I’d say aside from The Lord of the Rings, the best big-budget film trilogy is The Planet of the Apes reboot trilogy. Each installment is stand-alone in a way while being a part of a bigger story. Each installment has a big connecting idea and theme. And the third installment (in my opinion) delivers on being a profound and satisfying climax to the whole big picture story.
I disagree, but I think you're probably on to something, and I respect your opinion. The issue I had with War was that it did very little to stand out when it came to breaking away from the standard Planet of the Apes storyline compared to the other films. In many ways, it took a trilogy that was trying to make its own thing, and it fasts forward to everything that we had expected from the original films: apes becoming more intelligent, the promise land being discovered, and humans basically de-evolving. Even though it didn't aim to completely follow the rules of the original apes series, it essentially met that conclusion. In my opinion, I found it a little dissatisfying because I felt like it didn't give a proper spin on the franchise like the other movies had. Instead of reaching the conclusions on their own merit, it just brought back everything we recognized.
Yeah I agree, the only thing that does slightly get in the way is that all weren't written and directed by the same person. I do prefer it when trilogies are all written by the same writer or directed by the same director just because of the cohesion it creates. But the POTA reboot trilogy is one that despite the different creative teams, still feel very connected and aren't jarring in their changes. The change from Rise to Dawn is big, but it feels natural. Dawn and War are the most connected, but they also are very different to each other in many ways. It's a trilogy where entries are distinct but also similar enough to fit together.
@@BostonMBrand I can't remember in detail but I remember feeling Ceasar's and villain's arcs in the film were eally cool, and also the crux of the movie
You say that but the irony here is that when Toy Story 3 was announced, there was this feeling amongst a lot of people that it was pointless to do a third one. On some level, 3 was for money too since they could've easily stopped at 2 and no one would've faulted them for it. People don't always know what they want until they see it, and filmmakers don't truly know how great a movie is going to turn out until they go for it.
@@dereky1861 weakest maybe but still great in the eyes of a fair number of people. No one asked for a 4th yet no one asked for a 3rd either. A New Hope had a solid ending that didn't particularly need a sequel either yet Empire feels like a no-brainer in hindsight. And regardless, my point still stands: people don't always know what they want until they see it, and filmmakers don't know how great a film's gonna turn out until they go for it - there's more that goes into a movie than just a great idea. An amazing screenplay can be undermined by a number of compounding little things that come afterwards, or can be strengthened if those elements go the other way. If an artist has a story they feel compelled to tell, then let them tell it. If it ends up not working out then so be it.
@@chrisjfox8715 no one asked for the third but the third to the majority thought was a strong ending. Those who had doubts were wrong with their assumptions. While 4th is forgettable to the majority. Note if some like it that’s fine just saying it was weak compared to the others. “You win some you lose some”
@@dereky1861 "Nobody asked for it" is a terrible reason for not making something. Nobody asked for a lot of cool movies. If mad max fury road had sucked, people would say "nobody asked for this." but here we are and Fury Road is a masterpiece. People only ever say "nobody asked for this" if the movie (or game/book/whatever) is bad in hindsight. Nobody asked for a third Toy Story 3 but it ended up being great. Then nobody asked for asked for fourth one, and... well actually that one also ended up being great (just look at the rotten tomatoe scores, critics AND viewers) so saying that the 4th one was forgettable is a bit naive. But even if it DID suck, sometimes movies just don't pan out. The point is, if you have a great idea for a story and your characters, then go ahead, make another movie. If you don't, then don't. Nobody asked for a sequel to "The Shining" but someone wanted to make another movie in that universe with "Doctor Sleep" and it turned out to be a competent movie that a lot of people enjoyed, even if it didn't surpass the original movie. Nobody asked for it, it didn't set the world on fire, but I'm happy it exists.
😂😂😂 Yeah... I find his analyses interesting, but I can't handle the "entertainment" portions of his videos. I mean, everyone else may love it, and that's cool... I'm just saying, for me, I could really do without that. A little wouldn't bother me... But it goes on and on. It's too much for me.
@@DB-fj2bx I only recently came across the channel so I'm watching these videos for the first time out of order. I'm finding these inserts to be really dumb especially years later. I wish Patrick would upload "bullshit-free" versions of the videos, even on a separate channel.
This is why he’ll never be an actual film maker even though he clearly wants to be. He video essays are great but these “movies” are corny, horribly written, horribly acted, poorly directed…
True. Let's hope he can break it again to do a Clone Wars analysis: i.e. that thing that actually made the public love the prequels more than nostalgia.
@@coreyander286 Maybe, but I’d say thanks to Rebels and Mandalorian Season 2, the show’s influence is slightly wider realized than it was when TCW initially went off air. So the dynamic has changed a bit.
"he can deflect bullets" "this is a hammer" Cinematic masterpiece. I seriously can not believe the short film you have been teasing for this long was the Charl finale all along. You crazy genius.
10:55 Remainder of obvious thing. "Lord of the Rings" is one novel in six books, which was publishes as three volumes, two books per one volume, due to decision of publisher. I don't remember if publisher make these decision due to scarcity of paper in post-war UK or for different reason.
I do love how Charl is getting irritated with Patrick's 'muse' getting in the way of his attempt at world domination. You knew who Patrick was when you picked him Charl, you have no one but yourself to blame.
Same thing with many horror movies. We get so excited in the 1st and 2nd acts, and then the monster reveal in the 3rd act is a letdown and the film goes downhill from there.
A key problem I noticed when I recently re-watched the second and third Pirates films: At The end of the second one, it's clear that everyone wants to save Jack because they care about him. It's emotional. They would do anything to save their friend. But then in the exact scene where they finally meet him again in the next film, it's explicitly stated that each of them only came to rescue him in order to accomplish other goals. Jack himself has a line where he asks "Did no one come to save me just because they missed me?" and I couldn't believe how clearly these two films were contradicting each other.
I believe Pirates 3 was completely written before 2 was finished. But the films try very hard to convince you of the opposite. The biggest one for me is the hard shift toward Calypso about halfway through the third movie. Sure, there are a couple name drops up to that point, but no one watching the movie is prepared for it to be the third act of third movie in the trilogy. Also- I think it's clear they were seeing up Jack to become immortal by becoming the next Jones- but Disney forced a last minute change so they could keep making that Jack Sparrow money.
@@xhonzi Good points. The third movie is just bad. The way it discards Norrington completely really left a bad taste in my mouth after being such a hugely important character in the first two movie.
My main problems with trilogies are: 1. Movies not intended to be trilogies - You blew your load in the first one, but it was so successful that the studio wants you to make more, but you honestly ran out of ideas. 2. Movies intended to be trilogies (or even 5 movies) - The individual movies feel like setup movies. Each movie cannot stand alone for itself because it has no complete plot or character arcs.
This is Patrick's way of sticking it to Hollywood. He's making an entire extended length feature film about a crazy coconut and spoon feeding it to everyone while he makes airplane noises and Transformers jokes. That way by the time we've realized what's going on he's gotten raycon and Curiosity Stream to fund a movie. Then he just assembles the Charl supercut and storms Sundance.
That other Universe Chloe is supposed to be 10 years older & a battle hardened bounty hunter & looks exactly like this universe Chloe is either a flex on how flawless Chloe is or an indictment on how difficult & harrowing it is to be a musician in New York.
@@kendallcuddles Joker was a great 3/4 of a movie that suffers from trying to shoehorn itself into being a Joker movie. As soon as you tie it to that existing lore, it goes from an interesting movie about a compelling character's struggle against society, to a horribly nonsensical origin for one of the most evil villains in fiction.
I think this is why Revenge of the Sith works so well not just as a Trilogy ending (shitting on the two prior movies) but works so well in tying the whole saga together: It provides one controlling idea and makes it so that the Han and Leia plotlines don't matter so much by adding in other characters who also don't get great endings (Bail Organa, Padme) because the story is more about Anakin and Luke Skywalker. The controlling idea proposed is about how evil corrupts but can be undone and redeemed by love, compassion, faith and a guiding example.
I actually do think that the Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies should count as a trilogy, even if there were intended to me more movies in the series, since SM3 does wrap up narrative threads that were running through all three movies. Specifically: 1.) Harry's descent to villainy (and last-minute redemption), 2.) Peter and MJ committing to relationships with one another, 3.) Peter getting some closure regarding Uncle Ben's death by "forgiving" Sandman for his [retconned] involvement. It definitely seems like Raimi wrote the movies with overarching plots / narrative threads in mind, and wrote SM3 to close most of those out. If SM4 had been produced, it likely would have covered new thematic and narrative ground, since the threads from the first 3 movies were tied up.
It's been said that Raimi only wanted to make 4 to 'make up' for fan disappointment on 3. I think that he did want it to just be a trilogy, but the reception to 3 made him want to end on a higher note.
I don't know, the whole "chicken" plot in BTTF 2 and 3 really rang with me as a kid. The moment in 3 when he says "He's an asshole" was like, a revelation for me. It's clumsy and 80's/90sish, but it's kind of a vital message that we don't really get enough in films. It's about toxic masculinity, and how the concept of courage as a nobility in itself is warped into a weapon that is used to manipulate men into doing things they don't actually want to do, and then suffering those consequences. Marty is a teenager, he experiences some really traumatic shit, he faces down stakes as he needs to, even when he is visibly scared. He is brave. But that bravery is incomplete until the moment he realises that bravery itself is a tool, not a goal, and doing the scariest thing, and doing the smart thing, and doing the most physically dangerous thing, are 3 completely separate ideas, and that he's the one that has to live with the consequences of those choices, or indeed die with those consequences, so he'd better start thinking about what he actually wants, instead of allowing simplistic ideals of courage to manipulate him into situations he doesn't want. That's a message that really resonated with me as a kid. I honestly think it helped to define me as a person. It's like how adults sometimes tell kids "The real courage is in standing up to the other kids, and telling them you won't smoke." That's inaccurate. The real courage is doing the thing that most scares you. If cigarettes are scarier than standing up to your peers, then for you, smoking is the more courageous choice. But who cares? Courage is a tool, not a goal. Find your goals, and pursue them with all the courage you can muster, but don't let the idea of courage be used to manipulate you into choices you don't actually want to make. Sorry, just had to get that out.
