The Scientific Trilogy Meter

There’s an arbitrary ranking of movie trilogies — some that aren’t even trilogies — making its rounds on the internet. I will not post it here, because I do not support such unfounded and capricious internet items. We need critics to tell us which films to pay to see; we need the mass of Asberger’s afflicted IMDB users to inform us of which movies are infallible classics, like The Dark Knight, the 6th greatest movie of all-time. No, I will not let such a ranking stand, a ranking in which The Terminator is put far below its sequel; a ranking in which Temple of Doom and The Last Crusade are equally entertaining; a ranking that counts the first three Star Trek films as a trilogy while not even including the Bourne trilogy. A true analysis of these trilogies is needed, and I am just the man to provide it.

With my trusty Microsoft Excel 2008 program, I plugged in ratings from both IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes, and averaged them, to come up with what should be the universally accepted rankings of these movie “trilogies”.

Perfect. Except for having Die Harder being ranked above Die Hard with a Vengeance. But you know what? There are crazies out there that like With a Vengeance more than the original Die Hard. This is a “fuck you” to them.

And OK, I can’t end this post without at least posting a link to the original Trilogy Meter.


~ by CajoleJuice on February 18, 2009.

8 Responses to “The Scientific Trilogy Meter”

  1. Buh, you thought the third Jurassic Park was worse than the second? I actually kinda liked it.

  2. Oh, I’ve never seen the third. But apparently, yes, it is worse. It’s science.

  3. I would just remove Rambo from chart to include Oceans. When comparing, I think Oceans had more effect on me than Rambo. And yes Bourne, TLOTR and Star Wars (4,5,6) are perfect examples for how the trilogies should be. Even Matrix 3 is much underrated may be as you have to have computer knowledge to understand what is happening.

  4. I was thinking of other trilogies, and to be honest, that one didn’t even pop up.

    Extra note: Just noticed the chart looked like total shit on IE at work, so I quickly fixed it. I apologize to anyone who saw it earlier with that browser, even if you shouldn’t be using IE.

  5. but DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE really IS better than the original. unless i overlooked jeremy irons in the first movie.

  6. I must’ve missed Ellis and Argyle in the third movie.

  7. THANK. YOU. Finally, a scientific evaluation that actually fits! None of this, “Oh, the first Terminator wasn’t very good,” or, “Yeah, Superman II was better because Superman could turn to ice and stuff!” Thank you for doing this. Any time you want to extend it to more trilogies, I would love to see it!

  8. Thanks. Just one request, could you redirect the link on your blog to pretty please? Damn it, I really should’ve directed that domain here earlier. Argh.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: