which were named "Troll 3" in some regions).

However, if we're talking about an anticipated trilogy -- something where we know three movies are coming -- then likely the prequel films because fans had waited decades for them.

Of course, if it was something that started alright then ended badly, maybe the Spider-Man trilogy since the only reason that was a trilogy at all was because the third movie tanked and they couldn't secure funding for more films.

Granted, I haven't seen all three movies in most of those trilogies so it's kinda hard to vote. The Spider-Man, TMNT, and Star Wars films I saw in theaters. For Hobbit, I saw Desolation of Smaug in theaters and then Battle of the Five Armies on tv; Unexpected Journey I've seen part of, but I don't believe that much. Iron Man 1 & 2 I saw in theaters, but still haven't seen IM3.

Might Ducks I know I saw the original, but can't remember if I saw the sequels. Same for Darkman. Matrix I saw the first (and was disappointed, given the hype) and then part of the sequels. I'm not sure if I've ever seen a full Godfather movie, although I've watched at least part of one of them on tv.

trentpac posted...

The Troll trilogy

Oh, didn't realize there was a third one.

Far-Queue posted...

I wasn't at all aware they made more than one Dark Man.

I only knew about two. More surprisingly, I learned that the original directly by Sam Raimi and starred Liam Neeson.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkman

tbh, been so long since I saw it that I barely remember anything and, of course, Liam Neeson wasn't really a household name at the time because this was before he got into doing big-budget action movies.
---

Well, if you just mean 'Bad' - I'd go with Spiderman. It wasn't very good.

If by disappointing you mean I was actually looking forward to something amazing and was a little let down, I'd go with the Matrix.

The first movie was amazing. The second was ok - and at the time it was a real mind-blower. The third had some amazing moments - but the trilogy overall was a let down.

Part of it probably had to do with the change in the times over the movie's time period. The internet was barely a popular thing at the release of the first movie. By the third - pay phones were almost forgotten about.

Star Wars and then Matrix
---

The hobbit is the biggest abomination in cinema since batman & robin
---

EP1 is bad
TMNT 3 is cheesy
IM3 is garbage
TGF 3 is bad but had it's moments.
SM3 is bad but no worse than IM3.

Don't care about the Hobbit or Troll. MDs can be watchable.

The Matrix doesn't belong here.
---

People are really picking the Hobbit over the prequel trilogy? Really?
---

Its hard to call the prequels disappointing because I was 6 when episode 1 came out.
---

trentpac posted...

Far-Queue posted...

I wasn't at all aware they made more than one Dark Man.

There was at least 3 that I'm aware of. 3 was really bad.

There was a tv series too
---

The hobbit trilogy isnt all that bad

If they had done two films instead of three it would have been much better
---

From those I've seen in that list:

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 3. Yes even back then when I saw it, the young me understood there was come crappiness going on there & some shock (how did they mess up that movie?)
---

Mead posted...

The hobbit trilogy isnt all that bad

If they had done two films instead of three it would have been much better

Have yet to see it, but my son loves watching the scenes where Bilbo enters Smaug's lair on YouTube.

Benedict Cumberbatch sounds like he did a phenomenal job from what I can tell.
---

FrozenBananas posted...

People are really picking the Hobbit over the prequel trilogy? Really?

I think its more that it had no right being a trilogy.
.
---

Hobbit trilogy was a big disappointment, especially considering how much love and care went into the LotT movies.

But the Prequel Star Wars takes the cake here.
---

Up
---

FrozenBananas posted...

People are really picking the Hobbit over the prequel trilogy? Really?

i liked the prequels
---

I'm a little surprised by the Hobbit hate, since I enjoyed what I saw of it. Granted, it'd been ages since I read the Hobbit so I wasn't necessarily coming at it with expectations from the book. In general, I don't think I remember all that much of a lot of books I read in my youth, possibly because I read so damn much.
---

The prequels were not just tremendously awful movies (Episodes II and III in particular), but they were supposed to be - and easily could have been - incredible.

There really is no other choice here. You can say have the opinion that other movies were worse, but objectively there really is no topping the prequels for how hyped they were and how badly they fell short of the mark.
---

darkknight109 posted...

The prequels were not just tremendously awful movies (Episodes II and III in particular), but they were supposed to be - and easily could have been - incredible.

There really is no other choice here. You can say have the opinion that other movies were worse, but objectively there really is no topping the prequels for how hyped they were and how badly they fell short of the mark.

