Does a good movie trilogy even exist? Why are trilogies always ruined by the third film?

Does a good movie trilogy even exist? Why are trilogies always ruined by the third film?
>pic related comes close, but Jedi is easily the weakest
>The Dark Knight Rises is easily the worst Nolan Batman film
>The Godfather Part III is easily the worst Godfather film
>Alien 3 is easily the worst of the first three Alien movies
>who even cares about Back To The Future part III?

I think you might be on to something.

LOTR trilogy is great all the way through

...

>second is a remake of the first
>third is a lol so randum!1! fantasy film
Nah.

>I couldn't understand the nuance in the Problem Child saga: the post

Matrix Trilogy

Ace Ventura Trilogy

>matrix
No.

LOTR ROTK > TTT

Great thread you have here, great taste too!

A great piece of shit from start to finish. If you like the movies so much, just read the fucking books

Yeah, but Two Towers is the weakest. So it's not every part better than the previous one.

OP says trilogies where third film isn't weakest which is lotr

Ok, then the Star Wars prequels. That was easy.

do people actually think matrix 2 and 3 were anywhere close to being as good as 1?

Cause first one comes there isn't much for expectations so when it comes out it was a nice surprise. Second comes out and out dues the first one, now the third is already hyped up. By the time the third comes out the Movie isn't capable of meeting expectations so it will generally be the weakest

I consider rotj my favorite Star Wars film, why do people seem to dislike it?

OP here. Don't get me wrong. Fucking love that movie, but the Jabba's palace scene doesn't fit well with the rest of the film, and the Ewoks defeating an entire legion of the emperor's "best troops" is ridiculous.

Well i guess i just like conclusions.

...

I still love ROTJ.

Even if The Two Towers is the weakest, it still is pretty damn great.

Except Civil War was shit.

>yfw Bowie's offspring is going to deliver us from evil with the Moon trilogy

1>2>3

Kill yourself. Only the first 5 minutes of Evil Dead 2 are a remake of The Evil Dead, the rest of Evil Dead 2 is original. Plus the tone of Evil Dead 2 is very different from The Evil Dead. The Evil Dead is a straight-faced horror film that has unintentional dark humor, Evil Dead 2 is an intentional horror comedy. Also, Army of Darkness is a fucking masterpiece.

Winter Soldier was bad too.

No, you've just been on Sup Forums too long.

...

>/thread

>The Hobbit >inb4 Journey/Desolation weren't great
>Iron Man
>Spiderman
>X-Men

Hot damn OP, looks like your theory is checking out.

I guess the "Before" trilogy is an exception, if you're into that.

Is the prequel trilogy the only 3>1>2 trilogy?

You're right, I love the evil dead trilogy. But the first has very limited rewatchability for me. I just come back to ED2 and 3 constantly.

but LotR are written like shit

No, LOTR is too.

Battle of the Five Armies was actual trash.

you can really see the power ups in the posters
>first is a bunch of regular guys
>second is a bunch of super spies
>third is alien tech and magic

These posts are correct.
Bait.
1 is a decent but forgettable superhero origin flick, 2 is a surprisingly good action thriller although in the third act it falls apart and becomes a generic superhero flick, I haven't seen 3 but even if it's great I wouldn't call the entire trilogy great since 1 is pretty meh.

>These films are a trilogy

Because they... what, exactly?

Leone didn't even consider them a trilogy, you've been baited, quite literally, by marketers.

Civil War is good on viewing, but quickly forgotten.

>you've been baited, quite literally,

I know, I wasn't being ironic.

All of the 3rd films in the series listed have great scenes, but overall are complete hogwash.

They're connected thematically. Even if they weren't made a trilogy, they're classified as one, which is enough to fit OP's criteria

not perfect, but my favorite movie trilogy :)

>thematically

Clint Eastwood dicking around in the west is a theme? Fuck, I wonder how many trilogies John Wayne had.

You're right, I love the evil dead trilogy. But the first has very limited rewatchability for me. I just come back to ED2 and 3 constantly.

