Has anyone noticed that most film trilogies have a weak third entry? Any trilogies where the third one is the best...

Has anyone noticed that most film trilogies have a weak third entry? Any trilogies where the third one is the best, or at least isn't the worst?

Other urls found in this thread:

strawpoll.me/14648964/
youtube.com/watch?v=rfUc_tQ482M#t=3m
youtube.com/watch?v=ci3vT7-vU0g
youtube.com/watch?v=SQkygZdZ_Vk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

The Dollars Trilogy
LOTR
Dunston Checks In Trilogy

Die Hard

Bourne Ultimatum
Return of The Jedi
Planet of The Apes
Toy Story

Revenge of the Sith

Poll here:
strawpoll.me/14648964/
strawpoll.me/14648964/
strawpoll.me/14648964/

>let's make a good movie
>oh shit, better make the 2nd one even better
>better just finish this shit

Indiana Jones.
Dollar trilogy.

This is a good answer. Vengeance was really good.

>Planet of The Apes
wut

I don't know if you mean the old or new series but still... how?

LOTR

Fuck your poll retard.

The Wolverine trilogy (Logan)

>Return of The Jedi
Finally someone else who respects that movie.

It's funny: you can make the argument that Return of the King is the weakest of the LOTR trilogy, but even if you do, it's inescapably a great movie nonetheless.

My personal feeling is that Fellowship is the best movie, and I go back and forth over how to order ROTK and Two Towers.

Logan is the fourth movie. DoFP is the third.

all 3 are great

I always just say FotR>TT=RotK

>The Dollars Trilogy
This really is the most obvious answer. Sometimes I even forget there were two other movies in this series.

>people think they made the lord of the rings into movies

Sure, and this is a living breathing tiger.

And attached is a picture of the Tsukihime anime.

>Toy Story
BAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA

>implying 2 is somehow better than 3

Toy Story 2 is exactly the same as Toy Story 3 except that any is less of a worthless pedo fag in 2.

Shitter detected

>ctrl+f "Godfather"
>no results

Absolute plebs, it's the definitive trilogy concerning a weak third entry.

>back to the future
Fight me scrubs

>I can't read but I sure can type: the post

You could indeed make the case that 3 is stronger than 2. 2 is just "Let's do the same thing again but from a different angle." 3 is something different, even if it is basically just a western.

Is this bait? Horrible opinion if so. Return is the only one you could make a case for. Both 1 and 2 are better than 3 in all the rest. Especially toy story. 2 did the kid growing up plot in a 2 minute song. 3 is good but easily ranks last. Bourne ultimatum made me fall asleep.

...

I'll take that as an apology.

3>2>1
2 used to be my favorite because the future should be awesome but now I hate it because this sucks. Everyone says the first is the best but I just feel like a time travel movie should be a huge time distance

Are they actually connected? I was gonna watch GB&U because I've been hearing it's such a great western but then I noticed it's part of a trilogy and I hadn't watched the others either so I haven't gotten around to it yet.

It's literally the same story.

he's not wrong tho

Here's how it works.
A film is made, it is more successful than they expected and the call for a sequels comes to pass. Most sequels aren't as successful and/or ape off the original and don't go anywhere, but 1 in 100 is even just as or even more popular as the original. Then they say "well shit lets just make it a trilogy" and hitting gold 3 times in a row is as rare as you could imagine.
That's why.

I feel similarly.
>tfw 2's "future" was two years ago and we still don't even have hoverboards
But we do have shitty Segways that people call hoverboards for some reason which explode and burn up all the time so they're not even well made. Fuck this future.

this. I love the 3rd one so much.

It's funny that this is still kind of true with Star Wars except it applies to them as three trilogies rather than as individual films.

the real thing in question is the second movie. the first movie will be very good since they spend a lot of time developing the back story and that is usually very good. most times they realized they wasted a lot of the backstory in that intro and they're out of stuff to keep it interesting so they just pack it with a fuck ton of action and then the third movie comes and they're out of story so they make shit up and it doesn't work

the best trilogies were planned as triologies. see: LOTR

The other issue is when the first film is successful and then they skip step 2 and go strait to "well shit let's make a trilogy". This means the next two are heavily tied together Pirates of the Caribbean and Back to the Future are two examples.

