Problems with Finding the Best Movie Trilogy of All Time

A proper movie trilogy is a tough thing to pull off. Three movies that continue a story past the first film and create a larger three-act structure spanning three feature-length films. There needs to be steady progression in the story, all the while maintaining a continuity in quality. That's how one makes a good trilogy, but from an unknown desire to determine which one is the best, one needs to be a bit more analytical about the minutiae of trilogies.

The Third Movie Problem

Ideally, in a trilogy, each film should level up as it progresses, but there are plenty of examples that show the opposite. And it's the third movie that seems to always miss the mark: RoboCop 3, The Godfather Part III, Alien 3, Terminator 3, The Matrix: Revolutions, Spider-Man 3.

Maybe studio execs got too involved, maybe they were all about the money, maybe poor creative choices were made. It's a strange trend that's not new. Filmmaking isn't easy and it's not hard to screw up the ending.

Of course, there are many deviations to this trend: Logan, Die Hard with a Vengeance, Toy Story 3.

Too Many Movies

Since we've gotten into the habit of releasing cinematic follow-ups many years after the previous installment, many trilogies are no longer trilogies. A trilogy is three movies. If the film franchise moves beyond three, it's no longer a trilogy and ventures into the obscure realm of quadilogies and pentalogies. The Indiana Jones film series is now a five-film pentalogy. The Alien franchise is a seven-part heptalogy with all of its recent additions, and it's a silly-sounding ennealogy if you include the two Alien vs. Predator movies.

Additionally; Toy Story, Die Hard, The Matrix, Pirates of the Caribbean, and The Bourne Movies no longer fit the mold of trilogy.

Recasting

A pet peeve of mine; but, essentially when a character is suddenly played by a different actor from one film to the next, it's technically a continuity error. I know it's never the first choice to recast, and oftentimes it's unavoidable when an actor passes away as it was for Gloria Foster in The Matrix Trilogy. The Wachowski's got creative and wrote the change into the script when the Oracle was portrayed by Mary Alice in the third film. However, most filmmakers simply accept the change with "it is what it is."

Other times a role is recast for production reasons. Katie Holmes had scheduling conflicts for The Dark Knight while doing Mad Money. Terrance Howard didn't do Iron Man 2 due to salary disputes. Edward Norton had a lot of creative differences with Marvel Studios and he never returned as Bruce Banner.

It can be a bit jarring when suddenly the role of so-and-so is now played by Different Person.

However, it did take me years to realize that the roles of Jennifer Parker and George McFly were recast in Back to the Future Part II.

I guess I don't really care too much, my main gripe is that it's an obvious discrepancy from one film to the next and it makes me think about the behind-the-scene whatnot instead of the actual movie itself. Definitely not the biggest issue, it's just me being nitpicky.

Cinematic Universes

Now this is really just a Marvel issue because they're the only one to create a "Cinematic Universe" successfully, but within the expansive catalog of the MCU, there are a few trilogies bouncing about. However, I'm not certain if any of these so-called trilogies are actually trilogies.

There's clearly an Iron Man 1, 2, and 3; but I doubt anyone would ever want to watch those three films sequentially. It doesn't work. The MCU functions more like a massive, unorthodox television series with two-hour episodes than a series of self-contained films. After watching The Iron Man Trilogy, one would feel like they missed a couple episodes and wonder what's going to happen next season.

Cinematic Compartmentalization

We humble consumers cannot control what the producers decide to do. If they want to tamper with our beloved trilogies, they have the mean and legal right to do so. However, we are able to alter our frame of mind when reviewing certain cinematic entities.

We've been doing it with the Original Star Wars Trilogy for decades. Keep it separate from the Prequels and the Sequels, and you can hold your head up high when talking about the greatest trilogy in cinematic history. Francis Ford Coppola re-edited The Godfather Part III and re-released it as The Godfather Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone. Now, the Godfather films technically live as a spectacular duology with a so-so epilogue. If you don't care for the last two Indiana Jones films, you can still continue to love the Indiana Jones Republic Serials Trilogy.

Unofficial Trilogies?

There are some trilogies out there that aren't technically trilogies in the traditional sense.

Edgar Wright's Cornetto Trilogy, for example. Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, and The World's End have nothing to do with each other story-wise. However, they are all connected by the creative forces of Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg, and Nick Frost, and a cameo of a particular ice cream treat.

Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, Oldboy, and Lady Vengeance from Park Chan-wook's Vengeance Trilogy are all revenge thrillers. Each story is very different, but they all pertain to the same theme of vengeance. If you haven't seen them, watch them.

How about Quentin Tarantino's Revisionist Trilogy? Inglorious Basterds, Django Unchained, and Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood. I always thought of them as just three distinct three, but they are connected by a director's unique ability to rewrite history.

This expansion on the idea of what a movie trilogy can be, especially if they're all fantastic films, further conflates the issue of finding the best. It confounds the question of which trilogy is truly the One Trilogy to Rule Them All.

The Obvious Answer

The best trilogy of all time obviously is Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings. Each film is brilliant on its own, and they all contribute to the totality of its three-part cinematic splendor. It's obvious.

However, there's a problem with this answer as well that poses another question. The continuity of quality throughout from picture to picture stems from the fact that they were all shot at the same time. There were pick-ups, sure, but the bulk of filming for all three films happened during their 18 months of principal photography. Each film wasn't its own individual production like how most trilogies are formed.

So, this poses another question: is The Lord of the Rings a trilogy or is it one massive movie separated into three parts?