Have you ever considered movie trilogies as a whole and their quality in relation to each other? Some trilogies get progressively worse with each movie, and others get better. In some trilogies, the middle movie is best. Why is that?
I was discussing this last night with my father-in-law, who doesn't think he's ever seen the new Star Wars trilogy. I was telling him which movie was the best, and just because I was positing that everyone knows which Star Wars movie is The Best One, I asked Linda who was on the other side of the room. She knew it was Empire. Everyone knows that episode 5 is the best one. Common knowledge. And Episode 5 was the second movie of the original trilogy. Anyway, I digress.
Although I can't cite a sufficient quantity to back my feeling, it often feels like the most common route is for trilogies to get worse with each movie. This is certainly the case with The Matrix trilogy, for example. The three X-men movies also arguably got worse with each iteration, although the first two were both very good.
Other trilogies actually get better with each movie. Case in point: the new Star Wars trilogy. Very few people would argue with the opinion that Phantom Menace was the worst of the batch, and I certainly believe that Episode 3 was the best least bad. The Evil Dead trilogy also follows this formula if you view Evil Dead, Evil Dead 2, and Army of Darkness as a trilogy.
By far the most numerous order that I could dredge up was that in which the second movie was best and the final movie worst of the trilogy. This is certainly the case with the canon Star Wars trilogy - The Empire Strikes Back is quite possibly my favorite movie of all time. The Terminator trilogy seems to follow the same formula, although it won't long be a trilogy. Ditto Spiderman and Final Destination. The second movie was the best, followed closely by the first, but the third wasn't quite up to snuff. Why is that formula so common?
I can think of two trilogies in which the first movie was best and the second movie worst. Firstly, The Highlander trilogy. Actually, the first movie was the only good one in that series anyway. And I don't acknowledge the TV show's existance, despite what many beseech me to believe. Secondly, Die Hard. The first Die Hard movie was awesome. I also enjoyed the third, but the second just doesn't do it for me for some reason.
I could only come up with one trilogy in which the second movie was worst and the final movie was best. And this one isn't going to be a trilogy forever either. Indiana Jones. Sean Connery's insertion in the third movie was a stroke of genius, and the movie's story as a whole was excellent. But Temple of Doom, while not a terrible flick, didn't stand up to the quality of its brethren films.
I couldn't come up with any trilogies in which the first movie was worst and the second best. I guess when the first movie is the worst, the trilogy generally doesn't get made. The only exceptions I've found to this were the new Star Wars movies, where Lucas couldn't stop just because he directed the steaming pile that was Episode 1, and the Evil Dead movies, where the second film was really just a remake of the first that sucked less.
So what do you think, dear reader? Any trilogies I missed?
What do you think of Die hard 4.0 (It wasn't a Trilogy at last)? I enjoyed it a lot. You just didn't have to take it too seriously. I agree, the second was the weakest.
Blade is an example, where the second part was the worst. The third was bette, but couldn't cope with the first.
I still have to see the last part of the Bourne Identity so i cannot comment on this, but I thought the first part was pretty good and the second was OK.
Last to mention maybe, is The Lord Of The Rings. All of which were amazing.