I’ve seen a lot of people hate the third one, saying it betrays the themes and I just can’t understand why. The first movie established that humans and dragons can live together and Hiccup convinces Berk that’s the case. In the second movie we see that unfortunately there are people like Drago who won’t change their views on dragons despite Hiccup’s efforts and Stoick dies and Berk almost gets destroyed. By the third movie they’ve rescued so many dragons that they need to move the dragons in a more suitable home and there’s another villain who also wants to capture and kill dragons, leasinf to Hiccup realizing for the safety of the dragons, they need to be separated and let the dragons live safely in the hidden world until it’s safe for them. Also, how the hell do people say Grimmel is a bad villain but Drago isn’t? Drago stands around and just lets his dragons does his work and doesn’t even have a meaningul conversation with Hiccup. Grimmel actually does stuff and is a great reflection on what Hiccup could have become if he killed Toothless in the first movie and literally breaks into Hiccup’s house and talks to him. I can see people complaining about the humor and side characters in the 3rd movie but I don’t know how people can say it betrays the first two movies.
Honestly, I dislike the third one. Is it an awful movie? No. But I feel like it has the same problem as Toy Story 4. These aren't awful movies, but they just end up negating so many of the characters. Example. Toy Story 4 completely shortchanges the entire supporting cast. The movie itself isn't bad, but it contradicts a lot of what made the first three great. (Especially with how Buzz is basically given a nothing role) HTTD3 is also not a bad watch, but compared to the first 2 it just feels super aimless. It also feels forced. It didn't need to try to wrap up a trilogy. It could have left things open ended. It felt like it was trying too hard to conclude its story. The villain was weak sauce too, especially after Bludvist. The love story between Toothless and Light Fury felt underbaked. I know it has its fans, and it's far from the worst third film out there...but it definitely left me cold.
A few people added the newer Planet of the Apes films, which I appreciate. May I also present, for your consideration: The Kung Fu Panda trilogy. 1st film: being yourself, accepting who you are 2nd film: accepting your past and moving beyond it to be greater 3rd film: applying that understanding to those around you as Po literally goes from student to teacher by the end Each film has external stakes, as well as internal conflicts (Po's belief in himself; Po learning about his past; Po struggling with his feelings about finding his father) as well as philosophical (can *anyone* be a "dragon warrior"? How do you move past your scars? Can you teach while still being a student yourself?) I've probably worded these terribly, but it's such a fun - but meaningful and focused - trilogy that seems to have something to say by the final film. 👍🏻
@@TequilaToothpick I think the reason for that has a connection to what Patrick said. Pretty much everyone agrees that Kai is the worst villain of the trilogy. The reason for that is unlike Tai Lung or Shen, he isn't a thematic parallel. The themes mentioned above connect to those villains: Tai Lung believes his identity is tied to the Dragon Scroll, not himself. Shen you could interpret in one of two ways: He's either stuck in the past, constantly trying to get back at his parents for their "betrayal", or he's so focused on his future and changing his fate that he can't see the harm he's doing, and how he is going on that very path. Kai wants to destroy Oogway's legacy and absorb all the chi in the world, which doesn't really tie into the theme of multiple identities the movie proposes.
@@jacksondavies3595 Completely agreed. The villain is just less interesting in general, but as he doesn't really connect to Po it makes him very forgettable.
Same. The climax with the train is amazing. Also I like how each film's story is focused on a different character. BTTF = Marty BTTF2 = Biff BTTF3 = Doc
Oh my god, I am GIDDY for this. I've thought a lot about this too and am excited to hear your take. Here's mine: Trilogies might be fundamentally broken as an actual story structure, at least the way most people apply them. So many people talk about trilogies as a "natural" structure for short-form episodic storytelling in part because of its parallels to the three act structure. But the problem is that "three act structure" as most people describe it does not describe three similarly-sized chunks of story. It's 20% Act 1, 60% Act 2, 20% Act 3. Basically, if you're building a trilogy and thinking of a trilogy as in any way analogous to three-act story structure, you're going to end Part 2 with NOWHERE NEAR the pieces in place for Part 3. Literally EVERY SINGLE third Star Wars movie has this problem. Every single third Star Wars movie has to artificially jump across very important sections of story (the entirety of the Clone Wars, Luke actually becoming a Jedi master, literally everything pre-Rise of Skywalker) and introduce bullshit plot devices out of nowhere (the Death Star II and Emperor Palpatine) in order to give the heroes a clean way to wrap the story up quickly. And while I personally think there were a number of unforced errors in all three "third" movies in Star Wars, none of them were working from a position of strength. Let me ask you this: by the end of Attack of the Clones, does Anakin feel like he's one movie away from becoming Darth Vader? At the end of Empire Strikes Back, does the rebel alliance feel one movie away from defeating the entire empire? At the end of The Last Jedi, does the Resistance feel one movie away from defeating the First Order? All of them would've benefitted from their stories getting more room to breath, maybe 4 or even 5 episodes, and to go deeper into the more complicated questions suggested by their middle chapters, so that a real synthesis of the series' ideas and values can come together for an ending that is earned, rather than scrambling to contrive a tidy happy ending that the storytelling up to that point can't support.
This is a good theory that's entirely independent of Patrick's, but complements his observations well. It also feels like corroborating evidence one of the few franchises with a very strong third entry is Toy Story, which notably does NOT attempt to tell a single story across the trilogy. While TS3 is a logical progression from TS2, they're each fully-contained, standalone stories without the "To Be Continued..." cliffhangers that you see in the second Star Wars, Matrix, Pirates, Back/Future, etc. But maybe that just means that Toy Story really falls into the category of franchises that Patrick exempted: the Indiana Jones, Mad Max, James Bond style "Continuing Adventures of..." I feel like a good test of this theory would be to apply it to series other than movies - Patrick's theory is movie-specific, since it largely revolves around how Hollywood almost never greenlights three movies at once, resulting in endings other than the ones that were originally planned for. But your theory would apply equally as well to a trilogy of novels, where an author doesn't need a finance committee's approval to start outlining the sequels but would still have the same Three-Act-Structure pacing issues you mention.
Wow, you absolutely nailed it with Return of the Jedi. You perfectly explained the feeling I've been having about this movie since the day it came out. Every scene with Luke, Vader and the Emperor are captivating and my emotional investment totally drops on the rest of the movie.
@@derekpederson1952 It's like, prior to the sequel trilogy, the only good _Star Wars_ films were 1977, _Empire,_ 2/3 of _Return of the Jedi,_ and 1/3 of _Revenge of the Sith._ In short, half the saga. :/
The whole chicken thing in Back to the Future for me is connected to his views on his father. Yeah he changed the timeline and his dad ended up less of a coward. But he grew up with his father being one, and so he struggles with overcompensating, rushing into conflict because he doesn't want to end up like the version of his father he grew up with.
@@xhonzi oh it's fully intended. The primary theme of the film is exploring how the past of our parents and their baggage affects our lives. It's why one of the first interactions is the principle saying Marty will never amount to anything because he's just like his father.
@@Kekkersboy To this day, every time I re-watch the _Back to the Future_ trilogy, it barely occurs to me that the "chicken" insult element didn't even exist in the first film. Props to Parts 2+3 mentioning it all the time, especially in 3 where Seamus brings up a Great-Great-Great Uncle Martin our Marty never knew about, yet whose untimely demise he relates to immediately, as though it was a curse he has inherited.
Pre-premiere thoughts: it's hard to end a trilogy because a) movies are big expensive machines that are liable to have changes in directors, writers, producers, studio execs etc that can lead to a change in vision and lack of follow-through on certain core themes and ideas and b) because the first of the three films was never intended to be part of a trilogy or was rewritten to stand alone due to uncertainty about getting a trilogy and so is not set up as a good jumping off point for the rest of the series.
There was an adage that Film Crit Hulk raised in relation to TRoS: "If there's a problem with your third act, it usually means there's a problem with your first". And as well as not having an idea of what should come next, not having an idea for anything to come next arguably qualifies.
@@TheSchaef47 that was partly because they were well aware that the whole endeavour could go down in flames, even after Harvey Weinstein stopped threatening to fire Jackson and make one truncated film. Mortensen's talked about believing that TT and RotK would go straight to video.
@@blokey8 even 20, 30 years ago, straight to video was a death sentence for sequels. Today it's not even heard of, it's like purgatory times ten. TV is a bit different. If anything, moving The Expanse from cable to Amazon was a step UP.
@@TheSchaef47 oh indeed. It's wild to think that that could've happened to LotR when last year, my local indie screened all three Extended Editions (on consecutive weekend, thank goodness). Which I must say made for some of my best-ever theatrical experiences.
@connor_ Definitely yeah, it's literally named book I to book VI with each book having its own title, so it's definitely six books. The six books were adapted into three movies however.
