The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I was thinking today that I can't think of a movie trilogy that keep the same level of quality over all three films, or better yet, that continues to improve over all three.

I think that many come close, but there's always a weak point.

I would guess that the Star Wars Trilogy is the closest, but I think that a lot of the things introduced in Return of the Jedi are corny and silly, when compared to Empire, which I think most would agree is a step up from Star Wars.

I think that Nolan's Batman franchise might be able to take the top spot.  Batman Begins was really good, The Dark Knight was better, and if he can cap it off with the same level of film-making (which he seems to be doing a better job of, as a director), it could be something great.

Usually two of the three are good and the third is not so much, such as Indiana Jones.

Actually, the third Indy movie was damn good if you ask me.

Another good trilogy is The Godfather.

Indiana Jones was 4 movies. But even when it was just a trilogy, #1 and 3 were good, and #2 was lacking....

Frimp- as a diehard Godfather fan, I have to disagree. They had so much potential with what they coudl've done with #3, but it sucked.

I'm one of the few who like GF3. Its the weakest of them by far, but its still a pretty good movie.

Oh yeah.  I never saw the 4th one.

Shouldn't Star Wars be considered not a trilogy as well? With the addition of the prequals it is now a six movie series.

I thought of one that is good top to bottom:  The Lord of the Rings

I think that the Indy trilogy peaked at the start.  3 is a better film than 2, but they both pale in comparison to the original.  The 2nd and 3rd film are goofy and slapsticky (but fun).  The first is a really good, quality adventure film that isn't nearly as campy.

I'd have to agree with STL that LOTR may be the best trilogy.

I kind of look at it as 2 trilogies.

Yeah, Lord of the Rings -- good one.  I think that's probably the best.  I'm not even a huge fan of that stuff, but I recognize its quality, and the consistency between the chapters.

If you could just overlook the inherent lameness of the second movie, the "Back to the Future" trilogy was pretty good.

LotR was definitely one of the best, if not THE best of the movie trilogies.

How many Resident Evil movies have there been?  I've enjoyed those movies quite a bit.

Does Rocky I, II, and III count as a trilogy? If so, that.

Back to the Future is very much like the Indy movies.  The 2nd and 3rd are okay and fun, with the 3rd being better, but the first movie is a really good, complete story.  The later ones result in silly stuff, using the same actor to play multiple roles, etc.

The first 2 Alien films were good, and although I think the first was better, the second is such a departure that it's pretty much an equally good, yet different kind of film.  The third could've been great, but funding got screwed up and the studio killed it.

Seeing as it continued with Rocky IV, Rocky V and Rocky VI (although titled Rocky Balboa), I don't think it counts as a trilogy.

I don't think Rocky III was all that good.

Me too.  It really was two sets each of three movies. 

Naked Gun, Naked Gun 2 and 1/2, and Naked Gun 33 and 1/3.

The third movie tends to let down in all of the following:

Star Wars
Alien
Matrix
X-Men
Spider-Man
Bourne

I'm not too sold on LOTR, either... the first and third are great, but I found The Two Towers to be pretty annoying.

Essentially, if you're comparing all of the worst movies in the various trilogies (e.g. the lowest lows), LOTR probably wins.  If you're looking for the highest highs, I'd probably take the Matrix series (though I could be convinced to take Star Wars or X-Men).

I'm surprised no Shrek, Spiderman, or Toy story

I thought of Terminator,Robo Cop,and Beverly Hills cop....BHC 3 was bad,I really didn't like Robocop,and the terminator had more than 4.

Jurrasic park?

Shrek actually had 4.

I haven't seen Toy Story 3 yet, but have heard its great, so that may rank right up there as far as trilogies.

Aliens!

Re: The Matrix.  I think that the first movie is fantastic, but that both the 2nd and 3rd films are not only complete crap, but actually reduce the quality of the first film, which I can usually look past.

The things that happen in the two sequels actually remove the importance of stuff that happens prior.  The first movie is great and stood alone, without anything else needed.  They others should've never been made.

A couple that have not been mentioned that I thought were pretty good.

Blade
Mad Max
Underworld

I'd have to go with LoTR as the best Trilogy though.

LOTR

I know a lot of people on the internets dislike Matrix Reloaded, but I cannot figure out why.  It's my favorite of the three.

