Best trilogy ever?

You asked for it 😁

So, you're telling me everything actually worth watching has been scrubbed? We're talking Lethal Weapon, Alien, die hard Indiana Jones, Star Wars—they're all series now, so...

briskhound2 said:So, you're telling me everything actually worth watching has been taken off? All the heavy hitters like weaponry movies, Alien, Die Hard, or even Star Wars are just gone...

Heh, if I had caught this message earlier, I probably would have suggested Die Hard 😢

otherwise, I'd go with Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Jason Bourne, Terminator, or Indiana Jones...

Godfather, if the APA trilogy were on that list, I’d probably be torn.

Fix your Friday reference—you mean Friday the 13th.

And you missed X-Men.

Nathan Rodriguez3 said:You should probably fix that Friday mention; you really mean Friday the 13th...

And you missed X-Men too...

I was actually referring to Friday, the comedy...

Well, I missed quite a few things, as I can't seem to recall everything perfectly...

Seriously, what kind of logic are we using when people call a series with way more than three installments a "trilogy"?

amberfalcon172 said:What kind of logic allows series with more than three installments to be labeled as trilogies?

Well, if you consider that Alien, Back to the Future, Star Wars, and Indiana Jones were all filmed quite a long time after their initial third entries, that was my reasoning for categorizing them that way...

The Godfather, then Indiana Jones, and of course the Original Trilogy of Star Wars... definitely top tier...

Lord of the Rings could have been absolutely incredible, but it just felt a bit too simplified...

lonesailor6 said:Look, I just put them there because Alien 4 and Indiana Jones 4 were filmed quite a while after the original trilogy, so that's why.

So what does it matter when they were filmed?! 😂 🤣
Let me try to explain this to you: Imagine if Rob Zombie directed Halloween in 2007, the second part in 2010, and then a third one in 2047—and then you run a poll in 2048 titled "Which of these two Halloween films is better?" If you ignore that third one just because it was made much later, you're missing the point. Why wouldn't you count that third installment? You get what I'm saying?

I voted for these trilogies:
Back to the Future
The Godfather
The Lord of the Rings
- I totally forgot to vote for the original Star Wars trilogy, even though the newer ones are fine too.

There are plenty of movies listed here that aren't actually trilogies—they're quadrologies. We're talking about titles like: Alien, X-Men, Terminator... all of those have four sequels, not three. Honestly, I don't know why they're even in a poll about trilogies; it's obviously not right. 😕

I’d cast my vote for the Trier European Trilogy (1984-1991) and Haneke’s work from the late 80s through the mid-90s. Actually, I’m not even voting because they aren't on the list.😕

From the options provided, I’m going with Lang and Leone. I’m intentionally skipping Coppola because of that total disaster he put out back in 1990.

I’m speaking on behalf of the Godfather, seeing as we don't have any works by Iñárritu (like Amorres perros, 21 Grams, or Babel) or even Fassbinder's West German Trilogy available here...

Back to the Future, Star Wars (Original Trilogy), and The Lord of the Rings.

Ever since the Mabuse trilogy kicked off, they've rolled out about ten films based on them—and Lang himself actually directed four of them!

Nicholas Walker3 said:Ever since the Mabuse trilogy started, there have been about ten films made involving them, and Lang himself directed four!

It really depends on how you look at it. For instance, the first Mabuse from 1922 is often split into Dr. Mabuse, The Player and Dr. Mabuse, The Player - Inferno, The Play of People of Our Time. But then again, most people view it as one distinct unit... if you check Wikipedia, they’ll list it as the Mabuse trilogy (meaning the films from 1922, 1933, and 1960).
Or are you thinking of the two different versions—French and German—from 1933?

I just remembered another fantastic trilogy that hasn't been mentioned: Rossellini's post-war series (1945-1948), which includes Rome, Rome, Open City, Paisà, and Germany, Year Zero.
Or even Ozu's Noriko trilogy released by Amazon (1949-1953): Tokyo Story, Floating Weeds, and Tokyo Story. They are all incredible titles.

Paul James62 said:So what does the release date actually matter?! 😂🤣
Let me try to break this down for you: Imagine if Rob Zombie shot Halloween in 2007, the sequel in 2010, and then a third one way out in 2047. If you run a poll in 2048 asking "Which of these two Halloween films is better?" and you just ignore the third one because it came out so much later, well, that's not how logic works, right? Why on earth wouldn't you count that third installment? You get what I'm saying?

I cast my votes for these trilogies:
Back to the Future
The Godfather
The Lord of the Rings
- I totally blanked on voting for the Original Trilogy, though the newer stuff is alright too.

There are plenty of movies listed here that aren't even trilogies but are actually quadrilogies, like: Alien, X-Men, Terminator... all of those have four sequels, not three, so why are they even in a trilogy poll? It’s pretty obvious they don't fit the definition. 😕

Now I'm digging through a list of actual trilogies just to see what counts, because even though Alien is technically a quadrilogy, people still lump it in under the trilogy umbrella.

Oh, look what we have here

Mark Wood79 said:Well, it depends on how you look at it—for instance, the first Mabuse from 1922 is split into Dr. Mabuse, The Player, and then Dr. Mabuse, The Player - Inferno, The Play of People of Our Time. But then again, most people just see it as one distinct thing... like, if you check Wikipedia, they’ll list it as the Mabuse trilogy (meaning the films from 1922, 1933, and 1960)

Honestly, whoever remembers what's on Wikipedia should probably take it with a grain of salt... we always do. In any case, Mabuse isn't really a trilogy. Besides—from the get-go—it was an adaptation of a novel that eventually trapped Lang in its orbit, turning into a series that outlived his direct involvement. They even shot a few more films later featuring the same actor who held the lead role in Lang's final film!

Mark Wood79 said:Or are you thinking of those two versions from 1933—the French and German ones?

Oh, you actually reminded me—I really should sit down and catch that French version sometime!

My top three trilogies, if I had to pick

Alien
Back to the Future
Star Wars

Nicholas Walker3 said:Wikipedia lists who counts, so we should probably take its claims with a grain of salt... Either way, Mabuse isn't strictly a trilogy. Besides, it all started as an adaptation of a novel that eventually trapped Hitchcock in its orbit, turning into a series that outlived even him. They actually filmed several more movies featuring the same actor who played the lead in Lang's final film!

The stuff made after Lang doesn't really matter here; we're just focusing on Lang himself. So, why do you think calling it a trilogy is unjustified? Is it because of the 1922 version, or those two releases from 1933? You mentioned that Lang directed 4 Mabuse.

I noticed that Hollywood legends released the complete set with this specific 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 on the machinations of arch-criminal Dr. No.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm perfectly fine with accepting Mabuse as a trilogy.