The new Planet of the Apes trilogy (Rise, Dawn, War) is definitely a trilogy that stays strong throughout, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on that series in a video. Excited for the finale, already got a Nebula subscription
The villains’ philosophy in the dark knight rises is about giving the people of Gotham hope to take it away at the last moment. Bane makes it clear in the movie that he is a torturer, so he plans to tell the poor that they will have opportunities again and then just to take it away. Talia’s revenge for her father’s death, as she states it in the movie “it’s just a reward for my patience”.
Lord of the Rings The Return of the King is honestly the best movie in the Trilogy... I f**king adore that movie! Thank you so much Mr. Tolkien and thank your Mr. Jackson for making those movies so well and also thank you New Zealand... you know... For existing and giving us normal folk a vision of how things could be, and also for being so beautiful as a country to create The Lord of the Rings Trilogy...
"What is the plot of dead man's chest" A bunch of people want to stab the heart of Davy Jones for their own benifit. Jack for his survival, Will for his dad, East India to eradicate Piracy, and Nottingham to get his life back. East India wins and enslaves Davy instead of stabbing it and the next movie is about pretty much undoing that win
"A bunch of superheroes need to finds some magic stones and stop a purple alien guy before he uses these stones to snap half of the universe. At the end, the villain wins and the next movie is about pretty much undoing that win".
One thing I'm surprised this didn't mention was the comparison between every other movie trilogy mentioned and Lord of The Rings trilogy: the book series (or I should say book) is an adaptation, so the film producers and Peter Jackson are following written material that's has a complete narrative, and it follows the series almost to a tee. With the other trilogies, most were made by film people for a film medium, and like mentioned earlier, studios are obsessed with making trilogies.
trilogies usually go like this happy ending, sad ending, happy ending that's why the middle movie is usually considered the best because it has the most open ending of the three, and can reject the necessities of exposition and denouement
I think this is why as much as I love continuity and telling epic stories, I would like to see sequels be more self contained. Thor: Ragnarok almost feels like a different movie than the first 2. Same with Iron Man 3.
3 act trilogies need basically this: introduction-thesis (part1) subversion-antithesis (part2) reconstruction-synthesis (part3) and indeed, keeping each installment as a roughly self contained movie with a similar structure each time is a good way to make it work. For all of Patrick's criticism of star wars and Back to the future, they still work rather well as self contained adventures. Movie 1 sets an enjoyable template, part 2 is somewhat messier and questions the simplicity of it (star wars by showing why the light side is hard to stay on, back to the future by playing on 3 time periods and remixing the first movie in its third act) and movie 3 basically replays the first movie but bigger. and sure, none of those third installment is the best in their respective series, but they are still a satisfying conclusion overall.
I was wondering if anyone would mention Ragnarok. It might play out as the first in a new trilogy. It feels like a soft reboot within the MCU. That said, I don’t feel like we’ve had a “trilogy” in the MCU, but there could be an argument for Ultron/Civil War/Infinity War+Endgame?
Funny thing... I was just reminded of the coconut song. The one that starts with "I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts". The thing with it is that I have heard that the reason our swedish version of that song is so wildly different in content is that the one tasked with writing the swedish lyrics had no idea what the original was about other than it being about Coconuts. So the original with its thinly veiled descriptions of mammaries at a fairground... became a song about how a child tries to break open a coconut but finds it utterly impossible. He complains to his father, listing all the tools he tries, but the coconut stubbornly will not open and provide him with the juicy contents and he wreaks the house, mother gets injured, explosions, fire, everything. So... in a roundabout way... I am reminded of a song that in one version from 1950 basically describes Charl, the immortal Coconut. And how futile it is to fight him.
Patrick is really taking a risk here as he’s inviting us to evaluate his ending to the Charl saga based upon the analytic criteria he himself has laid out, now fresh in our minds. He must be quite confident that his climax will provide us with the requisite satisfaction and release
26:07 Honestly, if you remove any of the info about Marty supposedly never amounting to anything, BTTF's story wouldn't change at all. I think most people would recall his "chicken" arc way more not only due to the comedy, but also the consequences that came out of it and the payoff w/ the Rolls-Royce b/c it was still given weight by him getting fired in 2015 and seeing the photo of his own tombstone (after Doc's name was erased) in 1885. BTW, both sequels of that trilogy also came out 6 months apart.
To this day, every time I re-watch the _Back to the Future_ trilogy, it barely occurs to me that the "chicken" insult element didn't even exist in the first film. Props to Parts 2+3 mentioning it all the time, especially in 3 where Seamus brings up a Great-Great-Great Uncle Martin our Marty never knew about, yet whose untimely demise he relates to immediately, as though it was a curse he has inherited.
The idea of the three types of stakes really helped me understand what had been kind of bothering me about Return of the Jedi: Luke's motivations for going to Vader on Endor are kind of muddled. The reason he gives to Leia is a philosophical-stakes reason (he believes Vader can be redeemed) but Yoda and Obi-wan have already given him internal-stakes (it's the only way to become a Jedi) and external-stakes (it's the only way to defeat the Empire) reasons. They (especially Obi-wan) specifically want him to *kill* Vader, so by refusing to do so, Luke is actually going against their wishes, but I don't think this is made clear enough, as Luke is still going to confront Vader, just with a different aim in mind. (The fact that the same word "confront" is used to describe what Luke wants to do, and what Yoda and Obi-wan want him to do, further hides what should be clearer - that he is doing it his way and not theirs)
I think it was quite clear that Luke was refusing to do what Obi-wan and Yoda told him to do. He said he can't kill his own father, and Obi-wan said, then the Emperor has already won. So, Luke figures out how to confront him and essentially destroy Vader without actually killing his father. Of course, Luke underestimated the Emperor's hold in his father, but he was ultimately right about they're still being good in him.
Quote from Lana Wachowski on The Matrix trilogy: What we were trying to achieve with the story overall was a shift, the same kind of shift that happens for Neo, that Neo goes from being in this sort of cocooned and programmed world, to having to participate in the construction of meaning to his life. And we were like, ‘Well, can the audience go through the three movies and experience something similar to what the main character experiences?’ So the first movie is sort of classical in its approach, the second movie is deconstructionist and an assault on all the things you thought to be true in the first movie…and the third movie is the most ambiguous, because it asks you to actually participate in the construction of meaning.
I think it's also the journey a lot of young people go through- Part 1- the system sucks, and my generation is going to TEAR IT DOWN! Part 2- How exactly? Also, it turns out that we need the system- or a system anyway- and that the battle lines of good and evil are actually far more grey... And- I might not have understood everything when I said "burn it down". But... I love my woman. Part 3- Well, I can't turn the system off, but I also can't leave it alone. Maybe if I work real hard- I can improve it for future generations? Ah, crap- my woman died. Also- War is hell. You can't beat the system, but you can make peace with it. Then, self sacrifice. And death.
Yeah I didn't agree with him here that the matrix trilogy's theme shift was the problem. On some level it's a deliberate reversal but I'd even say that it's merely adding nuance: yes it's important to set oneself free to reach one's true potential, but fact remains that what we're capable of is in service to the world around us. We have choice but we're not entirely in control. There's so many other reasons why 2 and 3 didn't work. In the right hands, that theme shift could've been the most elegant thing about the trilogy.
You make a good point about James Cameron waiting and stopping after Terminator 2, Patrick. I wonder what you think about the fact that they have already planned multiple Avatar sequels. Do you think this will be an example of one big sequel movie split into parts that shouldn't really exist separately?
The chicken comment plays an important role in BTTF 2&3 though. In 2, Jennifer (and by extension the audience) discover a future where Marty is goaded into committing a crime and getting fired by a peer calling him chicken for attempting to sit out. This is calling his ego into check, saying he has no spine like the father of his original timeline. This is also reinforced in that setting by revealing this Marty got into a driving accident that broke his hand, preventing him from playing guitar. Hell the initial action scene of part 2 only begins because griff called Marty a coward, preventing him from cleanly wrapping up a situation where he prevents his future offspring from ending up in jail. It’s showing that this pattern of behavior for him leads to conflict. All of this sets up 3. Mad dog Tannen attempts to goad Marty into a duel with guns that absolutely will kill him. Marty overcomes this manipulation of his ego, this need to prove himself recklessly, by calling mad dog an asshole. He accepts that he doesn’t need to prove himself by putting his life on the line needlessly. It is a character arc, and it’s reinforced by the ending of the movie where we reach that would-be fateful car crash, where instead of participating in a race he backs out. It’s shown to us had he participated , it would result in his hand being hurt. Jennifer asks about this with doc in the final shot of the movie, about a sheet of paper changing in regards to all of this. It prompts doc into giving his “the future us what you make of it”. An indirect response that Marty is not beholden to proving to others he’s not a coward like his original father, and that he can make something of himself without being reckless. Did you not watch the movies?
@@vincentmuyo _Last Crusade_ barely tops _Raiders_ in terms of character writing, but falls short in terms of pure technical filmmaking (which, for Spielberg, was the aim of _Raiders)._
Patrick, you some how come up with a subject I been thinking about, that I couldn't put into words. And yet you make a video essay that speaks my truth. Thank you.
Dead Man's Chest is about finding the heart to stop Davy Jones while At World's End is about gathering the pirate lords to stop Beckett from bringing an end to all piracy.
Abbas Kiarostami's Koker trilogy is great throughout and each film plays off the previous one in a really interesting way, plus the last film in trilogy has one of the most amazing final shots I've seen.
