Is there any trilogy that DOESN'T follow this pattern?

is there any trilogy that DOESN'T follow this pattern?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=zgywD3XJaWU
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Quite a few but they don't pander to the videogame sensibilities so you probably won't like them

Mad Max
LOTR
Three Colors

Dollars Trilogy

>me on the right

A lot of trilogies have the second movie as the best one. Star Wars, Raimi Spiderman, Evil Dead, Mad Max

Star Wars OT

Spider Man 1 = 2
Spider Man 2 = 1
Spider Man 3 = 3?

I only watched 3 once, years ago.

Apes and LOTR off the top of my head.

>ESB
pfft

lotr and starwars are like the quintaessencial example of op syndrome

Terminator
Alien

>Star Wars

pleb

LOTR does. Watch them again. The first movie is much better than the second, and the third movie is a mess. They're still good movies but relative to each other the difference is quality is apparent.

I remember when this happened. How did they manage to fuck that painting up so bad? Literally I could have done a better job. That was a hundred year old painting too.

>I think five movies means a trilogy

dolar trilogy

>Mad Max
Hello pleb

Yep, they improved with the size of the budget

One of the worst opinions I've ever seen. The LoTR movies are like 99/98.5/99 out of 100, there's no discernible difference in quality between them. The events taking place in the plot might vary in appeal to different people, but there's essentially zero difference in actual quality between the movies.

>lotr and starwars are like the quintessential [sic] examples [sic] of op syndrome
ESB is objectively great, though. It's as good if not better than ANH.

A batty old lady with no training/permission did it.

Later on she tried to copyright her fuckery, lol

Return of the King is a flawless movie though

No.

the Two Towers gets really boring halfway in, it seriously drags and is the only one of the movies where the theatrical cut is superior to the extended cut

oops, meant for

TDK trilogy

>The LoTR movies are like 99/98.5/99 out of 100, there's no discernible difference in quality between them.
ultrapleb spotted. fellowship was the only masterpiece, it was scaled perfectly and did almost everything right (except the river scene, it was shit). the next two movies were CGI armies charging at each other along with many questionable departures from the book and the shitty gollum CGI.

>the third movie is a mess
Contrarian retard detected

All three are equally boring and terrible

Nr.1 Great

Nr.2 Gritty Continuation

Nr.3 Caricature of its former self.

Star wars, mad max, lotr, Godfather, Terminator, Indiana Jones, Spiderman, Evil Dead.

I hope they fucking gassed that old bitty

>cgi armies charging at each other

nigger did you get LotR confused with the Hobbit? because besides a few overhead shots (that would have been impossible to film with extras) the CGI armies are kept to a minimum and most of the troops are real extras in armor.

>muh books
>Gollum CGI is bad

If you get the opportunity you should kill yourself

Objectively wrong.

This pattern applies for reboots

No. Not with Jackson's edits and additions.

Trails of Cold Steel

Pleb detected

Most everyone agrees that the third movie is a poorly paced hodgepodge of bad breaks from the books and shitty CGI. It is you who is the contrarian faggot.

The original Bourne trilogy.

the image should be reversed in that case

Lolwhat?

They were praised for their rendering program that was able to procedually generate unique combatants in large scale war scenes, which make up like half of the second movie.

>would have been impossible to film with extras
Spartacus laughs at you.
youtube.com/watch?v=zgywD3XJaWU

LOTR's only kino is Fellowship. Two Towers is just a movie. Return King is a fucking flick.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy is like:
I = 8/10
II = 7/10
III = 6 /10
... if you haven't read the books.

if you did, it's an overall 6/10.

Best post ITT desu

>if you did, it's an overall 6/10.
Nah, Fellowship would be 10/10.

why?

the original painting itself was unremarkable and the amount of fame and success the town garnered after the botched restoration job was ultimately better than any good attempt

As an adaptation it has its ups and downs but overall it captures the story quite well

Alien

Nope

That's fake news

This. People only like Return of the King because of muh resolution and muh shitty CGI armys

Star Wars.

Considering the 2nd one is the best.

Evil Dead,Spiderman,Terminator fit perfectly

Toy Story.
Since 2 was the best.

All the films were filmed simultaneously with scenes for the different films captured over 8 years so idea that the quality slips across the films is nonsense.

Critics that say make the claim reveal themselves to be contarian "I'm getting hints of oak" faux wine tasters of the cinema world.

I felt that it only re-told the story in a very superficial way and focused on the less interesting elements while omitting other more interesting ones completely.

Like how they went out of their way to minimize unfamiliar and unexplained characters and references while the books did the exact opposite which made the world feel so much more vivid and mysterious.

Or how they turned Aragorn into a tragic, doubt-ridden figure while in the books he was more of a confident, beowulfian hero archetype, which many people today would find strange since we're so wary of totalitarian leader figures now.

The whole point of the lengthy Shire sequence is to make you identifiy with the ordinary hobbits who, like the viewer, are unfamiliar with this vast fantasy world, so the fantastical elements can shine all the brighter.

Cornetto Trilogy.

