Friday, February 20, 2009

film trilogy meter

seriously excellent summary of film trilogies, by dan meth. of course, these are his opinions and we all have our own, but the visual representation is fantastic!


i think the third back to the future was better than the second. other than that, i mostly agree with his ratings for the movies i've seen!

5 comments:

changcho said...

Interesting concept; of course it's subjective, but that's where the fun is.

I agree with Star Wars, Spiderman Back to the Future and Lord of the Rings.

I certainly would not place the 3rd Godfather story so low. And I liked the first Terminator much better than either 2 or 3...

skp said...

Where is The Bourne ? :((

Thats my fav one

Eva said...

I agree with most of the trends, but not with the absolute values. I also have to confess that I do not remember some of the trilogies that I did watch back in the day (e.g. Planet of the Apes). I would also take The Godfather out of the chart, that trilogy is at a different level than the rest.

Heath said...

I would put the late Rockys, Supermans, Mad Maxs, & Rambos far lower; the latter Matrices, Spidermans, Back to the Futures, Xmens, Terminators I would level identically - I can't remember where any of them transition from II to III, may as well be one long sequel; and finally I must protest: I thought Aliens was a dismal Hollywood disappointment but Alien3 was an unqualified masterpiece. I didn't even know there was a Jurassic Park 3... what a dreadful thought.

Anonymous said...

Whoever made this chart apparently gave no thought to the difference between a trilogy and merely an endless parade of sequels. While Star Wars and LOTR tell a complete story within three films (or books), some of these others are likely only a "trilogy" until they come out with the next sequel. Also, since when do eleven Star Trek films or six Rocky movies make up a trilogy?