The Trilogy Meter
Lots to agree (or disagree) with here, but I think it's safe to say that the third movie in any series usually sucks. (Original image here. h/t David Thompson)
posted by VermontGuy @ 6:26 AM
Pajama Guy
"You couldn’t have a starker contrast between the multiple layers of checks and balances [at ‘60 Minutes’] and a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing.”
-Jonathan Klein, former CBS Executive
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Irony
- Runyonland
- Vanity Plate Of The Month
- Paul Harvey
- Send Them PACking
- Richter Manuever
- My Regards
- Wishing Everything Could Be The Same
- Dumbing Down
- I Can Haz Lust
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Lots to agree (or disagree) with here, but I think it's safe to say that the third movie in any series usually sucks. (Original image here. h/t David Thompson)
4 Comments:
Okay, here are some problems right off the bat. First, above all, I'm tired of this new consensus that Empire is better than New Hope. The first created the whole world of Star Wars, the second merely exists in it.
ST:TMP is rated way too high. (And let's not forget how great 4 is.)
Not being a big fan of X-Men or Spider-Man, I don't differentiate them as much, but I'm surprised in both cases 2 beats 1.
LOTR may all be about the same, but that doesn't mean they should all be rated as successful.
I'm not as big a fan of Road Warrior as a lot of people.
I agree with the back to the future, but you should see what Leonard Maltin has to say--it's outrageous.
No way are the second and third Die Hards so close in quality to the original. You got the first, a classic, and then some decent but not inspired action films where people run around all over the place. Rocky has the same pattern, where the second and third aren't in the same universe as the first.
Just like Empire, I'm tired of people claiming Godfather II is better than I. It's a great movie, but I is better, tighter, and, really, didn't need a sequel.
Terminator 2 is great, and a day of shooting on it cost about as much as the original. But the first one is special, and should be ranked higher, or at least as high. (On the other hand, I agree Aliens is better than Alien--really it's not even that close.)
None of the Rambos are great, but part of the fun is the bombast. The first Rambo is a fairly straight story about a guy who's okay at fighting--no one should be bumping it up into classic status. By the second one the character is a superhero--that's the real Rambo, so that's the best Rambo film. (The progression is sort of like Miyagi in Karate Kid--where are those films?)
Okay, here are some problems right off the bat. First, above all, I'm tired of this new consensus that Empire is better than New Hope. The first created the whole world of Star Wars, the second merely exists in it.
The consensus that Empire is better than New Hope is not "new". It's been around since before they were known as episodes 4 and 5. And while it's true that New Hope created the whole world of Star Wars, that's also pretty much true of any movie that spawns sequels and could be used as an argument that sequels are never better than the original.
I agree that the first Star Trek is rated way too high. In fact, a better trilogy for that series would be movies 2 - 4, in which 2 would end up being slightly higher than 4 and both 2&4 way better than 3.
As for the rest: X-Men 2 is a much better movie than 1. X-Men 1 tries to be too serious (Magneto a Holocaust survivor? Come on).
While you may not care for Road Warrior that much, it is far superior to the original in which Mel Gibson's dialog was famously dubbed.
I agree the Die Hard sequels don't come anywhere near that close to matching the quality of the original.
I also agree that The Godfather didn't need a sequel and is the superior movie.
I've never been a fan of the Rambo series so I can't really comment.
Indiana Jones: the third installment should be rated much lower. The story (aside from the opening with River Phoenix) and the effects are strictly ho-hum and the primary joy of the movie is the interaction between Indy and his father.
Superman: In no known universe is Superman II superior to I.
Spiderman II is better than I. The origin story in I is done well but the Green Goblin was a disappointment. Alfred Molina's Doc Ock was a much better villain.
I would rate Jaws II a little higher - at least it had Roy Scheider in it.
I agree Blade II is better than I but III isn't anywhere near as bad as he says it is.
Rocky II and III should definitely be lower on the scale.
I would rank the original Batman higher but the drop-off between II and III seems about right. At least they didn't put nipples on the bat-suit until 4.
Matrix: Reloaded is a much better movie than he gives it credit for. Revolutions deserves its status, though.
JPIII was, in many respects, as good or better than either of its predecessors. For one thing, the movie managed to clock in at around 90 minutes. Yowza!
With LOT, the consensus seems to be that ROTK is the best of the bunch but I feel that Fellowship is the best of the three.
I liked all of the Back to the Futures but would agree that I is the best.
I haven't seen the Planet of the Apes series in a while but my memory is that II is better than he gives it credit for.
I would agree that T1 and T2 should be ranked equally.
And finally, we've discussed the relative rankings of Alien and Aliens before. I would rate them both equally good because, even though they are part of a series, they are completely different kinds of movies. Alien is a horror movie, pure and simple, and it's an extremely effective one. Aliens, on the other hand, is an action/adventure movie that brings back a character from the original in an entirely different scenario. In the first, Ripley succeeds in outwitting one Alien after it destroys her ship and crew. In the second, she achieves Ramboesque stature by taking on the Alien Queen herself.
On a related note, I should mention that I thought Alien3 was a terrific movie. The problem with it is that the first two movies left you feeling like "We Won!" and the third made you think "Why Bother?"
Missing from the trilogy meter are the Karate Kid movies, the Lethal Weapon series and, of course, the Pirates of the Caribbean.
With regard to Star Wars IV and V, isn't the question what we mean as "good"? Payoff is usually more enjoyable than the builtup. The finales in Lost are excellent... I definitely found the end of season one / beginning of season two to be spellbinding. But they couldn't have existed without the buildup... Sawyer risking his life to save Walt had its impact because of what we knew of Sawyer already. Yet I worry that Lost's last year was all payoff, no buildup. That will hurt them down the line.
Hearing Darth tell Luke "I am your father" had impact because we knew Darth from the first movie.
In fact, speaking as someone who was the right age for the first two movies (I was born in 1964), I think the impact of "I am your father" doesn't just come from the first movie, but also from the fact that there was a three year gap between the movies.
In the 1980s, I considered "Empire" the best. Sometime in the 1990s, I came to LAGuy's conclusion that "Star Wars" (I won't use its silly retconned title) was the best. Then Lucas released three crappy movies and I stopped caring.
Great, Darth is Luke's father, now you've spoiled the movie for me.
Post a Comment
<< Home