I know it doesn't fit the trilogy thing, but you left out the best Rocky movie: Rocky IV.
Back to the Future 3 is nowhere near on par with 2.
This is some ragebait right here
Wtf do you mean, part 3 is awesome and has some of the best humor in the series. Sure it's a bit derivative, but that doesn't stop it from being a better 3rd in a trilogy than most others. It's also got a lot of quotable moments, I quote this for just about anything that's hot
Well, I suppose if you had a straight stretch of track with a level grade, and you weren't haulin' no cars behind you, and if you can get the fire hot enough, and I'm talkin' about hotter than the blazes of hell and damnation itself... then yes
1 and 2 are about even. 3 is a little lower than them, but not by much.
The first two really are parts 1 and 2 of a story. The 3rd completely changes the scenery, which gives some people the impression it's not as good. It is though , and it ends the story well.
Then there's the fun fact that parts 2 and 3 were filmed at the same time. So the impression the films give is backwards from how they were made.
I'm considering it better. Not that part 2 is bad, but I like part 3 more.
Dozens of us!
I think he stole that guy's wallet
Cruelly overlooked: getting Tremors 1, 2, 3 and Highlander 1, 2, 3 onto this chart.
Alien, but it shares a graph with some others
I can't wait for Dune 3. If Villeneuve sticks the landing his trilogy will become for Sci-fi what LotR is for fantasy.
Matrix is great all the way through. The problem is that a lot of people didn't understand the story. There's a good explainer on YouTube by Looper.
I agree they're better than this says, but the first is also the best, by a moderate margin. The other two get a lot of shit that isn't deserved.
Nice try... cant trick me into studying trilo-ology.
The bars for the LOTR trilogy are only that scale because of how long the movies are.
LOTR is the same as star wars. First one is 95%, second is 100%, third is 80%. Way too much climbing and whining in the third one.
This is bait.
Kinda telling how many of these are Spielberg, movie making beast
I must protest this mistreatment of spiderman 3
And Spiderman 1!
1! = 1
I'm disappointed.
Blade is definitely better than Blade 2 IMO.
I might pick Die Hard 3 over 2 as well, but it's been a bit since I saw 2.
Came here to say this about Die Hard. I thought 3 was waaay better than 2.
Die Hard 3 is commonly thought of as one of the good ones. The other one is DH1.
DH2 isn’t very memorable outside of ~2 key moments.
A lot of those crappy trilogies were not written all at once the way LOTR was. The more common case of writing follow-ups to cash in on the popularity of the original is a time-honoured way to make money while producing derivative garbage.
I feel like we need a different word to separate those “cash grab” trilogies from proper multi-part stories like LOTR.
That's a good point. I'm endlessly fascinated the Back to the Future was not a planned trilogy. I always assumed it was well into adulthood.
Since no one here is talking about the Jurassic Park trilogy, I'll go ahead and say my hot take. JP3 is way better than 2. And obviously the originals are all miles ahead of the Jurassic Worlds.
I just watched the first one again and it's still a pretty good movie.
Whoa whoa whoa mad max 1 is the best of the three. Sure, the sequels have crazier worldbuilding and fancier visuals but the first is tight, well shot, and tells a good story well.
I love all three Godfather movies.
The Godfather, The Godfather II Part 1, and The Godfather II Part 2
That other one doesn’t exist as far as I’m concerned.
I’m not going to argue that GF3 is anywhere close to GF1 and GF2, but I am going to argue that GF3 gets way too much hate.
I totally forgot Blade is a trilogy
Blade 3 is... not good.
That's the one where Wesley Snipes was throwing a bit of a tantrum and refused to open his eyes for a scene, so they had to use CGI.
Haha okay I'm glad I didn't miss anything good. I only ever watched the first one, but this post made me curious.