It's funny, it seems like opinions have really shifted on BTTF 2 and 3. On release, BTTF2 was regarded as too dark and weird, and a lot of people didn't like it, while BTTF3 felt like a return to form. But in retrospect, 2 was the much more interesting and creative movie, while 3 feels like it's got too little plot, stretched too thin, and with Doc Brown acting like an idiot to create complications. (Seriously, the scene where he visits Clara to tell her the truth absolutely infuriates me. He wants to tell her he's a time-traveler, but he doesn't think to bring a single shred of evidence even though he's got a shop full of anachronistic objects! Literally ALL he had to do was show her the hoverboard. It's really one of the most egregious examples I know of where a supposedly smart character does something incomprehensibly stupid just because the plot needed twists.)
I’m getting very close to considering Patrick my favorite content creator on a platform - that’s recently been mushrooming with overproduced, yet intellectually devoid, “popcorn” content. As Patrick’s creative confidence increases, razor sharp historical cinematic observations sharpen, and handle on indie editing & color finishing continue to be wound tighter - so does this viewer’s satisfaction in devouring & enjoying each of his subsequent video essays. It’s fun to watch the exponential growth in subject matter and quality. Can’t say enough good things about being a casual observer on this ride. Appointment viewing has hit RUclips.
even though raimi’s trilogy is disqualified for the purposes of the video, I think the arc of the Peter/MJ relationship make for a very cohesive and contained trilogy that is surprisingly mature for the genre (despite the heavy studio meddling that affected 3)
I’m not entirely worried about a Paddington 3 because from my observation, I found that Paddington 2 is one of those sequels that more or less operated in a standalone fashion...there weren’t really any threads from the previous film that carried over in a significant way...the general conflict of the story isn’t directly related to the conflict of the first movie. In my opinion, I think Paddington will act much like Indiana Jones does, pretty much three separate standalone stories that we collectively consider a trilogy of films.
I think the only trilogy where I like (prefer) the third installment best is Richard Linklater's Before Trilogy. Not to say that Before Sunrise and Before Sunset are not great movies. It's just that Before Midnight resonated more with me and I think it has to do with the fact that I was around the same age (and stage in my life) as Jesse and Céline in the movie. Also, one of the few trilogies where you can say all 3 parts delivered, at least in my opinion.
I can't wait for the CHARL ENDGAME movie. And you know that you are going to have to do a comprehensive compilation of all of Charl's scenes as a kind of Charl complete story. I NEED Charl the complete collection!!!!
Patrick was really good about using qualifiers. But I have to say it anyway. I absolutely love The Dark Knight Rises. And while I can see why Patrick would say the philosophical stuff gets muddled I think it's there and it's strong. The movie is asking whether Batman is necessary, whether we need superheroes to fight for justice and keep society together. Why do we come up with these legends to tell ourselves? That also nicely ties into the internal conflict for Bruce of whether his life has purpose without Batman, which ties into the external conflict of the League of Shadows taking advantage of the fact Batman isn't around anymore to achieve its goal of restoring balance to the world by destroying Gotham. I think people get a bit confused (fairly) about the political stuff going on with Bane, which is what Patrick shows clips of when he's critiquing the movie. I think that was just a backdrop for Bane being able to take over the city. Alfred mentions Bane was behind a coup before coming to Gotham and the faux-populism thing is a common way for leaders of a coup to get popular support that gives legitimacy to them taking over. But even as mostly backdrop it serves to tie in with Selena's internal conflict. Back to the larger philosophical conflict, the John Blake character is the through line for this. He's the audience surrogate who's always there to nudge Bruce back into the fight. You also see it with the kid at the orphanage and Matthew Modine's character. I think where it gets muddled a bit is basically from when Bruce gets back to Gotham through when the bomb goes off. There's so much being thrown at you that all the other conflicts disappear. But a lot of the ending montage is about wrapping up the main philosophical conflict, not just about Bruce being alive. In fact, the last shot of the movie isn't Bruce, it's the audience surrogate answering the question and becoming Batman.
I agree with a heap of this, thanks for putting it so eloquently. Bane's legitimacy was always shown as pretty hollow anyway - most of the population seems to be living in fear by the time winter comes.
I remember being so excited after seeing TLJ. They had wrapped up all the major arcs and story beats, so that meant they could do anything with the next movie. But then they just backpedaled for the first half or so of the final film
Buuuut, as Patrick pointed out that’s kinda the problem. If all the major character arcs are wrapped up then whatever the final movie is it won’t measure up
13:52 - My point exactly when discussing any type of media. The less we use TV-Tropes terminology to qualify culture, the better. And yeah, I'm aware that the expression was coined by Blake Snyder. But currently is just one of too many names for tropes that just try too hard to flatten common paterns in storytelling.
Likewise The Hero With A Thousand Faces was a study in semiotics, not a how-to. We have lots of films falling to problems born out of that fallacy, particularly heroes spending an hour or more of their first film Refusing The Call and therefore not driving their own story (Green Lantern, Man of Steel, TFA).
the audio mixings definitely improved and is noticably more subtle, wish more youtubers took this effort I cant imsgine its easy but well worth it for car and tv viewers/listeners
I've been trying to put a finger on why I love the analysis bits so much more than the skits in between and I finally think I have it: Patrick is The Nostalgia Critic for people with a film degree. Sure he doesn't wear the same outfit, doesn't have the obsession with fake guns, and his orbit of friends is...very different, but at the end of the day the skits are their own ongoing story that can swing from being a recreation of the movie (pastiche) or just straight up ditch that to focus more on a coconut with googly eyes that yes, definitely is alive, evil, and can end the world.
I cannot believe Patrick is introducing doppelgängers that span across the multiverse to fight a mysterious all powerful coconut before his video essays. It’s like...nostalgia critic but good.
I just watched a video about the Nostalgia Critic and one of his infamous... somethings, and the reviewer said "in theory, this sounds great." And I thought "yeah, it sounds like something Patrick and his crew could pull off."
@@MagusMarquillin I love Sean Bean and he'd be a great Odysseus in a leading role, but I don't know how you make an Odyssey that follows up a version of the Iliad completely devoid of anything supernatural or fantastical.
@@digitaljanus That's a good point, they'd either have to break from the style of the previous film and have the supernatural be more real then they already believed, or do something allegorical like in Oh Brother Where Art Thou, which could be unsatisfying when going to see the actual Odyssey - but if they maintain most of the story being a retelling by Odysseus near the end of his journey, you can maintain some plausible doubt and keep the amazing story.
"Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade": easily my favorite of the trilogy, and the first of that series was a bloody masterpiece. Definitely an exception to the "weak third entry" rule.
I like when series extrapolate on what came before. Yes, this is about movies, but I read a book where the heroes vanquished the evil lord of their land in a heist story, which while making them in charge created a power vacuum and the second book was a political thriller about how to keep the remaining kingdoms in check. More stories, and movies, should embrace the world they create.
I love how invested I've become in the Charl Saga over the past year or so. I only discovered the channel post-pandemic ad was getting very confused and annoyed by all this weird coconut (heh, Tun 'o Coc) stuff. The more it's gone on, though, the more it's pulled me in. Signing up for my Curiosity Stream Account right now.
Your wrong about LotR. It was a failed trilogy. Tolkien was revising on each book and the third one he had no idea how to end it. Arwen comes completely out of no where to marry Aragon, having no previous introduction and was only briefly mentioned in The Fellowship. Up until this point, we were led to assume Eowyn was the love interest. In fact there is several endings which can be chocked up to cleaning up the epilogue but then Tolkien added an entire action sequence that paled insanely bad to the rest of the book. That was the Taking of the Shire. It was completely unnecessary. It made no sense to why it happened. It betrayed the idea of the Hobbits as being isolated and peaceful and was an absolutely awful bookend the undermined the whole story. In the films, Jackson left this sequence out for a damn good reason and didn’t even add it in the extended versions because it would have ruined that too.
The funny thing about Star Wars is that in the prequel trilogy, the third film is the one that came the closest to being good and is far and away the best entry in its set. Granted, I don't think Revenge of the Sith is an overall better movie than Return of the Jedi, but Sith does succeed in bringing its trilogy in for a better landing than Jedi. The less said about The Rise of Skywalker, the better. I would rather watch The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones back-to-back twice in one day than sit through Episode IX again. Babu Frik can stay though. He's cool.
The Charl story continues! These bits get better and better! *EDIT I can't believe the saga will be concluded! I have been so invested in this series... Patrick is such an underrated RUclipsr!
