![[sex and science]](http://www.sunclipse.org/downloads/sexandscience3.png)
In my experience, it's rare to find somebody who likes all the instalments of a movie series to exactly the same degree. Some sequels are hard to compare to their originals at all, of course; 2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984) is so different in style and tone from 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) that grounds for comparison are hard to find. The former was just a movie, put together pretty well, whereas the latter is a bizarre experience which defined cinema history. Nobody decides to drop acid and watch 2010, is what I'm saying.
Many famous series are trilogies, or stood as trilogies for a long time, long enough to grow up with them. Is there a general rule for how trilogies go, quality-wise?
Suppose that nobody will rate two parts of a trilogy with the same goodness. No movies will be tied for first or for second. We'll label the movies in each trilogy in descending order, with "1" being the best and "3" the worst. These are relative rankings within each series — the "3" of one trilogy could in principle hold its own against the "1" of another. How many different patterns of ups and downs can a trilogy exhibit?
The first film in the series could have any one of the three possible quality scores. The second instalment, chronologically speaking, could have either of the two grades as yet unused, and the third movie has to take the last grade left. Therefore, we have 3 × 2 × 1 = 6 possibilities in all. They are 123, 132, 213, 231, 312 and 321. Which series belong to each pattern? Well, that's a subjective judgement call, but following my own standards (which probably aren't entirely esoteric) I can think of a few candidates.
123
If I try hard to evaluate the three movies made so far in the Ghost in the Shell franchise, I might put them in this pattern, but it'd be a close call. The Matrix is a better fit.
132
Die Hard. The first was groundbreaking, the second was its inept and pointless clone, and the third, while horrendously belaboured with cheese, had both Jeremy Irons and Samuel L. Jackson.
213
The original Star Wars. If all you want is cowboys in space, the first is worth watching. Although Empire Strikes Back unfortunately trashes Leia's character to build Han into an action hero, it's still the best of the bunch by a parsec. Who wants Ewok stew?
Terminator. The first was good, the second sizzled, and the third was a sin against storytelling.
The first three Star Trek movies could go here, too.
231
Indiana Jones, or at least the ones of my childhood.
Jurassic Park. The first one was entertaining and left my generation with its fear of raptors, but the third had only one Spielberg kid and no Ian Malcolm at all. The original movie was a clear improvement on the book, in that relegating the "ZOMG FAUSTIAN BARGAIN!!!" business from authorial commentary to the speeches of an annoying guy was a Good Thing. Reducing two annoying kids to one competent one was also a nice move. Not even Samuel L. "I am tired of these mothafuckin' raptors on my mothafuckin' island!" Jackson can beat that.
312
OK, you could put Star Trek I through III here, too, depending on your tolerance for goofy uniforms and "oh my god it's a giant spaceship!" shots.
321
The Star Wars prequels. By the time the last one rolled around, at least I was laughing at the wrongness, rather than groaning.
There are plenty of trilogies left to consider, of course, and all my choices here are not only idiosyncratic, but up for possible revision.
Humanities & Social Science
Comments
The Godfather movies are 213 (or possibly 21 pretend there was never a 39
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 7, 2008 10:46 AM
I agree with most of your assessments (I'd put Star Wars OT as another 123, but conventional geek wisdom says Empire was the best), with the glaring exception of the two 231 trilogies. Who the hell thinks "Temple of Doom" was the best Indy movie? People who like directors' wives in the dual role of shrill leading lady and grating comic relief, maybe. And Jurassic Park, holy god, where to begin. Personally I'd call it 123, but could see a 213. The first movie was and remains a classic, even though the screenwriters took some big shortcuts (e.g., how does Grant know about T-rex eyesight from a paleontological standpoint? what WAS making the Triceratops sick?). Lost World was a better film adaptation, mainly by skipping all the stuff that made the book lousy (like building up anticipation of the spinosaurus, then defeating him with a flashlight) and focusing on the King Kong aspect. The third was was absolute shite, especially from a scientific perspective. Look out! Evil pteranodons that can lift a human adult! Velociraptors who have gotten so huge and intelligent they practically twirl scaly mustaches and speak in British accents!
Posted by: Joe V. | November 7, 2008 10:59 AM
Hey, I know at least one person who prefers Temple of Doom over all the others, but "231" = "Temple of Doom was the worst".
