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.
Agreed, the third movie is kinda meh but have you played the telltale game? That for me is now the third movie
Awman, I didn't think matrix 2 and 3 where that bad.
I remember enjoying them.They made viewers work to understand. Viewers largely rejected that.
Which has led us, irrevocably, to spoon fed trash that plays to the dumbest person in the audience.
I enjoyed all three movies, but there was a lot that I didn't get until I watched an explainer on YouTube.
I disagree, the more texture the 'real' world gets the less portent the message. Same with John wick, one they start making it into a movie about the honor system in this world wide assassin network it loses its urgency.
The power of both is the mystique of the superimposed world, you don't understand it, but it lends an excellent backdrop to the movie, that is really about something much smaller, self realization and vengeance.
Once the first movie concludes, the narrative cycle is basically over and a new, more convoluted, plot line gets drawn up that doesn't feel as important as before.
The mystique gets filled in with additional detail, which rubs the wrong way with the metaphor, as a new rule system gets put in place in order for the protagonist to re-live the exact story arc of struggle and eventual victory as in the first movie.
Yet with every iteration it feels more hollow, the emotional pay off subsides. There is no resolution as three needs always be narrative room for the next sequel. It leaves you emotionally drawn out and no expertly choreographed fight scene can fill that hole.
As it wasn't about the fight scenes, it's storytelling.
Don't understand why people dislike those movies so much. Even enjoyed the 4th one.
They didn't deliver on the promises that Neo made at the end of the first movie. They're quite different than the first film. The 4th one was an obvious cash grab by the studios. The Wachowskis didn't want to make the movie, and they straight-up tell the audience in the movie that they were forced to do it, or let someone else do it.
well, on that one, i personally flat out noped out when they had that rotund dude thirst over trinity
I think Matrix Reloaded would be improved greatly by leaving out the Rave Zion Dance Party.
Low point.
I don't agree with most of those.
The bars for the LOTR trilogy are only that scale because of how long the movies are.
In what world is die hard 3 worse than die hard 2. It’s arguably tied with die hard 1 as the best one.
1st is at the top. 2nd is at the two thirds mark. 3rd is overflowing with a vangence!
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.
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.
Came here to say this about Die Hard. I thought 3 was waaay better than 2.
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.
THANK YOU; everyone (that I've anecdotally seen) thinks the second LotR is the low point while so much irritates me about the third, in comparison to the first two.
I'd say the highs more than make up for the climb
The meme is funny, I'm going to acknowledge that first.
But what are these rankings? Indiana Jones 3 is ranked the same quality as 2. Spider-Man 1 is ranked demonstrably worse than 2. Jurassic Park 3 is ranked worse than Jurassic Park 2????
I know it comes down to a matter of opinion but I also have to wonder if the person who originally created this meme watched the movies, because those are some spicy takes.
Most people think Spider-Man 2 is the high point of that series, and sometimes superhero movies as a genre. I think they got that one right.
I'm one of them, I'm just saying it's a closer call between Spider-Man 1 & 2 than this chart denotes.
(And Spider-Man 3 is not that bad.)
The Road Warrior was also way better than Beyond Thunderdome.
Edit: oops, I meant the first movie, Mad Max was better than BT. I should have looked up the title. 2 was obviously the best of the original trilogy.
I am fully aware I'm pretty much alone with my opinion, but I find Terminator 1 far superior to T2.
Even with the limited budget T1 manages to create a far more horrifying vision of an unstoppable killer coming after you. The lo-fi'ish synth soundtrack sets a perfect oppressive feeling. The casting is perfect, Michael Biehn' s scarred and wiry Reese with Hamilton's young and scared next door girl going against metal-Arnold in his prime is the epitome of underdog scenarios.
And the pacing is very good, the plot flows.
T2 is a good film, but like many sequels, it suffers from the "let's do the same thing from a different angle, but bigger and louder!" - syndrome. It doesn't really get to be it's own kind of beast. I was very surprised that Cameron fell for the trap, after he avoided that mistake with "Aliens". Switching genre from space horror to space action made that film stand firmly on it's own feet and the result was good.
Lastly, T2 has the young John Connor doing the "badass kid" - role, which so many seem to love. I just find the character annoying.
I think T2 hits everybody that was a certain age when it came out a bit different. Young John Connor appealed to the divorced-parents-latch-key-kid generation.
Though hard agree the first one was pretty solid. Definitely more of a horror vibe.
I was 12 when T2 came out. I remember all my friends talking about how young John was the coolest kid ever, which I never understood. But I have always had a quite different mindset than most men of my generation.
I agree with you!
The first one didn't age all that well. My teenagers can't finish it. T2 on the other hand..
Arnold is on his peak here though. He is very very scary. His expression(or better: lack of) , his body language..
And the police station scene is forever etched in my memory.
I also don't get the hate for T3. Sure, it has some cheesy humour and the plot isn't amazing but it's a very solid action movie.