Prequels are I > III > II, you massive plebs. Go re-watch ROTS. It's trash.

Die Hard
Indiana Jones

I already know many will disagree.

Go re-watch TPM. It's worse.

Cornetto trilogy is pretty consistent

>inb4 Reddit

Although I am a steadfast Jedi defender*, I can comfortably allow that it is the weakest of the OT. I will furthermore admit that for movies in general, third installments are often totally unnecessary, and only embolden studios to keep churning out more derivative crap.

So we can agree that the third flick is often the weakest, or where things really get tiresome. NOW, since this is true of the movies, bake your noodles, chums, and ask yourself the analogous questions:

WHY IS IT that in TV series, the third season is so often where the show hits its stride, and starts getting great? WHY IS IT that the third installment in a video game series is so-often so-much better than the previous incarnations?
WHY IS IT that for many bands that don't blow their wad on a great debut album, the third-album (plus or minus one) is where they reach the height of their art?

All of these media seem to entail "longer form" consumption than a movie, which is necessarily compact consumption, yes, even a long movie. I think that's got something to do with it.

* The image of Jabba the Hutt was a unique and highly original alien movie creature, even by Star Wars standards, we now use this as a humorous synonym for morbid obesity. The Emperor's throne room, guards, character and antagonism to the Skywalkers are all boss. The whole Battle of Endor, far from being turgid, is a tight machine that edits perfectly between three locales to show the battle being waged on all three fronts. Ewoks aside, a forest planet is an nice non-desert non-hellhole permutation (not a desert/ice/swamp planet).

No, it's objectively shit.

The entire premise of the show is retarded. Tony was being a little pussy faggot and crying like a little bitch because of some kid who was collateral damage while they were saving the world. Boohoo someone died instead of the entire world becoming enslaved.

Then he does a 360, a backflip and starts blaming the winter dude for doing bad stuff while literally brainwashed.

The whole movie is embarrassing and it's themes are straight from the first ethics class in school. It's infantile and condescending towards its audience.

Just curious what makes you thing Last Crusade is better than Raiders?
I've never thought they even compared. Both are better than Temple of Doom though

this. got it for my birthday in 2015 so i felt obliged to finish it. took me like 10 months to slog through it since it was painful to read more than 5 pages per sitting. even with being a wagecuck, going through a 1200 page book usually takes me like a month. actually for lotr it was more like 900 pages, since i didn't read all the annexes. abysmal book. my mind cannot comprehend the fact that there are people who have read this multiple times.

...

This scene alone feels more like the OT than anything in ROTS, save for the last two minutes before the credits roll.
TPM has that atmosphere of a real Star Wars film.

they're all shite though, the thing is these movies are considered unfunny trash in britain
you, the american, only find them funny because of the zany accents and lingo
spaced/shaun of dead/hot fuzz/worlds end are to britain what big mama's house is to america and viced-versa

>the tired meme that RotJ is bad

Episode 1 fedoras are the worst.

Not that user, but I always felt Crusade had a stronger emotional core. It might be because I have father problems, but I was much more invested in Indy's relationship with his father than with Marion, making the movie a better experience, tbqh

also that German bitch was one of my first wanks

Don't get me wrong. TPM sucks. It's a fucking horrible movie, but ROTS is worse.

In Return of the Jedi's case, it's just a matter of a lot of corners being cut. Still a good movie. Just has loads of wasted potential.

...

Dollars

RotJ redeems itself with the best lightsaber duel of the films

I like it as much as Empire, but honestly the second half drags pretty hard. There's too much going on during the climax and it started the Star Wars trend of cutting between a hundred different things during the final battle.

This, plus I'm a huge Connery fan starting with Dr. No. So there is some bias involved. I also like the climax better. In Raiders Indy got lucky with the Ark being essentially a Nazi killing machine, while when it came to the Grail I felt like it was a nice mix of godly power and Indiana's own knowledge.

I love all of them though. Even Crystal Skull (which yeah, had significant problems, but it was still fun)

What about a trilogy of trilogies? The Star Wars sequel trilogy has all the potential to be far shittier than the prequels.

