Just watched Dawn of the Dead 04 again....

[MinionZombie]

How was he destroying it with Day? Because it had a dark tone instead of Dawn's lollipop adventure-fun? I don't see that as destroying anything. He just made a different film. Why make a film like Dawn all over again? If anything, Day is closer to Night than Dawn. A good way to close out the trilogy, imo. And it's always been my favorite of the three... I agree, except that Dawn is my favourite of GAR's zed flicks. I don't see any kind of destruction with Day, I think GAR was still in his prime back then, and when you see the behind the scenes stuff, it's really the last one of his flicks which had that family vibe - something which served his films well up to and including that point. Then Monkey Shines happened, and while good, it wasn't spectacular ... and then The Dark Half was a let down, and Bruiser wasn't a big deal either after so much of the 1990s just slipped away. And you all know how much I dig Land, even if it's not up there with Night, Dawn and Day, it's still quality and I'd say is his best flick since Day. Diary though, it had some moments and some nice bits, but generally it was average with moments of "oh dear". Roll on "of the Dead", which - from what I've seen - looks much better than Diary.

[darth los]

How was he destroying it with Day? Because it had a dark tone instead of Dawn's lollipop adventure-fun? I don't see that as destroying anything. He just made a different film. Why make a film like Dawn all over again? If anything, Day is closer to Night than Dawn. A good way to close out the trilogy, imo. And it's always been my favorite of the three... Don't get me wrong, I like DAY, I just feel that his work was more up to snuff pre-DAY. Day is still one of the best zombie films made, but lets face facts he isn't doing what he should be doing with his series. It is almost like he is deliberately destroying it. I don't think that deej meant to disparage day. Only that the direction of the series since then is not what it should be and therefore falls short of the bar set by the trilogy. On a side note: I was thinking the other day about a trilogy that's as good as GAR'S. The matrix came to mind, maybe the Godfather, but not much else. Everyone has their opinions but are there any others that compare?

[DawnGirl27]

I can think of many I know who would put up the Lord of the Rings trilogy...

[bassman]

Star Wars(original) Back To The Future Indiana Jones The Man With No Name Quite a few great trilogies right there...

[clanglee]

You consider the Matrix trilogy good?

[AcesandEights]

You consider the Matrix trilogy good? I think it gets a worse rap than it deserves, but you make a good point.

[Trin]

Matrix is a crazy trilogy. First movie is arguably one of the most creative concepts around, and it delivers in acting, plot, and effects. I was blown away. Then Matrix 2 & 3 basically killed it. Not only did they make you scratch your head at themselves, but they make you go back and re-watch Matrix and scratch your head at it too. It is one of the only series where a sequel makes the original worse. Lord of the Rings counts if you acknowledge that they had perhaps the greatest epic adventure in writing to draw from. If we're counting things that exceed 3: Alien, Aliens, ..... er... maybe one of the later Alien movies could limp its way into the running and complete the trilogy?? You know the first 2 are enough to carry the third. Planet of the Apes. Choose the best 3 of the 5 and you have a great trilogy. Heck, like GAR's, just choose the first 3. Again, adapted from a book, so not entirely original to film.

[clanglee]

Matrix is a crazy trilogy. First movie is arguably one of the most creative concepts around, and it delivers in acting, plot, and effects. I was blown away. Then Matrix 2 & 3 basically killed it. Not only did they make you scratch your head at themselves, but they make you go back and re-watch Matrix and scratch your head at it too. It is one of the only series where a sequel makes the original worse. . Exactly. The first movie was so original and good. The second was a clusterfuck of infinite proportions, and the third. . well. . it came last. The second two did indeed put a bad taste in my mouth for the first.

[krakenslayer]

Matrix is a crazy trilogy. First movie is arguably one of the most creative concepts around, and it delivers in acting, plot, and effects. I was blown away. Then Matrix 2 & 3 basically killed it. Not only did they make you scratch your head at themselves, but they make you go back and re-watch Matrix and scratch your head at it too. It is one of the only series where a sequel makes the original worse. Alien, Aliens, ..... er... maybe one of the later Alien movies could limp its way into the running and complete the trilogy?? You know the first 2 are enough to carry the third. Wow, you just perfectly expressed my feelings on the Matrix trilogy! I couldn't have put it better myself. With regards Alien 3, with recent viewings I have discovered that the third movie is actually an incredibly artful, well-made, intelligent movie of a type that has been extremely rare in Hollywood since the 70s/80s. However, one has to get past the fact that the plot is not only mind-numblingly slow and soul-crushingly depressing, but also a direct (and possibly spiteful) kick in the nuts to Aliens and its fans.

