The Great Movie Tournament - 2000s: Octofinal 3 of 8

[mae]

During the sixth round of The Great Movie Tournament, please vote for one film you would like to move onto the next round. The top film will be moving on. Keep in mind that the percentage of the vote a given film receives will determine its standing going forward.

The poll will run for seven days. Discussion is greatly encouraged!

The nominees are (please let me know if any video doesn't play for you):


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ad/Lord_of_the_Rings_-_The_Two_Towers.jpg
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Two_Towers)
Directed by Peter Jackson


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTb2BYLn7cg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8b/No_Country_for_Old_Men_poster.jpg
No Country for Old Men (2007) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Country_for_Old_Men_%28film%29)
Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0oNrgumrlE

[Merlin1958]

LOTR


Side Note: IMHO it was a mistake listing the 3 films separately. It will skew results and, again IMHO isn't fair to the trilogy. All 3 should have been listed as 1 film, IMHO

[Still Servant]

LOTR


Side Note: IMHO it was a mistake listing the 3 films separately. It will skew results and, again IMHO isn't fair to the trilogy. All 3 should have been listed as 1 film, IMHO

I may have missed it, but was this your humble opinion, or were you trying to pass this off as fact?

*waits for negative reps from cowards*

[Mattrick]

I was fine with listing all three Lord of the Rings films separately as it was a trilogy. However, I think they all should've been in the same group so there could only be one that advanced into the final 16 films or whatever number the initial group stage ended (there is a group stage until a certain point, right?)



I still think Kill Bill should've been put in as one film. It is one film.


I voted No Country For Old Men. Two Towers is great, but not as good as Fellowship. And No Country For Old Men is just a masterpiece of less is more filmmaking.

[St. Troy]

LOTR

[Iwritecode]

LOTR


Side Note: IMHO it was a mistake listing the 3 films separately. It will skew results and, again IMHO isn't fair to the trilogy. All 3 should have been listed as 1 film, IMHO

You could make that case for pretty much any trilogy or even any movie franchise with more than 2 movies. Should the Harry Potter movies be listed together as 1 film? Back to the Future? MiB? All the Twilight films? The 2 new IT films? They all basically tell one long continuous story.

I say keep them separate.

[divemaster]

There's a difference between making a movie and then discovering it made money and coming up with "ok, let's make a sequel." vs. "I'm going to make all three films at once and then release them in three separate parts."

[Iwritecode]

There's a difference between making a movie and then discovering it made money and coming up with "ok, let's make a sequel." vs. "I'm going to make all three films at once and then release them in three separate parts."

I think all but one of the examples I gave fall into the latter category.

[DanHocker]

There's a difference between making a movie and then discovering it made money and coming up with "ok, let's make a sequel." vs. "I'm going to make all three films at once and then release them in three separate parts."

I think all but one of the examples I gave fall into the latter category.

I'm not so sure about that. I think the only ones that really fall into that category are The IT movies and maybe Harry Potter, but I'd argue that had the first movie in any of the ones you listed bombed they wouldn't have made sequels. Where with LOTR all 3 of those movies were coming out no matter what, just because of how the production worked on them.

[Iwritecode]

You could argue that the original Back to the Future was meant to be a stand-alone film, but then they filmed the 2 sequels back to back.

The Twilight films were released in consecutive years. There's no way they didn't' plan on making all the books into films when they made the first movie. Plus they also filmed the last 2 movies back-to-back.

[amd013]

Theres no way Harry Potter could be considered as 1 movie. You could argue for Deathly Hollows Part 1 and Part 2 being combined. But in general there are a series of stories, whereas, LOTR and IT are just one story split among multiple movies. So here is my list of movies that could be combined, if we were inclined to do so: (in no particular order, other then order they popped into my head)

1) LOTR 1-3
2) Hobit 1-3
3) It 1-2
4) Harry Potter Deathly Hollows Part1-Part2,
5) Kill Bill Vol1-2 (I assume, based on other discussions, as I have never seen)
6) Return to the future parts 2 and 3 (part 1 should be separate)
7) Mockingjay Part 1 and Part2
8) Twilight Breaking Dawn Part1 and 2

I am sure there are lots of others. But in other words, we should only combine if it is one story that was split into multiple films due to length of film issues.

[DanHocker]

You could argue that the original Back to the Future was meant to be a stand-alone film, but then they filmed the 2 sequels back to back.

The Twilight films were released in consecutive years. There's no way they didn't' plan on making all the books into films when they made the first movie. Plus they also filmed the last 2 movies back-to-back.

I don't think I knew that about Back to the Future. It sure doesn't seem that way when you watch them.

[Iwritecode]

You could argue that the original Back to the Future was meant to be a stand-alone film, but then they filmed the 2 sequels back to back.

The Twilight films were released in consecutive years. There's no way they didn't' plan on making all the books into films when they made the first movie. Plus they also filmed the last 2 movies back-to-back.

I don't think I knew that about Back to the Future. It sure doesn't seem that way when you watch them.

That it was originally supposed to be a stand-alone film or that the last 2 were filmed back to back?

I actually had to look it up but that "to be continued" at the end of the first one wasn't in the original theatrical release. They added it later when it came out on VHS. They said that if they had planned on a second movie, they wouldn't have had Jennifer get in the car with Doc and Marty. Which is why they almost immediately took her out of the story at the beginning.

There's also an image/reference to "Maddog" Tanner in the 2nd movie because they already knew where they were going with the story.

[DanHocker]

You could argue that the original Back to the Future was meant to be a stand-alone film, but then they filmed the 2 sequels back to back.

The Twilight films were released in consecutive years. There's no way they didn't' plan on making all the books into films when they made the first movie. Plus they also filmed the last 2 movies back-to-back.

I don't think I knew that about Back to the Future. It sure doesn't seem that way when you watch them.

That it was originally supposed to be a stand-alone film or that the last 2 were filmed back to back?

I actually had to look it up but that "to be continued" at the end of the first one wasn't in the original theatrical release. They added it later when it came out on VHS. They said that if they had planned on a second movie, they wouldn't have had Jennifer get in the car with Doc and Marty. Which is why they almost immediately took her out of the story at the beginning.

There's also an image/reference to "Maddog" Tanner in the 2nd movie because they already knew where they were going with the story.

That the last 2 were filmed back to back.

[mae]

The poll has closed. No Country for Old Men moves on and The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is eliminated.