Trilogies: Which do you prefer?

I've been recently pondering which type of trilogy I prefer the most. We have triologies in which each movie can stand on it's own and at the end leaves little to no questions unanswered. An example of this would be the Indiana Jones trilogy. There's the trilogies in which the first movie stands on it's own but leaves enough opening for a continuation and normally these movies don't jump right out at you as being involved in a three movie plot. Star Wars is a clasic example of this, New Hope stands on it's own but left enough open to continue the latter 2 movies. Pirates of the Caribbean has also jumped into this category with the latest installment. Then there's the trilogies in which right from the get go you realize the first movie leaves much to be desired and that the sequels are coming. The Matrix is an example of this, where the first movie left so much open there was no doubt a sequel or sequels were coming.

I've come to the conclusion that I prefer Trilogies in category 2, where the first movie concludes and you don't really envision it turning into a much thicker storyline let alone a trilogy.

What do you think?

I agree with you on liking movies in category 2 however I would put pirates (because of the second one) in Category 3

I think Pirates followed the Star Wars model pretty well. The first one was built as a stand alone, because no one really anticipated its success. The second didn't end, but basically left the storyline hanging out there. Empire closed a few more doors, but I remember when it was first released people talking for days about... the Luke/Vader thing, about the Han capture. We were left dangling off the cliff. Pirates II didn't really end, no villian was conquered, they sort of got away, but again we're dangling on a cliff. Star Wars did it better, but the second was designed specifically to get to the third.

Well they are almost finished filming the third Pirates movie. I never imagined a second or now a third. I would have to say I prefer a continuing story as apposed to an ending at each movie.

Austin Power's is my favorite comedy trilogy. The Matrix has to be my favorite action/adventure trilogy only b/c you can watch it easily in one day. LOTR takes like 12 hours to watch.

i prefer stories that leave you with questions and build on themselves in the next flick but don't end in a cliffhanger. i think star wars did the best job at that in their "first" trilogies. the second matrix and LOTR movies weren't conclusive enough for me. indiana jones came across more as seperate movies with similar characters.

I really enjoyed the LOTR trilogy and didn't mind the cliffhangers because I knew the books so well. That being said, anyone see the new Superman? The movie itslef isn''t bad, but there is no resolution at all, it just kind of ends. I don't like those kind at all.

Both SW trilogies are my favorite movies and I love how the first movie stands on it's own and the second is a cliffhanger, then, the third brings closure.

That being said, anyone see the new Superman? The movie itslef isn''t bad, but there is no resolution at all, it just kind of ends. I don't like those kind at all.

i didn't like it either. i also don't think lex is a good villian for superman.

I think Pirates followed the Star Wars model pretty well. The first one was built as a stand alone, because no one really anticipated its success. The second didn't end, but basically left the storyline hanging out there. Empire closed a few more doors, but I remember when it was first released people talking for days about... the Luke/Vader thing, about the Han capture. We were left dangling off the cliff. Pirates II didn't really end, no villian was conquered, they sort of got away, but again we're dangling on a cliff. Star Wars did it better, but the second was designed specifically to get to the third.

The empire strikes back is able to stand alone unlike Pirates 2. Pirates 2 is basically part 1 of a 2 part movie rather than a movie in and of itself.

I still think it fits in the 3rd category

I've been of the opinion for some time that the vast majorities of "trilogies" really aren't.

To me, the pattern of typical "trilogies" is:

• Author writes a book. He's got a story to tell, he tells it. Book sells a zillion copies and author gets worshipped as creator of . . .
  
• Author writes a few more books, but they aren't as successfull as his "masterpiece".
  
• Author observes that he didn't kill everybody off. People have been telling him for years that they wanted more.
  
• Author writes Book Two. Book Two has the same characters, the same universe, the same "formula". However, Book Two doesn't have a story. Instead, the purpose of Book Two is to leave as many dangling threads as possible, to serve as a teaser for Book Three. To use a movie analogy, Film Two is a two-hour trailer for Film Three. (Classic Example: "I am your father".)
  
• Book Three doesn't have a story, either. The purpose of Book Three is to resolve the threads that were intentionally left dangling in Book Two.
  

