Godfather III doesn't stand up to the first two. The Ocean's series is pretty good. But is there a better, tighter series in film than Bourne?
(Lord of the Rings, Star Wars and Batman don't count since there's more than 3 related films out there).
Which other film is related to LOTR ? In its genre The Bourne Trilogy is probably the best one.
shareI personally prefer the Bourne Trilogy. The Toy Story trilogy is probably the one only one that's close in quality (many would argue it's the best).
P.S. With a Bourne 4 (not including Matt Damon or Paul Greengrass) in production right now, does this invalidate the original trilogy by your criteria?
No. Bourne without Damon isn't Bourne. So: no it doesn't.
If they don't wanna cast Damon in Bourne 4, they might as well give the film a new title.
Um.. So, I don't really get your reasoning. If Bourne 4 doesn't count, why would the LOTR trilogy not count? Same goes with Star Wars, we could say that Luke isn't in the prequel trilogy and so that one doesn't count. I do think that the Bourne Trilogy is great, it just doesn't compare to the Godfather, Star Wars, LOTR, The Man With No Name, and, in the near future, The Dark Knight Trilogy will certainly be be one of the greatest all time.
shareBy the OP's reasoning, Star Wars consists of two trilogies. The protagonists of both series appear throughout the three films, but there are obviously crossovers.
To count SW as 'two trilogies' is of course slightly vague as it is clearly a franchise of six films, but given that the franchise consists of two sets of three films, filmed completely separately, does help. The notion of a trilogy has gained more power than it really deserves anyway: people often give trilogies more weight than to series consisting of 2, 4 or 5 movies, but this is pretty arbitrary. It probably exists because a) a trilogy mirrors the traditional three act structure, making the series seem more like a single entity, and because historically many great works have come as trilogies (Star Wars, the Lord of the Rings novels, the three colours trilogy, etc). It is also likely that is deemed a worthy yet realisable attainment of a series due to the law of diminishing returns. Until recently, most sequels were considered inferior, with very few exceptions (sequels are a lot more accepted these days of course). To repeat a winning formula would thus be seen as a great success. To do it a third time would be truly impressive. For a director to make a fourth succesful film would be asking too much. Thus the trilogy is deemed the highest attainable goal of a franchise. This is of course completely arbitrary and there is no reason why it need be the case, just look at franchises such as James Bond and Harry Potter (both of which, however, have the advantage of being adaptations of successful novels, but this is in itself no guarantee of success).
Reasons that support OP:
- Protagonist in legacy is Aaron Cross, not Jason Bourne. So the real triology ended with the character.. this is more of a "spin off".
- The original novel was also a trilogy.
However I don't buy "Damon" argument.. in theory they could've replaced him in every movie and still done an excellent job. (In practise, I loved him playing Bournse and can't imagine anyone else).
--
Well, do ya, punk?
Let's ignore that one, shall we? Let's face it. Matt Damon is Jason Bourne. Without him, it's not a Bourne movie. I'm skeptical about this movie. It could be promising, but that doesn't erase the fact that it's not a proper Bourne movie.
This person couldn't come up with a nice signature at the moment.
It's definitely MY favorite trilogy.
Hope can drive a man insane.
If you exclude every other good movie, then yes, this would be the best.
shareLord of the Rings is absolutely a trilogy....even by the strictest definition. And it is better than the Bournes.
And Star Wars is clearly comprised of two distinct and seperate trilogies. The original trilogy is also better then the Bourne movies.
The Toy Story movies are also a flawless trilogy. Though completely different than the Bourne movies, I would have to give Toy Story a very, very slight edge.
If Speilberg never made the abomination the is Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull......the original 3 Indian Jones movies are better than the Bounre trilogy.
And no matter how bad the 3rd Godfather movie was.....Godfather I and II are two of the best movies ever made.......which also means the Godfather trilogy gets the edge over Bourne.
I am a big fan of the "Dollars/Man with no Name" trilogy. While I personally rank the Bourne movies higher, I understand people who rank these Clint Eastwood movies higher and I find it hard to argue with them.
Many other people seem to rank the Back to the Future trilogy very highly. While the 1st was brilliant, I thought the 2nd and 3rd BTTF's were just ok. I find that, as a trilogy....top to bottom, the Bourne movies are far superior to BTTF. But many people disagree with me.....so I felt I should point it out.
