Best trilogy ever?

Mark Wood79 said:It doesn't really matter what comes after Lang—we're just sticking to Lang himself. So, why do you think it's unfair to call it a trilogy? Is it because of that 1922 one, or those two versions from 1933? You mentioned Lang made 4 Mabuse.

I mean, Hollywood legends released the complete set with this exact line: available on Blu-ray, assembled together for the first time by a single label, and in one boxset — Fritz Lang’s legendary trilogy of films about the schemes of the master criminal Dr. No.

As far as I'm concerned, I'll accept Dr. No as a trilogy.

four, because even if you count two of them as one...
a trilogy is three films tied together by the same theme—and Mabuse doesn't fit that for several reasons, just like how you wouldn't call LOTR or those Sergio Leone westerns a trilogy, etc., etc... a real trilogy is The Godfather, Three Colors, or Lars von Trier's e-trilogy! If we actually compare them, it's clear why the others don't qualify!

Nicholas Walker3 said:The reason they aren't considered trilogies is because they consist of two films, even if we choose to view them as one continuous story...
A trilogy should be three films tied together by a central theme. Dr. No doesn't fit that description for several reasons, and neither does Lord of the Rings or those Sergio Leone westerns, for instance. To me, a true trilogy is The Godfather, the Three Colors trilogy, or Lars von Trier's Epiphany trilogy! If you compare those actual trilogies, it becomes obvious why the others don't quite make the cut.

I asked you about that right away and didn't get an answer, so I assume you mean because of the way 1922 is split into two parts.
The Hollywood legends recognized it as a single entity the moment they suggested it was a trilogy.
In Beverly Hills, it’s being shown on November 25th and 26th in two parts: the first at 7 PM and the second at 9 PM. Maybe it's just because of the runtime—four hours is a lot, so you definitely need a break—but they actually marketed it as two separate films (though I'm not sure how the ticketing will work).

As for what you were saying about trilogies; there are plenty of series that only become "trilogies" long after the fact, rather than being the director's original intent.
Personally, I don't mind if someone groups the Leone-Eastwood collaborations together and calls it a trilogy.

Mark Wood79 said:I asked you that right away and didn't get an answer—so I guess you think it's because of 1922 and the two parts.
MoC identified it as one single thing once they started pushing the trilogy angle.

I did answer—Dr. No isn't a trilogy, even if I count Der Spieler as one film (which I do, though I only mentioned 4 to warn people about those kinds of takes)!
MoC just saw a chance to make a quick buck since these three heavily hyped films about Dr. No aren't actually the big news they're making them out to be. They released the first two ages ago as a Lang box set, and now they're adding the last film and calling it a trilogy... maybe that's why—selling the same movies for the third time—they decided to label it a trilogy.😛

Mark Wood79 said:They'll be showing it in Beverly Hills on Nov 25th and 26th in two parts: the first at 7 PM and the second at 9 PM. Maybe it's because of the runtime (4 hours—you definitely need a break), but they actually pitched it as two separate films (not sure how the ticketing will work).

Well, if they could show a bunch of other titles on the same day, they should have done this too—it deserves it... just a little 15-minute breather and that's it, just like during the premiere!

Mark Wood79 said:But it doesn't bother me if someone lumps the Leone-Eastwood collaboration together and calls it a trilogy.

It bothers me, personally—I respect the director and his intentions rather than marketing gimmicks...

Nicholas Walker3 said:The issue for me is that I care about respecting the director and their original vision, rather than getting caught up in marketing gimmicks...

I’m not talking about marketing here; I’m talking about this specific forum poll.

The term "trilogy" doesn't bother me quite as much as it seems to bother you. It isn't out of a lack of respect; it's just that I know enough about cinema that I can't be talked into buying something subpar.
When it comes to reissues, I tend to be a bit picky. I need to see exactly what I'm getting—what the bonus features are and how it's all packaged. I have no interest in buying cheap, rushed releases where they cram fifteen movies onto a couple of discs like people living in a cramped, low-rent apartment complex.
If I see that a reissue has been done properly, I’ll buy it regardless of whatever flashy adjectives they slapped on the cover to lure in casual viewers.

