Discuss: The Trilogy Meter
.jpg)
Cartoonist Dan Meth has created what he calls The Trilogy Meter, which, as you can see above, is a chart that lists several different movie trilogies and then rates them on a high-low scale. The image above is smaller than the actual completed version (view that by clicking the image below), which goes on to include other trilogies like Die Hard, Godfather, Alien, Terminator, Rocky, Batman, Rambo, etc ... As Dan explains over on his blog: "I know other movie geeks are going to have disagreements and that's fine. And yes, I know some of these movies went more than 3 sequels, but none were ever meant to. These are rated purely on my enjoyment level on each film and nothing else. Frankly I'm surprised by how many sequels were better than the original. And I'm not surprised that the 3rd movie is never the best."
Honestly, I'm not surprised so many sequels (or the second film in a franchise) are better than the original since it's easier to just jump right into the action, what with the characters and backstory already introduced in the first film. This doesn't necessarily pertain to straight up action flicks like Die Hard or Rambo, but definitely movies that feature a grand universe (Star Wars) or a comic book character (Spider-Man, X-Men).
What do you think of this chart? Where did Dan go wrong? And will we ever find a third film that's better than the two that came before it?
Gallery: The Trilogy Meter
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
2-17-2009 @ 12:20PM
Mike D said...
I'm sorry, but anyone who ranks "Aliens" over "Alien" lacks credibility in my book. I admire the effort, though.
Reply
2-17-2009 @ 12:19PM
Astin said...
Not sure Star Trek should be included. I don't know if it's fair to say it was never supposed to be more than a trilogy, especially since 1 & 2 aren't really connected. I mean, 10 movies and counting...
And I'm surprised Temple of Doom rated as high as it did.
Reply
2-17-2009 @ 12:27PM
Eric said...
Maybe when it's because i was young when i saw it. But i love temple of doom I have never understood why people don't like it. I know it's darker and I know the girl just screams but. It's still fun.
2-17-2009 @ 2:18PM
Eric H said...
Fun like a cheese grater to the eye, its absurd and annoying, half the characters in the movie you hope will die.
2-17-2009 @ 12:23PM
Ryan said...
The Bourne Trilogy.
Bourne Identity - Great.
Bourne Supremacy - Really great.
Bourne Ultimatum - Really really great.
Reply
2-18-2009 @ 4:45AM
K-Vo said...
My thoughts exactly!
2-17-2009 @ 12:28PM
AJ Wiley said...
C'mon, the first Spider-Man deserves more than like half the box.
Reply
2-17-2009 @ 12:31PM
dukrous said...
I'd give LOTR a bit of an upward curve...if we go purely 1-10 scale, 8-7-9. And Matrix 3 was better than 2, but thats because I sword 2 was a comedy...I was laughing so much during that film.
Reply
2-17-2009 @ 12:31PM
dukrous said...
Swore, not sword...damn you iPhone
2-17-2009 @ 12:52PM
Brian said...
The only two I saw that were noticably wrong were Indiana Jones and Jaws.
Come on, Temple of Doom is pretty awful, and Jaws 2 is FAR superior to Jaws 3-D. Not that Jaws 2 is great, mind you, its just better than the third installment.
Reply
2-17-2009 @ 12:36PM
Scott K said...
Not too bad. Despite the few awkward attempts at humor, Terminator 3 is better than the chart says.
Reply
2-17-2009 @ 12:42PM
Arp said...
Die Hard 2 was not that good, like at all.
Reply
2-17-2009 @ 12:46PM
Tash said...
Jurassic Park - That whole box is f'd. 9-6-3 is how it should go, instead of 6-2-1, which is what it looks like
Indiana Jones - Temple of Doom is just one of those that I never enjoyed watching, no matter how many times I subject myself to it. 10-5-7 for Dr. Jones.
Matrix - Matrix Reloaded is right where it belongs, but Revolutions should be higher. 9.5-3-4.
Everything else I agree with, including Aliens over Alien. Aliens is the superior film, with the same character development and a ton more action.
Reply
2-17-2009 @ 1:12PM
Jonathan Kuhn said...
Die Hard With a Vengeance is both a better film AND more enjoyable than Die Hard 2.
However, I think these people that liked the third Matrix movie better than the second saw a different movie than I did. Because all I saw was a twenty minute fight scene where nothing happened and about half an hour of Robotech.
Reply
2-17-2009 @ 1:26PM
uforeader said...
The first Jurassic Park needs to be MUCH higher.
Reply
2-17-2009 @ 1:29PM
Brian said...
I'm totally in the minority here, but I thought the last 2 Matrix installments were great. Much better than the ratings here. The 3rd was especially great. I've never seen a battle scene where the entire theater let out a sigh at the end of battle, like when the robots stormed Zion. That was truly unreal, and I still hold one of the great achievements of filmaking. (OK flame on)
Aliens is also way more fun than Alien. Not that it's technically a better movie, it was just more fun. So the rating the artist gave is definitely valid there.
X-men 3 should have gotten a 0 rating in my book. The minute they started talking about "a level 5 mutant" that killed all hope of redemption in my book. Let alone the fact that they killed Dr Xavier. They ruined the entire series and it was just an awful story to boot. Bryan Singer not signing on for the third installment killed my childhood heroes.
Reply
2-17-2009 @ 2:30PM
Kevin said...
Wow, Brian, I agree with everything you just said. Great post. The matrix trilogy is much better then people give it credit for. I think its Scott Weinberg who lists Alien as the best sci-fi horror movie, and Aliens as the best sci-fi action movie, which means that you can enjoy each on entirely different levels. Good post buddy.
2-17-2009 @ 1:55PM
lw said...
I agree Jaws 2 was much better than 3 which was laughably bad.
Also Temple of Doom should be much lower than Last Crusade.
I also think Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome was worse than the first Mad Max, not by a lot, but the first is a classic along w/ The Road Warrior. Star Trek The Motion Picture was likewise terrible and all the ST movies to follow were vast improvements over that piece of crap.
Reply
2-17-2009 @ 2:06PM
Batzarro said...
I disagree on the second Jurassic Park, Matrix sequels. On, Jurassic Park, I'll admit that I liked the second one roughly on the same level as the first one. On the Matrix sequels, I think the last one was better than the middle one, on account of they not introducing millions of new characters that time. In fact, the fight between Neo and Smith alone makes the third one better than the second. But other that, it's straight on the money. Should have also added the Star Wars prequels.
Reply
2-17-2009 @ 2:53PM
teenagertc said...
I disagree with the Matrix trilogy. I think the second one was comparable to the first one! The second one was action packed and entertaining. The third one was easily the worst of the three, but not as bad as it was rated on the chart. I would also give the first Jurassic Park one a higher rating.
But it was his opinion, and I like the effort that he put into it!
Reply