I'm a little surprised that you put more emphasis on II and III, given that I squandered so much of its run time.
---

i could at least have fun with the star wars prequels, even if 1 and 2 were bad.

guess i'll vote spiderman. it was okay, but venom was wasted so fucking much that it still bums me out to think about.
---

Nade Duck posted...

guess i'll vote spiderman. it was okay, but venom was wasted so fucking much that it still bums me out to think about.

Casting fucking Topher Grace... still pisses the fuck out of me. Plus Venom really should have been handled in a second film although, the way it went, we wouldn't have seen it anyway.
---

Zeus posted...

darkknight109 posted...

The prequels were not just tremendously awful movies (Episodes II and III in particular), but they were supposed to be - and easily could have been - incredible.

There really is no other choice here. You can say have the opinion that other movies were worse, but objectively there really is no topping the prequels for how hyped they were and how badly they fell short of the mark.

I'm a little surprised that you put more emphasis on II and III, given that I squandered so much of its run time.

No argument that TPM was a complete waste of time - you could skip Episode I altogether and you wouldn't have missed any important plot points - but of the three it was, in my opinion, the most enjoyable of the bunch (not that that's a particularly high standard to reach). Liam Neeson anchored the cast and provided a much stronger central character than Hayden Christiensen could manage in the two sequels (Neeson's acting chops showed here, as he managed to take a completely flat and uninteresting character and still pull a half-decent performance out of bad writing).

The plot is nonsensical and logically inconsistent, but not nearly to the degree of Episode II, and its pacing isn't mangled to all hell like Episode III. It lacks the downright putrescent cringey-romance scenes that took up far too much time in its successors and the final battle is more coherent than anything the other two movies could manage. And while I know this is not a widely shared opinion, I think that Jar Jar Binks and the podracing sequence aren't nearly as bad as people make them out to be.

Of the three prequels, Episode I is the only one that I would ever bother watching again. I don't think I would ever willingly pick it as my movie of the evening, but if someone else wanted to watch it (my Dad has a soft spot for the movie, so when I'm visiting he occasionally decides he's in the mood for a viewing) I'll watch it.
---

i really liked the live action ninja turtles movies. they were fun :D
---

The Hobbit series was terrible, obvious money grab.
---

Star Wars.
---

samuricex posted...

The Hobbit series was terrible, obvious money grab.

and the entire star war franchise since the original WASN'T a money grab?
---

FrozenBananas posted...

samuricex posted...

The Hobbit series was terrible, obvious money grab.

and the entire star war franchise since the original WASN'T a money grab?

I don't think so. At least not in the way you mean it. I truly believe Lucas was trying to make good movies. He's an amazing ideas/world builder kind of guy. But he's just not a good script writer, editor, or even that good of a director.

The prequels had the potential for greatness. There's an amazing story there. It was just greatly mishandled. Lucas tried to do too much.
---

The Hobbit movies get way too much hate.

I mean... you get (pretty much) everything from the book, plus material that Tolkien had written (or written about) after the fact.

Sure, some things were changed or dropped or added for the sake of making a movie, but if that bothers about The Hobbit, I sure hope you also hate the LotR movies for the same reason
---

How can people vote The Godfather Trilogy if III is not a bad movie at all? Just a good film.
---

rexcrk posted...

The Hobbit movies get way too much hate.

I mean... you get (pretty much) everything from the book, plus material that Tolkien had written (or written about) after the fact.

Sure, some things were changed or dropped or added for the sake of making a movie, but if that bothers about The Hobbit, I sure hope you also hate the LotR movies for the same reason

I think people just like consistency.

They adopted one book to movie for LotR.

They adopted one book into THREE movies for the Hobbit.

You can argue which one is better. A 1:1 ratio may potentially rush through things too much. A 1:3 ratio may potentially spend too much time mucking about with stuff that doesn't matter or inserting filler or changes. Depends on the book, really. But even if people might prefer one over the other, it may still rub them the wrong way if they aren't consistent with that ratio through a series.

Harry Potter SORT OF of got away with it because the books actually get a lot longer after the first few. And even then people complain.

There is also the concept (which can be true or false) that if you make a book into a single movie, you can accept that, yes, some stuff will get dropped or rushed, and thus you may be more willing to overlook such flaws as long as they aren't too glaring. Conversely, if they make it into 3 movies, then a fan might hold them to a MUCH higher standard since they clearly have enough run time to cover most if not all of the material.

To each their own, really.
.
---

rexcrk posted...

I mean... you get (pretty much) everything from the book, plus material that Tolkien had written (or written about) after the fact.

If that was all there was to it, I'd like the movies a lot more.
---