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 7, 2008 11:01 AM
"Temple of Doom" was the second Indy movie (1984). "Raiders" was the first (1981). Unless you're using the in-film chronology, but who does that?
Posted by: Joe V. | November 7, 2008 11:06 AM
Terminator: 213, agreed. I especially enjoyed #2 because, having come to the series only very recently and with no prior knowledge, it took me a while to cotton to the fact that the Good Guy/Bad Guy roles were not what I had first assumed. I love that sort of reversal. And the Sarah Connor character rocked. The last installment was utterly superfluous.
Matrix: 213.
LOTR: 132. T2T (both book and movie) suffers from being "stuff in the middle" which neither begins nor ends the story. The cinematic denouement of ROTK went on far too long, and lacked the redeeming value of the Scouring of the Shire.
Star Wars (prequel): 321. Too much Cute Kid in #1. Lots of good action in #2, marred by some atrocious dialog (look, we know Nathalie Portman can act -- V for Vendetta proved that -- but only if the scriptwriter lets her). The light-saber duel over the lava river in #3 covers a multitude of sins.
Star Wars: 312 (though possibly adjusted if you consider the improved version with better FX). Which is not to imply that (unlike the Terminator) any of them sucked.
JP: 13?. I preemptively rate JP2 as worst because I was so put off by it that I haven't seen JP3.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | November 7, 2008 11:08 AM
Yeah, I'm kinda with Joe on the third JP. I mean, come on, Dr. Grant used a fossil skull as an ocarina to talk to dinosaurs. Besides, the first is the only quotable one. 123 in my book, though I might grant (get it? get it? do you get it?) you 132.
Posted by: Aaron Golas | November 7, 2008 11:22 AM
Damn. You guys must have a higher Ian Malcolm tolerance than I do.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 7, 2008 11:24 AM
The Evil Dead Trilogy is a 312 (in my opinion of course).
The first was a somewhat quirky but otherwise mot very well made or watchable quickie horror Film. Evil Dead 2 was meta before meta became popular, a surreal masterpiece. Army of Darkness was rechnically the most polished, but had a much more conventional storyline and plenty of cheezy one-liners of the type so beloved by geeks with no imagination of their own (the director's cut, with Ash oversleeping until after the destruction of humanity, was a bit better).
Posted by: Frasque | November 7, 2008 11:27 AM
Granted, I haven't seen Lost World in ages, and the third did have William H. Macy. But in the second they at least had a T-rex party in San Diego. Hm... that might need reevaluation.
Also for consideration: Ian Malcolm = suck, but Ian Malcolm + tyrannosaur peril = eheheheheh...
Posted by: Aaron Golas | November 7, 2008 11:59 AM
I love all three of the Jurassic Park films, but I do rate them differently. I'd go for 132.
I think you're right, Blake, that I simply have a higher tolerance for Ian Malcolm than you do. He's full of shit, but he's obviously full of shit to the point that I find him amusing. At least, that was the case in the first film. The Lost World, by making him the main character, totally killed all of that by putting him in a position where the audience is forced to at least try to take him seriously. It doesn't work. You just can't. (This is why my favourite Ian Malcolm scene from the first novel is the one where he's totally hopped up on morphine and rambling about paradigm shifts. Because nothing goes together like pop phil-of-sci and drug-induced hazes.)
And I will defend Jurassic Park III to the death as a highly enjoyable popcorn film. Yes, it's ridiculous, but who cares? It clearly had a different set of priorities from the original, and it achieved them quite well. Plus, as Blake says, the kid wasn't annoying, and actually seemed competent to take care of himself. That goes a loooooooooooooong way in my book.
Posted by: Joshua | November 7, 2008 12:06 PM
Frasque:
Ah, I had forgotten about the Evil Dead movies! I think your analysis is right on the money, too.
Joshua:
Crichton may have built better than he knew. . . . Is there any way we could dismiss all of, say, State of Fear as a character's painkiller-induced hallucination?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 7, 2008 12:14 PM
Which is the third "Ghost in the Shell" movie that you refer to?
For me, the 1996 movie is a contender for 1 for all movies generally. "Innocence" was an OK movie but what is the third?