_The Rise Of Skywalker_ is not just an end to a trilogy, but a trilogy of trilogies (Prequels, Originals and Sequels, 9 movies). It's even harder than any other third instalment mentioned, even though I would argue that it's not so hard to get the main conflict of the 9 movies if you really pay attention. The Sequels are narratively inconsistent (Just Rey vs Rey Palpatine), but I would say they're thematically consistent. The main idea throughout the trilogy is *_anti-determinism_* , your past and where you came from don't necessarily indicate your future. Finn was a stormtrooper, that didn't stop him from deserting the First Order after a crisis of consciousness and doing the right thing. Rey was (a) a poor orprhan girl from nowhere who was abandoned by her family or (b) the granddaughter of a space tyrant, but that didn't stop her from becoming the heroine of the story. Poe was a spice runner, that didn't stop him from leaving this way of life behind and becoming a Resistance fighter and eventually a Resistance leader. Kylo/Ben was the son of Han, a smuggler who became a war hero, and Leia, a princess, diplomat and military leader, nephew of Luke Skywalker, the Jedi Master, protagonist hero of the previous trilogy, but that didn't stop him from becoming the villain. Rian and J.J. had different ideas of executing the same message (Rian's ideas were better). I think what's so hard about third instalments in a trilogy is that they have to follow the more artistic and ambitious approach of the second film. If we want to understand why third instalments are so disappointing, we need to answer why so many famous second instalments tend to be more subversive, stylized and daring. Since the first one was not design as part of a trilogy, it works on its own to the point of becoming almost a storytelling manual and/or formula. When the second tried to not simply emulate that manual, but instead innovate it, it's hard for the third film know what to do. Follow a perfect structure provided by the first one or continue the challengeing approach of the second one? There are third instalments that we don't feel disappointed because the second wasn't even good to begin with. We usually get disappointed with third films that usually need to face the high stakes established by the second film. Even if _A New Hope_ is perfect, Star Wars would never be what it is if _Empire_ wasn't....you know.... _Empire_ . If the first movie in a trilogy is a construction (establishing concepts and ideas that are the basis of the universe), the second is deconstruction ( re-evaluating the ideas presented in the original, questioning them and showing that the pillars that sustain the universe are more fragile than we think), the third one needs to be a reconstruction (addressing the questions presented in the second and try to find a balance, a more mature version of the first one). The key is not how the third one relates to the first one (how to end the story that began in the original), but how the third one relates to the second one, because it's the second one that makes interesting questions and the third one has the difficult task of answering those questions. _The Godfather Part II_ , _The Empire Strikes Back_ , _Spider Man II_ , _The Dark Knight_ , _The Last Jedi_ etc. Even second instalments that are not better than the original, but are not copy and paste of the first one: _Matrix Reloaded_ , _Mission Impossible II_ etc etc etc. I think _The Last Crusade_ was the only time a third film decided to go back and emulate the structure of the original and not follow the weirdness of the second one ( _Temple Of Doom_ ) and worked so well that it's even better than both the original and the sequel. But, to be honest, many of these films are not disappointing when you're a kid, when you don't have expectations at all. People who grew up with them tend to defend them with their hearts. So it's not the end of the world. Also, I find more interesting rewatching those movies and analysing them for what they are than talking about what I think they should have done. Less expectations and more curiosity, please.
I have some thoughts. 1 your discussion of Shakespeare writing in 5 acts is incorrect - the five act structure was implemented into his plays in the 1720s, they were written in 3 acts based on Aristotles ideas. 2. Lord of the rings is a different question imo. It was all shot as one film, based off three books of one story, which itself was written as one story initially. It was first published as one novel, made up of 6 books and appendices. It has been since published in 3 volumes to make it easier to read and later due to the success of the films. That’s why all 3 are good, it’s different to something like the matrix or most other trilogies - which is one story, which then had to be topped by another new story, which then had to be topped again by yet another film. The Lord of the rings is one story, the matrix and other trilogies were written as one story but then made a lot of money so they made more of them after the fact.
There is something so innately funny about calling Paddington 2 P2
P2: Judgement Day?
Especially as P2 is the name of a really great horror movie haha
P2: The Mighty Ducks
paddington 2 was a really good movie
Just write, another favourite and an awesome channel
Not gonna lie, I'm a little disappointed not to hear Patrick's Shrek analysis.
Because there's 4 and actually that last movie isn't that bad.. it's miles above 3 which is a very bad movie
@@lamecasuelas2 Shrek the Third? More like Shrek the TURD amirite?
@@lamecasuelas2 It's a trilogy. 1, 2, 4.
@@littleredruri I legit thought that the forever after was the third one, the 3rd one was so bad I forgot it
@@littleredruri hahahaha!
I’d say aside from The Lord of the Rings, the best big-budget film trilogy is The Planet of the Apes reboot trilogy. Each installment is stand-alone in a way while being a part of a bigger story. Each installment has a big connecting idea and theme. And the third installment (in my opinion) delivers on being a profound and satisfying climax to the whole big picture story.
I disagree, but I think you're probably on to something, and I respect your opinion. The issue I had with War was that it did very little to stand out when it came to breaking away from the standard Planet of the Apes storyline compared to the other films. In many ways, it took a trilogy that was trying to make its own thing, and it fasts forward to everything that we had expected from the original films: apes becoming more intelligent, the promise land being discovered, and humans basically de-evolving. Even though it didn't aim to completely follow the rules of the original apes series, it essentially met that conclusion. In my opinion, I found it a little dissatisfying because I felt like it didn't give a proper spin on the franchise like the other movies had. Instead of reaching the conclusions on their own merit, it just brought back everything we recognized.
Yep this is for me the perfect movie trilogy.
The last two films in that trilogy are especially so good, and really give me hope for what Matt Reeves is going to do with his Batman movie.
Yeah I agree, the only thing that does slightly get in the way is that all weren't written and directed by the same person. I do prefer it when trilogies are all written by the same writer or directed by the same director just because of the cohesion it creates. But the POTA reboot trilogy is one that despite the different creative teams, still feel very connected and aren't jarring in their changes. The change from Rise to Dawn is big, but it feels natural. Dawn and War are the most connected, but they also are very different to each other in many ways. It's a trilogy where entries are distinct but also similar enough to fit together.
@@BostonMBrand I can't remember in detail but I remember feeling Ceasar's and villain's arcs in the film were eally cool, and also the crux of the movie
The one thing I can never forgive, is when you end a trilogy in the most perfect way possible (Toy Story) and then tack on a fourth one because money.
You say that but the irony here is that when Toy Story 3 was announced, there was this feeling amongst a lot of people that it was pointless to do a third one. On some level, 3 was for money too since they could've easily stopped at 2 and no one would've faulted them for it.
People don't always know what they want until they see it, and filmmakers don't truly know how great a movie is going to turn out until they go for it.
@@chrisjfox8715maybe. If part 4 was good then that would have been a well worth it. It was the weakest installment
@@dereky1861 weakest maybe but still great in the eyes of a fair number of people. No one asked for a 4th yet no one asked for a 3rd either. A New Hope had a solid ending that didn't particularly need a sequel either yet Empire feels like a no-brainer in hindsight.
And regardless, my point still stands: people don't always know what they want until they see it, and filmmakers don't know how great a film's gonna turn out until they go for it - there's more that goes into a movie than just a great idea. An amazing screenplay can be undermined by a number of compounding little things that come afterwards, or can be strengthened if those elements go the other way. If an artist has a story they feel compelled to tell, then let them tell it. If it ends up not working out then so be it.
@@chrisjfox8715 no one asked for the third but the third to the majority thought was a strong ending. Those who had doubts were wrong with their assumptions. While 4th is forgettable to the majority. Note if some like it that’s fine just saying it was weak compared to the others. “You win some you lose some”
@@dereky1861
"Nobody asked for it" is a terrible reason for not making something. Nobody asked for a lot of cool movies. If mad max fury road had sucked, people would say "nobody asked for this." but here we are and Fury Road is a masterpiece.
People only ever say "nobody asked for this" if the movie (or game/book/whatever) is bad in hindsight.
Nobody asked for a third Toy Story 3 but it ended up being great. Then nobody asked for asked for fourth one, and... well actually that one also ended up being great (just look at the rotten tomatoe scores, critics AND viewers) so saying that the 4th one was forgettable is a bit naive.
But even if it DID suck, sometimes movies just don't pan out. The point is, if you have a great idea for a story and your characters, then go ahead, make another movie. If you don't, then don't.
Nobody asked for a sequel to "The Shining" but someone wanted to make another movie in that universe with "Doctor Sleep" and it turned out to be a competent movie that a lot of people enjoyed, even if it didn't surpass the original movie. Nobody asked for it, it didn't set the world on fire, but I'm happy it exists.
Part of me is really looking forward to the time where one of Patrick's videos starts "the actual essay starts at 45:00"
"The actual essay starts in a different video"
is it going to be a trilogy? @@bobjoe3044
😂😂😂 Yeah... I find his analyses interesting, but I can't handle the "entertainment" portions of his videos. I mean, everyone else may love it, and that's cool... I'm just saying, for me, I could really do without that. A little wouldn't bother me... But it goes on and on. It's too much for me.
@@DB-fj2bx I only recently came across the channel so I'm watching these videos for the first time out of order. I'm finding these inserts to be really dumb especially years later. I wish Patrick would upload "bullshit-free" versions of the videos, even on a separate channel.
This is why he’ll never be an actual film maker even though he clearly wants to be. He video essays are great but these “movies” are corny, horribly written, horribly acted, poorly directed…
"Somehow... Star Wars video essays returned..."
😂😂😂😂😂 I understand him it’s tough
But it's not Patrick from this universe so it doesn't count?
@@elrathJohnson dark science… cloning…
lmao
It never dies
I see we’ve found a loophole to the whole “no more Star Wars videos” thing
True. Let's hope he can break it again to do a Clone Wars analysis: i.e. that thing that actually made the public love the prequels more than nostalgia.
He was very restrained this time considering the subject.
The rule was "no movie videos primarily about Star Wars" This is a broad movie topic that Star Wars happens to fall into.
@@benwasserman8223 I love The Clone Wars, but it doesn’t redeem the prequels. I know the prequels had some amazing ideas but was executed badly.
@@coreyander286 Maybe, but I’d say thanks to Rebels and Mandalorian Season 2, the show’s influence is slightly wider realized than it was when TCW initially went off air. So the dynamic has changed a bit.
Can we give it up for Chloe tho? She's absolutely killing this double role.
True, the acting and cinematography has only gotten better over the time.
Yes, yes we can. Terrific stuff
Chloe is my favorite new addition to the show
One can only hope she does kill Charl and replaces him as a regular on the channel.
Meh
"he can deflect bullets" "this is a hammer"
Cinematic masterpiece.
I seriously can not believe the short film you have been teasing for this long was the Charl finale all along. You crazy genius.