So, the Bourne movies are well within the top-10 trilogies of all times......and depending on exactly how you define "trilogy"....it may crack the top-5.
I hope you don't take this as crticism....I love the Bourne movies. But your need to make it "The Best" is a huge stretch.
(by the way.....using the narrowest possible definition so that you can conveniently eliminate some of the stiffest competition from the argument takes away all credibility from your point)
Your analysis is pretty good. Different trilogies for different genres. I mean, how do you compare the Godfather to Toy Story? All good, but so different. I aways thought that BTTF II had too much unpleasantness and gloom in it. Otherwise, that trilogy would have been near the top. Excellent fantasy trilogy, though. Same with the Indiana Jones series. I thought 1 & 3 were fantastic, but the 2nd one...Temple of Doom...very unpleasant as well, not as enjoyable as the other two. Kingdom of Krystal Skull...eh, let's just say it should've stopped when Crusade was finished.
shareSeriously? Burn trilogy versus Godfather? HAHAHAHA!
The fact that you add The Ocean's (another remake hanging on to star power with zero plot or story but plenty of shiny) adequately illustrates your tastes that I only have to wonder - why didn't you include The Transporter and Taxi trilogies. Or Transformers?
I'm guessing you either don't venture too much out of strictly USA cinema or that you don't like cars.
Cause all of those are exactly right up the alley of someone into Barn.
And into "unfair fights".
Like setting the rules so there is almost no possible answer, and I suppose you'd readily disregard any proposed answer as "not really something-something, my trilogy is better".
Why not just come out and ask for a "Better Bourne trilogy staring Damon, and directed by Greengrass"?
Also, regarding that... How do you like them apples?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1194173/
Granted... first movie holds its own despite all that shaking until the third act - when it is clear they had no idea what to do, so they kill off one of the main characters in the sequel book.
And since they can't write a strong female character who should also be a loving wife AND damsel in distress-turned superspy - they kill the only reason for watching the snooze-fest that is the second movie.
I'm not exaggerating here - I almost fell asleep half way through.
Actually, the only thing I remember from the second half of that movie is Brian Cox strangling someone over the electricity bill. He shows him the meter, than he strangles him.
A bit confusing, but hey... not like they were giving a *beep* about the story anyway.
Now don't get me wrong. The original version with Chamberlain was spot on. And the book is still somewhat interesting although VERY dated.
But saying that the Damon (a fine actor in his own right) trilogy is anything beyond mediocre most of the time and utterly bad the rest of it only shows how bad one's taste may be.
Personally, I blame Greengrass. I'm yet to see anything barely watchable from him.
Then again... Gilroy is not far from that mark either... Other than Michael Clayton, Devil's Advocate and (barely) Proof of Life, his entire resume is a list of *beep* in a shiny box" movies... oh, no, wait... scratch those last two. Devil's Advocate and Proof of Life were both based on other people's books.
Seriously? Burn trilogy versus Godfather? HAHAHAHA!Stop posting. share
The fact that you add The Ocean's (another remake hanging on to star power with zero plot or story but plenty of shiny) adequately illustrates your tastes that I only have to wonder - why didn't you include The Transporter and Taxi trilogies. Or Transformers?
I'm guessing you either don't venture too much out of strictly USA cinema or that you don't like cars.
Cause all of those are exactly right up the alley of someone into Barn.
Troll harder next time.
shareBrian Cox stabbed the guy so kudos to you for being observant.
sharePark Chan Wook's "Vengeance Trilogy"
-Sympathy For Mr. Vengeance
-OLDBOY
-Sympathy For Lady Vengeance
Martin Scorsese's "Mafia Trilogy"
-Mean Streets
-Goodfellas
-Casino
Sergio Leone's "Dollars Trilogy"
-A Fistful of Dollars (a Yojimbo Remake.)
-For a Few Dollars More
-The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly
&
Jackie Chan's "Police Story Trilogy."
-Police Story
-Police Story II
-Police Story III: Supercop
And although the first three mentioned arent strict sequels related to each other, they are infact considered trilogies by many film buffs. And i agree that the original Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings, & the Toy Story Trilogies are also BETTER than the Bourne Trilogy. Not to take anything away from the Bourne films, theyre great films, however best trilogy in history? i bef to differ.
(Lord of the Rings, Star Wars and Batman don't count since there's more than 3 related films out there).
[deleted]