All in all, regarding the poll itself, I still feel it's a shame that names like Rossellini, Lars von Trier, Michael Haneke, and Yasujirō Ozu aren't included, as I mentioned before.

That's just my two cents.

Mark Wood79 said:All in all—regarding the poll itself—I'm honestly bummed that we don't see Rossellini, Lars von Trier, Michael Haneke, or Yasujirō Ozu on here, just like I mentioned before.

And what about Kieslowski!?

Just one quick correction—the Dollars Trilogy is considered a trilogy because Sergio Leone actually intended to film two separate trilogies about the West. He finished the first dollar-based one (which definitely isn't some no-name trilogy like the ones Americans push—since they probably hate being portrayed as greedy "dollar" seekers)—but sadly, he never got to the second. He was interrupted by a project he hadn't planned on (*Once Upon a Time in the West*), even though he had started and filmed only two of the three intended pieces...

Nicholas Walker3 said:And Kieslowski!?

Of course Three Colors needs to be part of the lineup. But hey, I didn't run the poll myself...

Alien, Bourne, The Godfather, Evil Dead 🙏

I’d put my money on Ocean’s Eleven, the Godfather, and Jurassic Park🙏

Look, folks, it’s obviously The Godfather.

Come on now, don't do this. Han Solo He’ll shut you down completely—I mean, he's going to take you out, because he's Han Solo. 😁So, someone went ahead and kicked off a poll. If you’re interested, feel free to weigh in—but if you aren't, don't worry about it. I know we don't exactly have enough pressing topics to keep everyone occupied all at once...

I cast my vote for... Back to the Future, The original Star Wars trilogy remains a monumental achievement in filmmaking, standing as a testament to what can be accomplished when vision meets pure imagination. It’s one of those rare cinematic experiences that feels both timeless and revolutionary, regardless of how many times you revisit it. Looking back at the craftsmanship involved, it's clear why these films continue to hold such a massive grip on our cultural consciousness., Terminator I'm here. What's on your mind? Jurassic Park.

With so many trilogies and quartets out there where the final installment is such a disaster that it almost ruins the entire series for you, I’ve learned to be cautious. Fortunately, you can usually spot that kind of garbage early enough to steer clear, ensuring it never finds its way into my home collection. 🙂

It’s a bit of a pattern, isn't it? Just look at some of these examples: Terminator 3 and 4, Jurassic Park III, The Godfather 3, I Know What You Did Last Summer, The Mummy 3, Alien 3 and 4, Jaws 3 and 4, Mad Max 3, Batman 3 and 4, Beverly Hills Cop 3, RoboCop 3... and the list just keeps going.

I have a feeling that Ghostbusters 3 will likely end up being another disappointment as well.

steelrider16 said:With so many trilogies or quadrilogies where the final installments are such a mess—it almost feels like they're trying to ruin the entire series for you—thankfully, this kind of garbage usually reveals itself early enough that it stays out of my home collection. 🙂

A few examples: Terminator 3 and 4, Jurassic Park III, The Godfather 3, I always know what... (3), The Mummy 3, Alien 3 and 4, Jaws 3 and 4, Mad Max 3, Batman 3 and 4, Beverly Hills Cop 3, RoboCop 3... and so on...

Well, that's really the key distinction—we often mistakenly call something a trilogy when it's actually just a series with three sequels (:

Most of the titles you listed are actually just series rather than true trilogies. That’s why the quality drops so hard—they aren't actually planned out from the start, and when studios tack things on later just to chase a paycheck, it obviously doesn't fit the original vision at all!

Dennis Sullivan46 said:There he is, finally.

Man, something doesn't add up here. If we're saying blue is better and white is worse, then according to this chart, the third Godfather movie is the worst in the trilogy. That’s just ridiculous.
Where did you even find that? Oh—Danmeth.com. Now I get it...