You can say the same for Aliens, The Empire Strikes Back, Terminator 2... basically, any original movie trilogy that's been mentioned.  The only movies with "natural' sequels are those based on non-movie properties (LOTR, X-Men, Bourne, etc.).

The Godfather Saga.  Even though #3 isn't as good as the first two, there's evidently a lot of stuff they cut out of it.  If you haven't seen the unedited version which is about 10 minutes longer than what they showed at the movies, I recommend watching it again.

I'm with Spider, I enjoyed the Matrix trilogy. Are the second and third as good as the first, no. But they aren't as bad as the entire planet makes them out to be. I'll stop short of calling it the best trilogy, but they are by far my favorite.

Should LOTR even count as a trilogy in the same sense as the others?  All 3 were basically filmed at the same time, written by the same people, directed by the same person, labored over by the same people,...etc.  So to me, it's really only one really long movie that was released in 3 hour installments.  Return of the King cleaned up at the Oscars for the total sum of the 3 put together.

I think LOTR counts.  They had the foresight to sign their actors up for enough films and do it the right way.

Bourne, really? The third one is, AFAIK, generally considered the best, with the second one being the big let-down.

****Hijack**** I think it was three she's on the phone with Bourne telling him where he's from...You were born...Blah,Blah Blah...1971 in Nixa Mo....I about fell off my couch,Nixa is small suburb town to the south of here with no hospital....I used to live just south of nixa for awhile... Sorry for the interruption....End hijack...*****

The third Bourne movie (Ultimatum) was the first movie that's literally given me a headache from all the shaky-cam chase scenes.  It ruined the movie for me.

Godfather I and II are great enough to make up for the weaknesses of III.  It is by far the greatest trilogy.

We just watched Toy Story 3. Great movie. Great ending to a trilogy.

I like the Terminator series.

1 and 2 were awesome.  3 was meh.  Which had it been slightly good it would have won my best trilogy award. 

Salvation completely erases the franchise from consideration.  PG-13?  Really?  FAIL.

Terminator Salvation sucked.  The very basic premise of the plot didn't make sense.  Why would the Terminators be looking for Kyle Reese.  He hadn't done anything yet.  They'd have no reason to know who he was.

Lethal Weapon!

Resident Evil   (games good too!!)

??

In a world where time travel is not imagination, but is real, why wouldn't they know who he was? He had indeed done something, he fathered John Connor. Although it hadn't happened at this point in Kyle's life, it still had happened.

^^ Goes toward the whole premise of Time Travel.  Does Time Travel change history or does it create a 2nd history?  If time travel creates a parrallel dimension that branches off from the first after the presence of the time traveler, the events in the 2nd dimension would be different than those in the 1st.  Likewise nothing that happened after that point in the 1st dimension would be known by those in the 2nd dimension and vice versa.  Ergo if you are in the 2nd dimension where Kyle Reese is the father of John Connor, then Kyle Reese cannot be John Conner's best friend too.  Likewise sending a person back in time to change history would do nothing for your own history, it would only change the history of the 2nd dimension.

All of which is pure speculation, so in movies like this, what makes a plot unbelievable anyway? :)

He fathered John Conner, but they'd have no way of knowing that yet (or at all). 

The previous fiction allowed for characters to do something in the future, for which the robots go back and try to eliminate before it happens.  That makes sense, because the robots have witnessed John Conner doing things they don't like and have sent robots back (with this knowledge) to take him out. 

In Salvation, we're operating in the present.  Any robots sent back in time are dead (that we know of) and the current generation of robots has no way of knowing who Kyle Reese will be, who fathered John Conner, or anything else...they shouldn't even know who John Conner is yet, since he's yet to really take charge.

We watched Toy Story 3 tonight.  It was amazing.  Honestly, I laughed (a lot), I cried a little bit, and I think it had perhaps the most thrilling action sequences of the year, all in the same film.

It really has its hat in the ring as the best trilogy ever.  Maybe I'm nuts, but I think that Toy Story 3 is the strongest of the series.

Alien trilogy was great, although the 3rd on wasn't that great.

I am surprised that no one mentioned Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, and Day of the Dead. Every one of those was so great and unique in its own way that I can't pick a favorite of the 3. Not to mention that they were made so far apart !!!

Phantasm was good too, but like most the 3rd one fell short a bit