>most times they realized they wasted a lot of the backstory in that intro
when they make the second movie*

Then there's today where entire cinematic universes are planned and start production before the first film comes out. Like the Dark universe or the Sony spider man movies that we thankfully never have to see
lookin at you dc

What? How are BttF 2 and 3 heavily tied together?

Well at the end of 2 doc gets zapped back to the old west...

That's more of a sequel hook for a movie they know is getting a sequel than having them heavily tied together like with PotC.

they were shot back to back, you can see a lot of subtle hints scattered throughout both films like cowboy biff being mentioned in the trump biff's life documentary or how trump biff is watching the movie where Clint Eastwood uses a stove door as a bullet proof vest and then Marty uses that trick

>Planet of The Apes
5 movies is not a trilogy

Don't play dumb, the remakes obviously are a trilogy and even if he didn't mean the remakes he just means that the third one isn't the worst one.

Iron Man 3, Captain America CW, Dark Knight Rises, and Thor 3 were all good, with Thor 3 being the best of 3 while CW and the DKR are better than their firsts. IM3 was clearly better than 2 even if you hated it.
>inb4 le cabegino xd

No, they're not directly connected. They reuse actors and obviously star Clint in all three. I would call it an anthology more than anything, however the GBU does reference the two earlier movies toward the end, but it's more of a wink to the audience. Some would argue that Once Upon a Time in the West is even better, but the actors are all different. Interestingly, I believe OUaTitW was originally meant to use the same actors from the GBU but due to scheduling conflicts it was recast.

I haven't seen most of the rest but TDKR was not better than BB. That said both of them were pretty weak and the only one I truly enjoyed from that trilogy was TDK.

>DKR better than BB
>being this wrong

Thanks for the information, that sounds interesting. I have seen Once Upon a Time in the West and I thought that was a very good movie, but at any rate I'll definitely watch the Dollars trilogy.

> I believe OUaTitW was originally meant to use the same actors from the GBU but due to scheduling conflicts it was recast.
I thought it was just supposed to have them as the three thugs at the beginning to make harmonica seem more badass by mowing them all down.

>DKR
>Better than BB

u wot m8

Whoops, wrong movie about the previous cast. It was Duck, You Sucker! Clint however was offered Harmonica (from wikipedia):
Leone originally offered the role of Harmonica to Clint Eastwood; when he turned it down, Leone hired Charles Bronson who had originally been offered and turned down the part of the Man with No Name in A Fistful of Dollars. James Coburn was also approached for Harmonica, but demanded too much money.

Eli Wallach who played Tuco recommended Fonda take the villain role:
After meeting with Leone, Fonda called his friend Eli Wallach, who had co-starred in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Wallach advised Fonda to do the film, telling him "You will have the time of your life."

(more from wikipedia):
The role of John Mallory was written for Jason Robards, who had played Cheyenne in Once Upon a Time in the West.[5] However, the studio wanted a bigger name for his character. Clint Eastwood was then approached by Leone for the role, but he saw it as just a different take of the same character he had already played in the Dollars Trilogy, and he also wanted to end his association with the Italian film industry.

The role of Juan Miranda was written for Eli Wallach, based on his performance of Tuco in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, but Wallach had already committed to another project with Jean-Paul Belmondo. After Leone begged Wallach to play the part, he dropped out of the other project to play Juan. However, Rod Steiger owed the studio another movie, and refused the backing unless Steiger was used.
>Leone offered no compensation to Wallach, and Wallach subsequently sued.
bum deal

I'm curious why you think BB was better. I always thought the consensus was that it had a weaker story, antagonist, and set pieces than the other two.