But was it a Hank's Hammer?
ruclips.net/video/YAHnXnU7RMI/видео.html
Yall gonna make me get a nebula subscription when my tv doesn't even support the app yet damn
10:55 Remainder of obvious thing. "Lord of the Rings" is one novel in six books, which was publishes as three volumes, two books per one volume, due to decision of publisher. I don't remember if publisher make these decision due to scarcity of paper in post-war UK or for different reason.
They were afraid that the price at which they would have had to sell a one volume edition was so expensive no one would buy it.
The line about Gordon Bombay being named after two brands of gin was golden. I belly laughed
23:53:
Because of the edit, I first heard this as "Will, Elizabeth, and Will admit that they love each other"
"Liz and her Willies" the cutest triomance of this summer. Coming to a theater near you.
I do love how Charl is getting irritated with Patrick's 'muse' getting in the way of his attempt at world domination. You knew who Patrick was when you picked him Charl, you have no one but yourself to blame.
"Stories should always have a beginning, middle, and end"
Fant4stic: "Hold my second act"
FOX: "Meh, who needs that middle arc? *ONE YEAR LATER*"
Same thing with many horror movies. We get so excited in the 1st and 2nd acts, and then the monster reveal in the 3rd act is a letdown and the film goes downhill from there.
Am I the only one who reads (and says) this as "Fant-Four-Stick" every time?
@@dbrowdyi was about to say the same thing
@@One.Zero.One101 That's when they had low quality rubber suit monsters. The quality of rubber suits improved over time although not always.
A key problem I noticed when I recently re-watched the second and third Pirates films:
At The end of the second one, it's clear that everyone wants to save Jack because they care about him. It's emotional. They would do anything to save their friend.
But then in the exact scene where they finally meet him again in the next film, it's explicitly stated that each of them only came to rescue him in order to accomplish other goals. Jack himself has a line where he asks "Did no one come to save me just because they missed me?" and I couldn't believe how clearly these two films were contradicting each other.
or they were just saying that? They are pirates
I believe Pirates 3 was completely written before 2 was finished.
But the films try very hard to convince you of the opposite.
The biggest one for me is the hard shift toward Calypso about halfway through the third movie. Sure, there are a couple name drops up to that point, but no one watching the movie is prepared for it to be the third act of third movie in the trilogy.
Also- I think it's clear they were seeing up Jack to become immortal by becoming the next Jones- but Disney forced a last minute change so they could keep making that Jack Sparrow money.
@@xhonzi Good points. The third movie is just bad. The way it discards Norrington completely really left a bad taste in my mouth after being such a hugely important character in the first two movie.
Wow excellent point that did always bug me
My main problems with trilogies are:
1. Movies not intended to be trilogies - You blew your load in the first one, but it was so successful that the studio wants you to make more, but you honestly ran out of ideas.
2. Movies intended to be trilogies (or even 5 movies) - The individual movies feel like setup movies. Each movie cannot stand alone for itself because it has no complete plot or character arcs.
This is Patrick's way of sticking it to Hollywood. He's making an entire extended length feature film about a crazy coconut and spoon feeding it to everyone while he makes airplane noises and Transformers jokes. That way by the time we've realized what's going on he's gotten raycon and Curiosity Stream to fund a movie. Then he just assembles the Charl supercut and storms Sundance.
I for one welcome the existence of The Charl Cut
Transformers jokes? No, that would be Lindsay Ellis
Shhh you're giving away the game
#ReleaseTheCharlButtholeCut
We need a C.H.A.R.L. supercut
That other Universe Chloe is supposed to be 10 years older & a battle hardened bounty hunter & looks exactly like this universe Chloe is either a flex on how flawless Chloe is or an indictment on how difficult & harrowing it is to be a musician in New York.
Highly underrated comment. Well done!
"That's awful! So many universes and all have the movie 'Joker'."
love it
Best burn ever.
All those universes got what they deserved.
Joker was a masterpiece and anyone who disagrees is lying to themselves.
@@kendallcuddles Joker was a great 3/4 of a movie that suffers from trying to shoehorn itself into being a Joker movie. As soon as you tie it to that existing lore, it goes from an interesting movie about a compelling character's struggle against society, to a horribly nonsensical origin for one of the most evil villains in fiction.
@@cryofpaine
That's fair, but being a masterpiece doesn't necessarily mean it's perfect.
I think this is why Revenge of the Sith works so well not just as a Trilogy ending (shitting on the two prior movies) but works so well in tying the whole saga together: It provides one controlling idea and makes it so that the Han and Leia plotlines don't matter so much by adding in other characters who also don't get great endings (Bail Organa, Padme) because the story is more about Anakin and Luke Skywalker. The controlling idea proposed is about how evil corrupts but can be undone and redeemed by love, compassion, faith and a guiding example.
I actually do think that the Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies should count as a trilogy, even if there were intended to me more movies in the series, since SM3 does wrap up narrative threads that were running through all three movies. Specifically:
1.) Harry's descent to villainy (and last-minute redemption),
2.) Peter and MJ committing to relationships with one another,
3.) Peter getting some closure regarding Uncle Ben's death by "forgiving" Sandman for his [retconned] involvement.
It definitely seems like Raimi wrote the movies with overarching plots / narrative threads in mind, and wrote SM3 to close most of those out. If SM4 had been produced, it likely would have covered new thematic and narrative ground, since the threads from the first 3 movies were tied up.
It's been said that Raimi only wanted to make 4 to 'make up' for fan disappointment on 3. I think that he did want it to just be a trilogy, but the reception to 3 made him want to end on a higher note.
“Jake, he can deflect bullets!”
“Yeah... this is a hammer.”
Comedy gold right there, perfect delivery
I don't know, the whole "chicken" plot in BTTF 2 and 3 really rang with me as a kid. The moment in 3 when he says "He's an asshole" was like, a revelation for me. It's clumsy and 80's/90sish, but it's kind of a vital message that we don't really get enough in films. It's about toxic masculinity, and how the concept of courage as a nobility in itself is warped into a weapon that is used to manipulate men into doing things they don't actually want to do, and then suffering those consequences. Marty is a teenager, he experiences some really traumatic shit, he faces down stakes as he needs to, even when he is visibly scared. He is brave. But that bravery is incomplete until the moment he realises that bravery itself is a tool, not a goal, and doing the scariest thing, and doing the smart thing, and doing the most physically dangerous thing, are 3 completely separate ideas, and that he's the one that has to live with the consequences of those choices, or indeed die with those consequences, so he'd better start thinking about what he actually wants, instead of allowing simplistic ideals of courage to manipulate him into situations he doesn't want.
That's a message that really resonated with me as a kid. I honestly think it helped to define me as a person. It's like how adults sometimes tell kids "The real courage is in standing up to the other kids, and telling them you won't smoke." That's inaccurate. The real courage is doing the thing that most scares you. If cigarettes are scarier than standing up to your peers, then for you, smoking is the more courageous choice. But who cares? Courage is a tool, not a goal. Find your goals, and pursue them with all the courage you can muster, but don't let the idea of courage be used to manipulate you into choices you don't actually want to make.
Sorry, just had to get that out.
**Shia Lebouf clapping**
the IRS storyline and the charl storyline secretly being one continuity the whole time. the power, THE POWER!
Just wanted to bring the "How to Train Your Dragon" trilogy to this discussion. They did an incredible job with its story
And they still messed up with the third one
The third is pretty universally considered the worst though.
I’ve seen a lot of people hate the third one, saying it betrays the themes and I just can’t understand why. The first movie established that humans and dragons can live together and Hiccup convinces Berk that’s the case. In the second movie we see that unfortunately there are people like Drago who won’t change their views on dragons despite Hiccup’s efforts and Stoick dies and Berk almost gets destroyed. By the third movie they’ve rescued so many dragons that they need to move the dragons in a more suitable home and there’s another villain who also wants to capture and kill dragons, leasinf to Hiccup realizing for the safety of the dragons, they need to be separated and let the dragons live safely in the hidden world until it’s safe for them.
Also, how the hell do people say Grimmel is a bad villain but Drago isn’t? Drago stands around and just lets his dragons does his work and doesn’t even have a meaningul conversation with Hiccup. Grimmel actually does stuff and is a great reflection on what Hiccup could have become if he killed Toothless in the first movie and literally breaks into Hiccup’s house and talks to him. I can see people complaining about the humor and side characters in the 3rd movie but I don’t know how people can say it betrays the first two movies.
Honestly, I dislike the third one. Is it an awful movie? No. But I feel like it has the same problem as Toy Story 4. These aren't awful movies, but they just end up negating so many of the characters.
Example. Toy Story 4 completely shortchanges the entire supporting cast. The movie itself isn't bad, but it contradicts a lot of what made the first three great. (Especially with how Buzz is basically given a nothing role)
HTTD3 is also not a bad watch, but compared to the first 2 it just feels super aimless. It also feels forced. It didn't need to try to wrap up a trilogy. It could have left things open ended. It felt like it was trying too hard to conclude its story. The villain was weak sauce too, especially after Bludvist. The love story between Toothless and Light Fury felt underbaked.
I know it has its fans, and it's far from the worst third film out there...but it definitely left me cold.
The third one is meh. The villain is definitely better than the 2nd one but still meh all the way
A few people added the newer Planet of the Apes films, which I appreciate.
May I also present, for your consideration:
The Kung Fu Panda trilogy.
1st film: being yourself, accepting who you are
2nd film: accepting your past and moving beyond it to be greater
3rd film: applying that understanding to those around you as Po literally goes from student to teacher by the end
Each film has external stakes, as well as internal conflicts (Po's belief in himself; Po learning about his past; Po struggling with his feelings about finding his father) as well as philosophical (can *anyone* be a "dragon warrior"? How do you move past your scars? Can you teach while still being a student yourself?)