Posted by: stephenk | November 7, 2008 1:10 PM
Ghost in the Shell: SAC Solid State Society (2006). It's set in the continuity of the Stand Alone Complex TV series, but adopts elements from other branches of the franchise, particularly the first movie but also the various manga.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 7, 2008 1:19 PM
Ta, for that.
Seems it was released as a DVD set here about the same time as the series was showing on TV (last year) and the local distributor doesn't class it as a "film".
I'll have to hunt it up.
Actually, now I've been to the distributors site, it seems "Solid State Society" really forms a trilogy with 2 other "Feature Length" DVDs, "Individual Eleven" and "Laughing Man" which seems to be spin offs from the (1st?) TV series.
Or at least that's how they seem to be packaged here.
I am getting out of touch with the newer anime.
Posted by: stephenk | November 7, 2008 2:41 PM
Those other "feature length" DVDs are condensed versions of the TV show: Laughing Man compiles together the "complex episodes" of the first season, and Individual Eleven does something similar for the second season.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 7, 2008 2:50 PM
Am I the only one who finds your notation very confusing? I'd intuitively take "231" to mean "2 was best, followed by 3, then 1", whereas you're using it to mean "the ranks of the three movies, in order of appearance, are 2,3,1" which is a different thing altogether.
Actually, it seems pretty clear from others' comments that at least two other people have the same issue and haven't even noticed that your notation isn't what they expect it to be...
Posted by: g | November 7, 2008 3:38 PM
I figured a "1" = "Number 1 movie" notation would make enough sense (I considered using letters instead, with "A" being the best of a trilogy and "C" the worst). Since I was thinking of the problem in terms of a chronological sequence of ups and downs — a time series of quality measurements — this way made sense. I explained what I meant and gave examples to illustrate it; if I had done it any other way, the five people who understood what I did might have ended up confused, for all I know. You can't win.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 7, 2008 4:07 PM
That's why I called it a "231". The first movie to be released was the second-best, the second movie to be released was the worst, and the third instalment was the most satisfying.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 7, 2008 4:10 PM
Alien series:
2143
I saw Aliens before I saw Alien, which probably colors my vision.
Posted by: frodo | November 7, 2008 5:10 PM
Joshua wrote: "And I will defend Jurassic Park III to the death as a highly enjoyable popcorn film. It clearly had a different set of priorities from the original, and it achieved them quite well."
I'm with you on that one. JPIII didn't pretend to be anything but a highbrow monster movie, where I and II (the movies) pretended to be, but really weren't, 'science films'.
A couple of others to consider:
Lethal Weapon: 213. Joe Pesci made the second one, along with "diplomatic immunity!!!"
Jaws: 123. Since we haven't had many '123' contenders here. Actually, though, it should be 12(infinity).
Spider-Man: Another 213, for me.
Mad Max: I'd go with possible 312 here, though I can also see 213.
Posted by: gg | November 7, 2008 8:25 PM
No new ground from me, but second votes for
123 Jaws
213 Godfather
Posted by: Jonathan | November 7, 2008 11:47 PM
@#5:
Matrix goes 132 - and that's only because the battle of Zion ALMOST redeems the third movie. #1 was Plato's Analogy of the Cave, #2 & #3 were the Wachowski brothers trying to do philosophy, which was just terrible.
Posted by: Steven Alleyn | November 8, 2008 2:44 AM
Allegory of the Cave, sorry. Brainfart.
Posted by: Steven Alleyn | November 8, 2008 1:23 PM
Any opinion on Lord of the Rings? Or what about King Kong and remakes?
Posted by: Sili | November 9, 2008 8:34 AM
Lord of the Rings is 213, but that's tough.
#3 was good, in the battle was memorable, but that forever and ever and ever and ever and... well, that ending really hurt it.
#2 had Helms Deep, and the great Gollum scenes.
But we're not talking Matrix here, all three were good.
Posted by: Jonathan | November 9, 2008 3:39 PM
@ #19:
Ahhh, I think you made a mistake there -- the Alien series should be rated as:
21
Any rumors of a 3rd or 4th movie are strictly that and no DVD copies of purported further sequels will convince me otherwise. The series ended at Aliens.
;)
Posted by: G Barnett | November 11, 2008 5:34 PM