BB was more consistent as a movie and truer to the portrayal of batman from the comics. He works in the shadows and uses fear to intimidate his enemies. He also employs gadgets. The plot wasn't outright retarded either. I like that fear was a central theme to the movie and added to the vibe of the setting. BB also felt like the only Nolan batman flick that at least tried to create a setting true to Gotham. By TDK, it just feels like batman in Chicago. It's even worse by TDKR.

>I always thought the consensus was that it had a weaker story, antagonist, and set pieces than the other two.
And what's your personal opinion?

I don't recall anything in BB that makes Gotham seem like a unique city beyond having heroes and villains in it.
>The plot wasn't outright retarded either
Oh, you're just memeing. Carry on then.

I haven't seen it in a good while, don't feel confident giving one. About time I binged all three.

For one thing BB has the best Batman voice of the three.
youtube.com/watch?v=rfUc_tQ482M#t=3m

It actually sounds natural like a guy just trying to cover up his voice a bit, instead of the ridiculously over the top shit he does in TDK. He backs off a bit in TDKR so I assume there was backlash to it but still.

Evil Dead. Army of Darkness is pure kino.

Hobbit trilogy

Finally some Patrician views

Came here to post this except for Dunston checks in - they made more of those?

Back to the Future

part 2 is the weak link.

Also, TDKR loses points for Bane's plan literally just being a larger-scale rehash of Ras'. Nolan phoned it in with TDKR to the extent that he couldn't even come up with a new idea.

I'm still confused as to why Peter Jackson had to make a trilogy out of one book. It's been a while since I read it, but I'm pretty sure, there was no battle of the five armies. They just got Smaug's gold and went back to the shire.

$$$

The Human Condition

I wish.
>expected a movie about the Battle of the Five Armies to be kino that could go in-depth and portray an awesome battle that was only touched upon in the book, without having to be bound by the book at all which would free them up to do their own thing
>instead it's a three hour slog with zero change in scenery and barely any action for a movie called "Battle of the Five Armies"

No, there was a big battle at the end of the Hobbit. Here's the kicker though, it was like 2 pages long.

You're incorrect. I reread it after the movies came out and there definitely was a battle, the thing is it lasted like five pages at most. The only thing that made it notable was how unnotable it was. Bilbo gets knocked out while he's invisible and misses most of the battle so Thorin and some of the dwarfs essentially die offscreen. And yet it was somehow more interesting than what they portrayed in the movie.

I've forgotten all of them, they melted together into a disgusting mess. Also daily reminder that the Hobbit is kid shit and can't be made into kino.

It was far superior to 3, which was lots of fun but not as interesting.

Fuck you, The Hobbit is a kino book. It's Jackson's fault that the movies turned out so poorly.

youtube.com/watch?v=ci3vT7-vU0g

Indiana Jones. Raiders is the worst Indy (still a good movie though)

No, I think it's a new forced meme on Sup Forums for some reason because I've been seeing people post it lately. Which is weird because it's been a Dunkey meme for years so it's not even an original meme.

Raiders isn't an Indiana Jones movie. It doesn't have Indiana Jones in the title.

>the boring, small time, predictable backstory that gives Frodo a reason to do something interesting
>kino
It's just the generic "hero slays beast" plot authors have churned out for thousands of years, with minor twists so it's not too obvious. Which is just perfect...for a key kids book.

>Return of the Jedi
I see you are a man of refined taste as well

youtube.com/watch?v=SQkygZdZ_Vk

>the generic "hero slays beast" plot
Except Bilbo doesn't even fight Smaug you fucking idiot. Get out of my thread, it's clear you've never even read the book.

Holy shit, this video explains so much. It's nice to see the crew actually being honest about what went wrong instead of trying to pretend it was some huge success.

Still pisses me off that Tintin was sidetracked because of this. I want another fucking Tintin movie, damn it.

>with minor twists
Lern2red

2 is the ultimate evil dead experience

Yyyyyyyep.

>The Dollars Trilogy
You're not wrong, but the good, the bad and the ugly is essentially standalone

FRACTALS

FotR>>>>RotK>=TT