No, because the prequel trilogy is 3>2>1

Seriously, you can skip 1 and lose nothing.

You liked Bruno?

How?

This. Also the tank chase>truck chase

I always like Last Crusade better as well. I couldn't tell you why.

Temple of Doom sucks I have no idea why people don't say so. I think they just haven't watched it in a long time and they forget how dumb it is.

Die Hard 2 is bad

>Seriously, you can skip 1 and lose nothing.

Except for the cool as shit Darth Maul fight.

>who even cares about BTTF III
ZZ top cameo
steady continuation of the running BttF gags
maintaining horrific suspense of the last 2

If anything Back to the Future is a standalone example of a good trilogy. They did nothing to fuck it up, while maintaining a strong connection to the last 2 films.

Winner, even though it isn't really a trilogy in the real sense

ROTJ is pretty good. The only problem is that although it's kind of silly that the Emperor would build another deathstar after episode IV the whole fools returning to their folly theme really goes nuts when episode VII features a very similar sun destroyer.

Planet of the Apes, but that's a pentalogy

>taking the indiana jones films seriously
the movie was decent for its trilogy

Why has no one mentioned Toy Story yet? Is it because they're animated? All three are wonderful films.

>Brazil
>Time Bandits
>The Adventures of Baron Munchausen

Three films by one director does not a trilogy make. Otherwise I'd go for Big Trouble in Little China/Escape from New York/The Thing (I may have got the order wrong).

>Gilliam sometimes refers to this film as the second in his "Trilogy of Imagination" films, starting with Time Bandits (1981) and ending with The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1989).[13] All are about the "craziness of our awkwardly ordered society and the desire to escape it through whatever means possible."[13] All three movies focus on these struggles and attempts to escape them through imagination—Time Bandits, through the eyes of a child, Brazil, through the eyes of a man in his thirties, and Munchausen, through the eyes of an elderly man.
Good enough for me.

In an airing of the Godfather Trilogy it is acceptable to replace GFIII with Scarface, as long as you preface it by saying that Tony Montana is actually Fredo's illegitimate Cuban love child.

If you want to count this, then Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and The World's End are also pretty good as a trilogy.

...

It's dem practical effects and the fact it was shot on film, mang.

What is Toy Story?

>Alien 3 is easily the worst of the first three Alien movies
Get out.

Army of Darkness is and always will be shit

This is the only correct answer

Harry potter 1-3
4-6 or 6-8 are unironically great

Trois couleurs: bleu, blanc, rogue

I watched it a couple weeks ago. What's your problem with it. It's better than Last Crusade

There's a fourth one coming out
fuck disney jews

Darkman is a good trilogy.

>Why are trilogies always ruined by the third film?
Naked Gun 33 and 1/3 is just as good as the others.

Because the second film in a trilogy (when it's done well) has the benefit of building upon an existing mythology without the pressure to set it up or to resolve the plot lines it opens.

It becomes a victim of its own success as expectations (about how the world can develop even further) soar higher and higher to the point that it becomes virtually impossible wrap things up again in a satisfying manner.

I think there are a few instances where great trilogies have a strong or at least very good third offering.

>The Faith trilogy by Bergman
>The Three Colors trilogy by Kieslowski
>The BRD trilogy by Fassbinder
>The Apu Trilogy by Ray
>The Human Condition trilogy by Kobayashi

However, more than a couple of these aren't exactly telling a single straightforward story encompassing 3 feature lenght movies nor are conventionally bound to each other.

The Godfather part 3 also wasn't a whole lot worse than the previous two installments were. At least not from what I can remember

>The Godfather part 3 also wasn't a whole lot worse than the previous two installments were. At least not from what I can remember

It was worse. There are other problems, but I'm just going to focus on the talent of the cast. The first two movies had great casts filled with talented actors and actresses. They did an excellent job. Andy Garcia and Sophie Coppola had massive roles in the third movie and were not up to the challenge. Only Pacino and Mantegna were good in that.

Toy Story, why doesn't anyone ever talk about them?