I must protest this mistreatment of spiderman 3
And Spiderman 1!
1! = 1
I'm disappointed.
I rewatched 3 last year and yeah. Wain't that bad.
Back to the Future is, as a whole, the best trilogy on this list.
When excluding LotR
Nope, including the LotR movies. I will die on this hill.
Specifically, Robert Zemeckis > Peter Jackson. the BttF trilogy was masterfully executed with great plot, pacing, and incredible attention to detail (down to things like e.g. "Twin Pines Mall" becoming "Lone Pine Mall" because Marty ran over one of Old Man Peabody's pines). Meanwhile, Peter Jackson couldn't even figure out how to get major plot points like the Scouring of the Shire to work, let alone Tom Bombadil.
I'm a bttf super fan to a degree but even I acknowledge the third movie is very weak and better replaced by the telltale game
Strong disagree on Back to the Future. The last one's probably the best one
You are insane. The first two are good, the third one is pretty bad and better replaced by the telltale game story.
😬
This is bait.
I can't wait for Dune 3. If Villeneuve sticks the landing his trilogy will become for Sci-fi what LotR is for fantasy.
I still want him to do God Emperor. If anyone can do it, it's him. Also, I want James McAvoy to reprise his role as Leto and that's the only chance of it happening.
Terminator is a strange one. Cooked with the first movie, second one is somehow even better and then the third one is absolute ass.
Same with the godfather films.
Last Crusade is better than Raiders. Fight me.
What about side by side with a friend?
Two towers is the weak link
Well, after those Orcs flew those two Fell Beasts into them...
#PintsCantMeltCastleWalls
How dare you
Bizarre take it's def better than the third movie and I prefer it to the first
...yeah, no...
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 know it doesn't fit the trilogy thing, but you left out the best Rocky movie: Rocky IV.
Kinda telling how many of these are Spielberg, movie making beast
really ought to make people realize that letting people do what they're passionate about results in amazing products, this is how we got the london tube map as well.
Personally I enjoyed matrix 3 more than 2.
The Star Wars one could also apply to the sequels, keep the proportion but maybe lower by half? Ep. 8 certainly was the least bad.
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 could have quit the godfather after the very first movie.
The others... Insist upon themselves ;)
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.
Mad max is wrong. While sequels...they are not even in the same space. The first one is good for its simplicity.
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.
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.
I totally forgot Blade is a trilogy
A lot of sequels aren't as good because the original director and writer (and maybe other staff) aren't involved. The original staff may have had a vision for the one movie, and when it's completed, they're not interested in making another one. So the studio that owns the copyright hands it to some newbies so they can get experience and do a low-budget cash-grab sequel.
Interesting choice not to include the Hobbit movies! I'd probably go 1>2>3, but all those bars would be appropriately hobbit-sized (sans ent-draught).
Is this counting films in trilogies, or the trilogies themselves?
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.
Sure, but it is also the medium's responsibility to help the audience understand.
That's true, but I'd argue that the more personal that any art is, the fewer people who will instantly understand their meaning.
Think about it like this, if you were watching a movie in a language you don't speak (without subtitles), you could still enjoy a lot of it, but might not be able to fully follow the story. But, the story is still there if you know how to hear it. Sometimes you just need someone else to help translate.
Eh, the subtext in 2 and 3 is neat but the first movie is by far the best. It sets up a premise and concludes it beautifully and doesn't get too big for its britches. I still enjoy some of the over the top moments from 2 and 3 but there's definitely a leap and I'm not sure the pay off is as good as the first film.
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.
My only real gripe with the matrix trilogy is where Neo can “see” agent smith in Bane’s body and “see” all the machines at the machine city. It didn’t need that over the top messiah thing when he was already the messiah simply because of his power within the matrix.
And if the idea is “the real world is also a simulation, made to convince humans they were free” it sort of goes against all the monologuing that smith and the architect do about how humans rebelled against versions of the matrix in which they were free
That's explained in the video. Neo can see the machines because he communed with the Source.
I would rank them similar to matrix on chart. Liked the 3rd matrix more than "listed" though.
Bro. Have you seen Fellowship of the Ring? It’s 3 hours of “Hey, could you schedule a meeting so we could nail down our deliverables and figure out a timeline?” And 30 minutes of “good meeting, everyone.”
Nice try... cant trick me into studying trilo-ology.
All three of the Spider-Man originals were fucking horrific. Absolutely no where near good.
I've rewatched them recently, and I think they are amazing. Especially the third.
This is refreshingly accurate
The Temple of Doom sucked. I'd rather watch Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
Unpopular opinion: LOTR isn't that good.
The books yeah, the movies not so much.
I couldn't get through the first one. There are dozens of us?
I tried to watch it on 5 different occasions, fell asleep every time.
We are now banned from /LOTR
Fellowship movie is absolutely an improvement over Fellowship book