I've probably worded these terribly, but it's such a fun - but meaningful and focused - trilogy that seems to have something to say by the final film. 👍🏻
Kung Fu Panda 3 is clearly the worst of the three though
@@TequilaToothpick If that's the "worst" then that trilogy did pretty damn good actually
@@TequilaToothpick I think the reason for that has a connection to what Patrick said. Pretty much everyone agrees that Kai is the worst villain of the trilogy. The reason for that is unlike Tai Lung or Shen, he isn't a thematic parallel. The themes mentioned above connect to those villains: Tai Lung believes his identity is tied to the Dragon Scroll, not himself. Shen you could interpret in one of two ways: He's either stuck in the past, constantly trying to get back at his parents for their "betrayal", or he's so focused on his future and changing his fate that he can't see the harm he's doing, and how he is going on that very path. Kai wants to destroy Oogway's legacy and absorb all the chi in the world, which doesn't really tie into the theme of multiple identities the movie proposes.
@@jacksondavies3595 Completely agreed. The villain is just less interesting in general, but as he doesn't really connect to Po it makes him very forgettable.
Back to the Future III actually is my favourite.
I don't think it's the best, but it's my favourite.
It grows on you
Marty stumbles around in BTTF3 because the heart of that film is Doc Brown. It's so good!
same here, I also used to heavily dislike the 2nd one but now I’ve grown to like it
I and II kinda feel the same. III goes completely out the box and stands out.
Same. The climax with the train is amazing. Also I like how each film's story is focused on a different character.
BTTF = Marty
BTTF2 = Biff
BTTF3 = Doc
OK, the "Oops All Jake Universe" is some straight Rick and Morty style hilarity.
I thought the same thing. Jake is a kind of Jerry
Oh my god, I am GIDDY for this. I've thought a lot about this too and am excited to hear your take. Here's mine:
Trilogies might be fundamentally broken as an actual story structure, at least the way most people apply them. So many people talk about trilogies as a "natural" structure for short-form episodic storytelling in part because of its parallels to the three act structure. But the problem is that "three act structure" as most people describe it does not describe three similarly-sized chunks of story. It's 20% Act 1, 60% Act 2, 20% Act 3. Basically, if you're building a trilogy and thinking of a trilogy as in any way analogous to three-act story structure, you're going to end Part 2 with NOWHERE NEAR the pieces in place for Part 3. Literally EVERY SINGLE third Star Wars movie has this problem. Every single third Star Wars movie has to artificially jump across very important sections of story (the entirety of the Clone Wars, Luke actually becoming a Jedi master, literally everything pre-Rise of Skywalker) and introduce bullshit plot devices out of nowhere (the Death Star II and Emperor Palpatine) in order to give the heroes a clean way to wrap the story up quickly.
And while I personally think there were a number of unforced errors in all three "third" movies in Star Wars, none of them were working from a position of strength. Let me ask you this: by the end of Attack of the Clones, does Anakin feel like he's one movie away from becoming Darth Vader? At the end of Empire Strikes Back, does the rebel alliance feel one movie away from defeating the entire empire? At the end of The Last Jedi, does the Resistance feel one movie away from defeating the First Order? All of them would've benefitted from their stories getting more room to breath, maybe 4 or even 5 episodes, and to go deeper into the more complicated questions suggested by their middle chapters, so that a real synthesis of the series' ideas and values can come together for an ending that is earned, rather than scrambling to contrive a tidy happy ending that the storytelling up to that point can't support.
This is a good theory that's entirely independent of Patrick's, but complements his observations well. It also feels like corroborating evidence one of the few franchises with a very strong third entry is Toy Story, which notably does NOT attempt to tell a single story across the trilogy. While TS3 is a logical progression from TS2, they're each fully-contained, standalone stories without the "To Be Continued..." cliffhangers that you see in the second Star Wars, Matrix, Pirates, Back/Future, etc. But maybe that just means that Toy Story really falls into the category of franchises that Patrick exempted: the Indiana Jones, Mad Max, James Bond style "Continuing Adventures of..."
I feel like a good test of this theory would be to apply it to series other than movies - Patrick's theory is movie-specific, since it largely revolves around how Hollywood almost never greenlights three movies at once, resulting in endings other than the ones that were originally planned for. But your theory would apply equally as well to a trilogy of novels, where an author doesn't need a finance committee's approval to start outlining the sequels but would still have the same Three-Act-Structure pacing issues you mention.
Wow, you absolutely nailed it with Return of the Jedi. You perfectly explained the feeling I've been having about this movie since the day it came out. Every scene with Luke, Vader and the Emperor are captivating and my emotional investment totally drops on the rest of the movie.
Yeah, I think that’s the most overrated Star Wars movie. I’m not sure it’s even especially good in the non-Luke/Vader/Emperor stuff.
@@derekpederson1952 It's like, prior to the sequel trilogy, the only good _Star Wars_ films were 1977, _Empire,_ 2/3 of _Return of the Jedi,_ and 1/3 of _Revenge of the Sith._ In short, half the saga. :/
The whole chicken thing in Back to the Future for me is connected to his views on his father. Yeah he changed the timeline and his dad ended up less of a coward. But he grew up with his father being one, and so he struggles with overcompensating, rushing into conflict because he doesn't want to end up like the version of his father he grew up with.
Oh shit. I never thought of that....
@@redx589 And that's why it fails as an idea I guess.
As someone who has hated the chicken thing for decades- thank you for this.
I can't even say if that is intentional, but it does make some sense.
@@xhonzi oh it's fully intended. The primary theme of the film is exploring how the past of our parents and their baggage affects our lives.
It's why one of the first interactions is the principle saying Marty will never amount to anything because he's just like his father.
@@Kekkersboy To this day, every time I re-watch the _Back to the Future_ trilogy, it barely occurs to me that the "chicken" insult element didn't even exist in the first film. Props to Parts 2+3 mentioning it all the time, especially in 3 where Seamus brings up a Great-Great-Great Uncle Martin our Marty never knew about, yet whose untimely demise he relates to immediately, as though it was a curse he has inherited.
Pre-premiere thoughts: it's hard to end a trilogy because a) movies are big expensive machines that are liable to have changes in directors, writers, producers, studio execs etc that can lead to a change in vision and lack of follow-through on certain core themes and ideas and b) because the first of the three films was never intended to be part of a trilogy or was rewritten to stand alone due to uncertainty about getting a trilogy and so is not set up as a good jumping off point for the rest of the series.
There was an adage that Film Crit Hulk raised in relation to TRoS: "If there's a problem with your third act, it usually means there's a problem with your first". And as well as not having an idea of what should come next, not having an idea for anything to come next arguably qualifies.
LotR avoided this by basically filming the whole smash at once
@@TheSchaef47 that was partly because they were well aware that the whole endeavour could go down in flames, even after Harvey Weinstein stopped threatening to fire Jackson and make one truncated film. Mortensen's talked about believing that TT and RotK would go straight to video.
@@blokey8 even 20, 30 years ago, straight to video was a death sentence for sequels. Today it's not even heard of, it's like purgatory times ten.
TV is a bit different. If anything, moving The Expanse from cable to Amazon was a step UP.
@@TheSchaef47 oh indeed. It's wild to think that that could've happened to LotR when last year, my local indie screened all three Extended Editions (on consecutive weekend, thank goodness).
Which I must say made for some of my best-ever theatrical experiences.
Well, you finally got me to sign up for Nebula.
Yo hi screencrush
hi
I’m just glad that someone outside the fandom addressed that LotR is not a trilogy.
Well not the books, LotR is 6 books.
@@mabusestestament Nah
@connor_
Definitely yeah, it's literally named book I to book VI with each book having its own title, so it's definitely six books.
The six books were adapted into three movies however.
What do you call a super long novel, subdivided into 6 books, then published in 3 units? I have no idea.
@@collin6691
A Hexanomicon
The new Planet of the Apes trilogy (Rise, Dawn, War) is definitely a trilogy that stays strong throughout, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on that series in a video.
Excited for the finale, already got a Nebula subscription
Finally, someone else appreciates Planet of the Apes for being the greatest trilogy of our time.
Key word: "our time", as in movies in this century.😂
You beat me to it!!
The greatest trilogy ever.
The villains’ philosophy in the dark knight rises is about giving the people of Gotham hope to take it away at the last moment. Bane makes it clear in the movie that he is a torturer, so he plans to tell the poor that they will have opportunities again and then just to take it away. Talia’s revenge for her father’s death, as she states it in the movie “it’s just a reward for my patience”.
I can't believe I'm getting Nebula for a coconut. I've put it off long enough.
As a Czech, I'd like to thank you for mentioning Alois Jirásek. You totally messed up his name there :D
Patrick should Czechity-Czech himself before he wrecks himself
I thought there was a joke there in pronouncing it as Jurassic.
It's like Yeeh ra sack
He also mispronounced Aeschylus
I guess you could say that he should have... double-Czeched his pronunciation?
It's so funny when you skip one or two videos and then come back to the main Patrick story and find these crazy plot twists
Lord of the Rings The Return of the King is honestly the best movie in the Trilogy... I f**king adore that movie!
Thank you so much Mr. Tolkien and thank your Mr. Jackson for making those movies so well and also thank you New Zealand... you know... For existing and giving us normal folk a vision of how things could be, and also for being so beautiful as a country to create The Lord of the Rings Trilogy...