[EvilNed]

I love the original Dead trilogy, as well as the Matrix trilogy. I think the sequels are great, and I get alot out of em'. But if other people do not, I'm not going to put them down for it. Film is a personal experience. For me, I'm kinda annoyed by how many people seem to claim that THEY hold the facts on what the best GAR film is. There is no superior film in anyway. For me, Day of the Dead is my favourite film of all time. Nothing compares to it, not even Dawn. It's simply a masterpiece. Of course Land wasn't going to live up to it, but I still like Land. And Dawn 04 isn't a zombiefilm, it's an actionfilm. It's fast-paced, annoying and riddled with cheap scares. It plays too much on clichés for me to enjoy it as anything else than popcorn fun. And when a zombiefilm steeps to that level for me, it ceases to be a zombiefilm. Or even a horrorfilm. As for the Lord of the Rings-trilogy, it starts out good. But even after the first 30 minutes I can't help but thinking "This is so over the top it's laughable...". The films are basicly poking fun at themselves with their ridiculous melodramatics.

[Trin]

Maybe I'll give Alien 3 a re-watch. If what you say is true Kraken, the Alien trilogy would be the perfect companion trilogy to the Dead series. First movie was groundbreaking with atmosphere and unique concept. Second movie expanded the setting and took the concept to an action-adventure level without losing what made the first movie great. Third movie was dark and misunderstood but gains appreciation over time. Neohs.... the Game Informer spoof of the Matrix Trilogy from several years ago...

[darth los]

I can think of many I know who would put up the Lord of the Rings trilogy... I demand that you name names !!! Star Wars(original) Back To The Future Indiana Jones The Man With No Name Quite a few great trilogies right there... Those are all indeed great ones. I don't have a monopoly on ideas that's why I asked you guys. I respect your opinions. Thnx. You consider the Matrix trilogy good? I think it gets a worse rap than it deserves, but you make a good point. It's actually growing on me more and more although none of them can even sniff the originals jockstrap. I feel that the original is a classic and was just fine as a stand alone movie. I agree that the sequels tarnished the series but I disagree that they tarnished the original. I do make that distinction. That's like saying diary tarnished day/dawn/night and made them sucky film which I don't think anyone here is going to argue.

[Trin]

I agree that the sequels tarnished the series but I disagree that they tarnished the original. I do make that distinction. That's like saying diary tarnished day/dawn/night and made them sucky film which I don't think anyone here is going to argue. Valid opinion. For me, I cannot go back and watch the first one without trying to piece together how all the crazy bs in the sequels reconciles with the original. Some of it simple - like how no one could ever evade the agents in the original and yet in the sequels everyone can evade dozens of them. To the more complex - like how the whole Oracle/Architect plot developments reconcile with the original. All in all it makes my head hurt watching any of them, and that hurts my enjoyment. Lol - In the last one when Neo is confronting the Oracle about why she withheld so much info during their first meeting I always thought the answer should've been, "Well, you see, we didn't know we'd be making a sequel back then..." I think Diary (or Dawn/Day/Land for that matter) did a good job of not messing with the predecessors. Sure, we have our little niggly things like how long it takes a bite to kill someone, how long it takes a zombie to reanimate - yes, those things are somewhat inconsistent in the later movies compared to earlier ones. But by and large (so far - crosses fingers) none of the later movies bring into doubt major events or series defining behaviors from the earlier ones.

[Mike70]

I can think of many I know who would put up the Lord of the Rings trilogy... *hand goes up* easily. the dead series is not even remotely close to the Rings trilogy in terms of, well i was going to make long list but it should suffice to say - everything.

[MinionZombie]

*hand goes up* easily. the dead series is not even remotely close to the Rings trilogy in terms of, well i was going to make long list but it should suffice to say - everything. One thing nobody can seriously deny with the Rings trilogy, is the sheer epic achievement of doing those three huge movies back-to-back with such reverence for the source material. Plus those 4-disc DVDs kick ass.