I wouldn't call myself an expert on The Godfather, but if we're judging each film in the trilogy on its own merits, the third installment is definitely the weakest link.

steelrider16 said:I'm no expert on The Godfather, but if you look at them individually, the third one is definitely the worst.

Exactly, but I guess you missed my point.
The third Godfather movie is the weakest in the trilogy, sure, but if we were rating them numerically—say from 1 to 10—then the first might get a 9.5, the second an 9.0, and the third maybe a 7.5.
Look closer at the image and you'll see the third one almost gets a failing grade, somewhere between a 1 and a 2.
Or if you compare it to other trilogies in the graphic, it's basically sitting right there with Planet of the Apes 3... actually, it might even be worse. Whatever.

Nathan Rodriguez3 said:Man, something isn't adding up here. If we're assuming blue is better and white is worse, then according to this chart, the third Godfather movie is the absolute worst of the trilogy, which is just plain ridiculous.
Where on earth did you dig that up? Ah—Danmeth.com, I see how it is...

If I'm following your logic, you're baffled by how the third Godfather installment could be the weakest link, right? Well, if the first two are masterpieces and the third is just mediocre—or if you mean it's literally the lowest-rated in the survey—then why shouldn't it be? Personally, I’d put Batman, Superman, and Jaws ahead of the third Godfather any day, though those aren't even massive leaps compared to the brilliance of the first two. At the end of the day, everyone's entitled to an opinion, but just because a movie has "Godfather" in the title doesn't mean it's automatically sacred. Not that I'm surprised, though; I know plenty of people who insist on ranking the Godfather among their top five all-time greats without even having seen them, acting like they haven't totally embarrassed themselves in the process... that's what I call absurd. What actually amuses me, though, is seeing Back to the Future and Alien crowned as the best trilogies; sure, Lord of the Rings is leading the pack here, which makes sense for a forum poll, but the fact that BTTF and Alien are right there on its heels gives the whole thing much more credibility for me.👍

Dennis Sullivan46 said:If I'm following you, you're surprised that The Godfather Part III ended up being the worst one. So, since the first two are masterpieces and the third is just mediocre—or maybe you mean it's the lowest rated in the poll? Well, why wouldn't it be? Personally, I'd put Batman, Superman, or Jaws ahead of The Godfather Part III as "worst" entries, but there isn't much of a gap compared to how great the first two are. Everyone has an opinion. Just because it's called The Godfather doesn't mean it's automatically perfect. Though, I'm not shocked; I know people who insist it's in their top five movies without even having seen it, acting like they aren't embarrassing themselves...

Am I writing in invisible ink? I didn't realize my computer had that kind of tech.
Read my post before yours first, where I explained everything clearly...

A family dynasty? :-)

I only counted Lord of the Rings.

You’re probably going to tell me you don't understand me again... 😁

I’m not entirely sure, but perhaps that "Trilogy Meter" calculates its claims based on the individual earnings of each installment—you know, looking at how much the first one made, then the second, and finally the third to arrive at their "meter" figure.

Why don't you look up the box office totals for The Godfather trilogy online? That should give us a much clearer picture.

Nathan Rodriguez3 said:Am I writing in invisible ink here? I didn't realize my computer came equipped with stealth technology.
Maybe try actually reading my previous post first, where I laid everything out clearly for you...

In that case, you might want to actually digest what I wrote since I already told you👍
I'm just explaining why The Godfather Part III wouldn't even be the worst third installment in that poll—though if you ask me, it definitely is. I've already mentioned Batman, Superman, and Jaws, but at least those are fun enough to watch more than once, whereas the third Godfather movie is just painfully boring. Don't act surprised; just bite the bullet and read it.

steelrider16 said:Now you're gonna tell me you don't understand me again, aren't you... 😁

I don't know, maybe that "Trilogy Meter" just bases its whole argument on how much each individual movie pulls in? Like, they look at the first one, then the second, then the third, see the earnings, and boom—there's your "meter."

Go ahead and look up the box office numbers for The Godfather trilogy online, and then we can actually get a clearer picture of what's going on here.

I only put that there so the trilogies would be visible.