SotD=2
HF=1
TWE=3

>Most everyone agrees that the third movie is a poorly paced hodgepodge of bad breaks from the books and shitty CGI

lol no watched TT in the cinema when I was 11 and didn't get bored for a second.

Quality can slip within a single film you fucking retard.

True.

>Even considering any alien movie except the first and Aliens

...

What bout this

Gollum wasn't shitty tho

In my opinion LOTR doesn't do this. I know people pretend Fellowship is the best one, but it doesn't have a satisfying final act the way The Two Towers had. Return of the King had some amazing moments as well.

Guess it all depends on what you enjoy most. Fellowship is great for characters, comfy adventure etc. Two Towers and RotK had much better and grander action scenes, as well as many emotional scenes which pay off in a way that could only have been achieved by all the setting up that the first two films did.

Pirates of the Caribbean completely follow OP's pattern though, if you count the first three as a trilogy.

...

Toy Story, Cornetto, Police Academy, Die hard.

Die Hard is the masterpiece for 1 and 3 and the shit for 2

Why wasn't it called Oldboys Vengeance though?

But that's not what's being said, what's being implied is a slipping of quality due to the sequals syndrome, which LOTR doesn't have.

The third is better than the second.

Dunno.
It's pretty revengy, thats no denying that.

Because it wasn't intended as a trilogy at that point and just a mangoo adaption

3 was the best you pleb.

Really now..

No.

>I'm getting hints of oak" faux wine tasters
If a food is kept in oak barrels you can get oak taste you fucking moran

>I felt that it only re-told the story in a very superficial way and focused on the less interesting elements while omitting other more interesting ones completely.
My point is that it captured the basic story. There is no way, at all, to capture the depth of the LoTR in the time a movie format. It would take way too much time.

So they skipped some stories here, skimmed over characters there, and focused on the adventure itself.

First one focused on the adventure. The latter ones focused on boring CGI battles which is why they suck.

>indiana jones
shut your fucking mouth

>boring CGI battles
Hold on there, Two Towers had much more tangible battling than CGI battling. It was RoTK that had the big battle as CGI and they had to for most of its scope. How could you get animal tamers for [Elephants] to do any of that shit?

>No Barrow-Downs
Just cause of this, the fellowship loses a lot..
But I have to agree. For me Moria is better than Helm's Deep and Minas Tirith.

Blade breaks your thread, OP

First one was solid, second was a cluttered mess, and Trinity went back to the basics and just added some budget

Moria is indeed way better than Helm's Deepthroat and Anus Tearith, in no small part because it has the entire Fellowship and Gandalf the Grey but also because it is horror kino.

>Here's two wines
>One's cheap shit, the others aged fine wine from darkest france
>"Oh yes, with the second I'm clearly getting a hint of red berry."
>Lol sorry they're both the shit brand
>"REEEEEEEEEEEEE"

Like clockwork lad.

Austin Powers. Also The Matrix is the the first Jesus and its sequels are the last Jesus twice.

Total pleb. Fellowship is a self-contained masterpiece. RotK, whilst still great, is bloated and lacks the narrative thrust of the first one.

That doesn't mean 2 Buck Chuck tastes as good as decent wine. Price has nothing to do with taste, taste has everything to do with taste.

Yet another pleb opinion. Blade II is the best of the trilogy, despite its awkward CGI.

Tolkein himself said that some people liked parts of LoTR that other people hated, and vice versa. For me, that part that I like that other people hated was the Hobbit trilogy.

Just kidding, the Hobbit trilogy is fucking terrible as a movie and an objectively bad adaptation of the book. So much shit is in that trilogy that should not exist, and so much shit is not in that trilogy that should be in it.

Trilogies that fit OP's image:
>Star Wars OT
>The Matrix
>LOTR
>The Hobbit
>Back to the Future
>The Exorcist
Trilogies that don't fit OP's image:
>Star Wars PT
>prime Indiana Jones
>Daniel Craig's Bond's Vesper Lynd trilogy
>Sergio Leone's Dollars trilogy
>Austin Powers

>Star Wars
redditor detected

The Necromancer storyline in The Hobbit actually comes from the Silmarillion

Prequel Star Wars fits it better than the original.

is this supposed to be 1>3>2? cause 2 looks way better than 3 there

Yeah man, I've never seen an antihero protagonist join up with a defecting or otherwise resistant member of an antagonist group who just happens to be of the opposite gender and ultimately dies just before the hetero-normative mushy shit can set in.

Definitely went for originality too when the repressed and oppressed population with no real backstory suddenly rises up just long enough to be wiped out completely.

Speaking of that uprising, kudos to the character development for making the main bad guy's personality a caricature of a sorta dickish father. That definitely hasn't been worn out for centuries.

The CGI definitely had its fair share of cringe, but at least that's something the blind won't have to endure.

TMNT2 edges out TMNT1 in my book.

but only just, I loved April's narrative touch in 1

This guy is right, despite all the obvious contrarians.

>he rates a movie based on how closely it gets the source material

hello plebbit