The empire strikes back is able to stand alone unlike Pirates 2. Pirates 2 is basically part 1 of a 2 part movie rather than a movie in and of itself.

I still think it fits in the 3rd category

Part of that is because you never had to wait three years for Return to come out. Empire is a great movie, but it definately ended suspensfully... or maybe that was only because I was ten at the time.

The empire strikes back is able to stand alone unlike Pirates 2. Pirates 2 is basically part 1 of a 2 part movie rather than a movie in and of itself.

I still think it fits in the 3rd category

Now, I really liked Empire. I consider it the best of the Star Wars films, and one of the best of all time.

But let's face it. The plot of Empire is:

• Fight scene.
  
• Fight scene.
  
• Fight scene.
  
• "There is another (potenital jedi)."
  
• Fight scene.
  
• Fight scene.
  
• "I am your father."
  
• Fight scene.
  

I forgot the Back to the Future trilogy, I think I'd have to classify that in the 3rd category since the end of the first movie defintiely sets you up for more sequels. Although this is definitely one series of movies that definitely got worse as it went on.

Now, I really liked Empire. I consider it the best of the Star Wars films, and one of the best of all time.

But let's face it. The plot of Empire is:

• Fight scene.
  
• Fight scene.
  
• Fight scene.
  
• "There is another (potenital jedi)."
  
• Fight scene.
  
• Fight scene.
  
• "I am your father."
  
• Fight scene.
  

nonetheless it is a stand alone

I forgot the Back to the Future trilogy, I think I'd have to classify that in the 3rd category since the end of the first movie defintiely sets you up for more sequels. Although this is definitely one series of movies that definitely got worse as it went on.

I've been recently pondering which type of trilogy I prefer the most. We have triologies in which each movie can stand on it's own and at the end leaves little to no questions unanswered. An example of this would be the Indiana Jones trilogy. There's the trilogies in which the first movie stands on it's own but leaves enough opening for a continuation and normally these movies don't jump right out at you as being involved in a three movie plot. Star Wars is a clasic example of this, New Hope stands on it's own but left enough open to continue the latter 2 movies. Pirates of the Caribbean has also jumped into this category with the latest installment. Then there's the trilogies in which right from the get go you realize the first movie leaves much to be desired and that the sequels are coming. The Matrix is an example of this, where the first movie left so much open there was no doubt a sequel or sequels were coming.

I've come to the conclusion that I prefer Trilogies in category 2, where the first movie concludes and you don't really envision it turning into a much thicker storyline let alone a trilogy.

What do you think?

See maybe I am reading this wrong, but I am viewing is as: Category 1- 3 stand alones that are similar in characters or concept not in story line. ie Indiana Jones.

category 2- 3 movies that play off each other (2 building on 1, 3 building on 2) but can still be watched as stand alone. ie Star Wars, Back to the Future

Category 3- 3 movies that need each other to make sense that leave too many loose ends for the movies to act as stand alones. ie Pirates (because of #2)

Now, I really liked Empire. I consider it the best of the Star Wars films, and one of the best of all time.

But let's face it. The plot of Empire is:

• Fight scene.
  
• Fight scene.
  
• Fight scene.
  
• "There is another (potenital jedi)."
  
• Fight scene.
  
• Fight scene.
  
• "I am your father."
  
• Fight scene.
  

Too bad Superman Returns didn't follow that formula. Maybe I would have stayed for the end credits then

And I don't think Empire was set up quite like that. I mean you are leaving one major part, and the reason I enjoyed ESB so much...My man Lando!!!

Lando got all the ho's in cloud city.

GC

Best Trilogy?

Smokey and the Bandit.

Hands down.

Maybe not entirely on topic, but close enough. I thought the ending of the first Matrix movie where Neo talks on the pay phone was a great ending and I actually expected the story to end right there with the rest of it left up to the imagination. Anybody else think this or do you think the ending was a dead giveaway that there would be a sequel?

So where does Rambo rank?

What about Mad Max?

Then there is Blade, Sniper (Tom Berenger) and Die Hard.