"What is the plot of dead man's chest"
A bunch of people want to stab the heart of Davy Jones for their own benifit. Jack for his survival, Will for his dad, East India to eradicate Piracy, and Nottingham to get his life back. East India wins and enslaves Davy instead of stabbing it and the next movie is about pretty much undoing that win
"A bunch of superheroes need to finds some magic stones and stop a purple alien guy before he uses these stones to snap half of the universe.
At the end, the villain wins and the next movie is about pretty much undoing that win".
😊😊
But I think Patrick's point is that this is also the plot of World's End.
One thing I'm surprised this didn't mention was the comparison between every other movie trilogy mentioned and Lord of The Rings trilogy: the book series (or I should say book) is an adaptation, so the film producers and Peter Jackson are following written material that's has a complete narrative, and it follows the series almost to a tee. With the other trilogies, most were made by film people for a film medium, and like mentioned earlier, studios are obsessed with making trilogies.
I'll be hanging a "Jake Hammer" right next to my Mjolnir, it deserves to be honored with other mythical weapons.
Thank you for putting all this effort into making your videos of supreme quality! much appreciated :)
trilogies usually go like this
happy ending, sad ending, happy ending
that's why the middle movie is usually considered the best because it has the most open ending of the three, and can reject the necessities of exposition and denouement
Coming back here after GOTG Vol. 3... with a smile on my face.
Return of the King is the perfect way to end a trilogy
I think this is why as much as I love continuity and telling epic stories, I would like to see sequels be more self contained. Thor: Ragnarok almost feels like a different movie than the first 2. Same with Iron Man 3.
3 act trilogies need basically this: introduction-thesis (part1) subversion-antithesis (part2) reconstruction-synthesis (part3) and indeed, keeping each installment as a roughly self contained movie with a similar structure each time is a good way to make it work.
For all of Patrick's criticism of star wars and Back to the future, they still work rather well as self contained adventures.
Movie 1 sets an enjoyable template, part 2 is somewhat messier and questions the simplicity of it (star wars by showing why the light side is hard to stay on, back to the future by playing on 3 time periods and remixing the first movie in its third act) and movie 3 basically replays the first movie but bigger. and sure, none of those third installment is the best in their respective series, but they are still a satisfying conclusion overall.
I was wondering if anyone would mention Ragnarok. It might play out as the first in a new trilogy. It feels like a soft reboot within the MCU. That said, I don’t feel like we’ve had a “trilogy” in the MCU, but there could be an argument for Ultron/Civil War/Infinity War+Endgame?
Thor Ragnarok Is the army of darkness of the Thor films.
It’s hard for this series to have a proper trilogy when there are several films in between that sometimes affects the trajectory of the characters.
Thor Ragnarok might as well have been GotG 3. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't a good THOR movie.
Funny thing... I was just reminded of the coconut song. The one that starts with "I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts".
The thing with it is that I have heard that the reason our swedish version of that song is so wildly different in content is that the one tasked with writing the swedish lyrics had no idea what the original was about other than it being about Coconuts. So the original with its thinly veiled descriptions of mammaries at a fairground... became a song about how a child tries to break open a coconut but finds it utterly impossible. He complains to his father, listing all the tools he tries, but the coconut stubbornly will not open and provide him with the juicy contents and he wreaks the house, mother gets injured, explosions, fire, everything.
So... in a roundabout way... I am reminded of a song that in one version from 1950 basically describes Charl, the immortal Coconut. And how futile it is to fight him.
You put de lime in de coconut, you drink em bot up
Damn you - now I can't get that song out of my head! :P
Patrick is really taking a risk here as he’s inviting us to evaluate his ending to the Charl saga based upon the analytic criteria he himself has laid out, now fresh in our minds. He must be quite confident that his climax will provide us with the requisite satisfaction and release
26:07 Honestly, if you remove any of the info about Marty supposedly never amounting to anything, BTTF's story wouldn't change at all. I think most people would recall his "chicken" arc way more not only due to the comedy, but also the consequences that came out of it and the payoff w/ the Rolls-Royce b/c it was still given weight by him getting fired in 2015 and seeing the photo of his own tombstone (after Doc's name was erased) in 1885. BTW, both sequels of that trilogy also came out 6 months apart.
To this day, every time I re-watch the _Back to the Future_ trilogy, it barely occurs to me that the "chicken" insult element didn't even exist in the first film. Props to Parts 2+3 mentioning it all the time, especially in 3 where Seamus brings up a Great-Great-Great Uncle Martin our Marty never knew about, yet whose untimely demise he relates to immediately, as though it was a curse he has inherited.
The idea of the three types of stakes really helped me understand what had been kind of bothering me about Return of the Jedi: Luke's motivations for going to Vader on Endor are kind of muddled. The reason he gives to Leia is a philosophical-stakes reason (he believes Vader can be redeemed) but Yoda and Obi-wan have already given him internal-stakes (it's the only way to become a Jedi) and external-stakes (it's the only way to defeat the Empire) reasons. They (especially Obi-wan) specifically want him to *kill* Vader, so by refusing to do so, Luke is actually going against their wishes, but I don't think this is made clear enough, as Luke is still going to confront Vader, just with a different aim in mind. (The fact that the same word "confront" is used to describe what Luke wants to do, and what Yoda and Obi-wan want him to do, further hides what should be clearer - that he is doing it his way and not theirs)
I think it was quite clear that Luke was refusing to do what Obi-wan and Yoda told him to do. He said he can't kill his own father, and Obi-wan said, then the Emperor has already won. So, Luke figures out how to confront him and essentially destroy Vader without actually killing his father. Of course, Luke underestimated the Emperor's hold in his father, but he was ultimately right about they're still being good in him.
Love the intense action version of the theme song for the tragic episode climax. I am deeply invested in the overthrow of that evil coconut
I can't wait for the inevitable directors cut of the Charl Saga with all the video essay parts in one video
What's a Charles??
@@atomicsmith Oops since Charl and Saga blend together I wrote Charles Saga
Quote from Lana Wachowski on The Matrix trilogy: What we were trying to achieve with the story overall was a shift, the same kind of shift that happens for Neo, that Neo goes from being in this sort of cocooned and programmed world, to having to participate in the construction of meaning to his life. And we were like, ‘Well, can the audience go through the three movies and experience something similar to what the main character experiences?’
So the first movie is sort of classical in its approach, the second movie is deconstructionist and an assault on all the things you thought to be true in the first movie…and the third movie is the most ambiguous, because it asks you to actually participate in the construction of meaning.
I think it's also the journey a lot of young people go through-
Part 1- the system sucks, and my generation is going to TEAR IT DOWN!
Part 2- How exactly? Also, it turns out that we need the system- or a system anyway- and that the battle lines of good and evil are actually far more grey... And- I might not have understood everything when I said "burn it down". But... I love my woman.
Part 3- Well, I can't turn the system off, but I also can't leave it alone. Maybe if I work real hard- I can improve it for future generations? Ah, crap- my woman died.
Also- War is hell.
You can't beat the system, but you can make peace with it.
Then, self sacrifice. And death.
Yeah I didn't agree with him here that the matrix trilogy's theme shift was the problem. On some level it's a deliberate reversal but I'd even say that it's merely adding nuance: yes it's important to set oneself free to reach one's true potential, but fact remains that what we're capable of is in service to the world around us. We have choice but we're not entirely in control.
There's so many other reasons why 2 and 3 didn't work. In the right hands, that theme shift could've been the most elegant thing about the trilogy.
“Please hammer, DO hurt him” was brilliant!
AND the G train?! This was gold end to end!
You make a good point about James Cameron waiting and stopping after Terminator 2, Patrick. I wonder what you think about the fact that they have already planned multiple Avatar sequels. Do you think this will be an example of one big sequel movie split into parts that shouldn't really exist separately?
The production quality is off the charts, Patrick, you mad lad.
I truly find BttF3 a satisfying ending. I have a prop replica of the framed photo Doc gives Marty in the final scene.
I've seen the original train up close, pretty cool.
Well that was a heavy ending. Can't wait to see how the Charl saga is resolved... and whenever Patrick releases his Zack Snyder analysis.
The chicken comment plays an important role in BTTF 2&3 though. In 2, Jennifer (and by extension the audience) discover a future where Marty is goaded into committing a crime and getting fired by a peer calling him chicken for attempting to sit out. This is calling his ego into check, saying he has no spine like the father of his original timeline. This is also reinforced in that setting by revealing this Marty got into a driving accident that broke his hand, preventing him from playing guitar.
Hell the initial action scene of part 2 only begins because griff called Marty a coward, preventing him from cleanly wrapping up a situation where he prevents his future offspring from ending up in jail. It’s showing that this pattern of behavior for him leads to conflict.
All of this sets up 3. Mad dog Tannen attempts to goad Marty into a duel with guns that absolutely will kill him. Marty overcomes this manipulation of his ego, this need to prove himself recklessly, by calling mad dog an asshole. He accepts that he doesn’t need to prove himself by putting his life on the line needlessly. It is a character arc, and it’s reinforced by the ending of the movie where we reach that would-be fateful car crash, where instead of participating in a race he backs out. It’s shown to us had he participated , it would result in his hand being hurt.
Jennifer asks about this with doc in the final shot of the movie, about a sheet of paper changing in regards to all of this. It prompts doc into giving his “the future us what you make of it”. An indirect response that Marty is not beholden to proving to others he’s not a coward like his original father, and that he can make something of himself without being reckless.
Did you not watch the movies?
Toy Sory 3 would have rounded out a damn near-perfect trilogy.
3 ended Andy's story; 4 ended Woody's story.
@@Wired4Life2 there making a fifth one which is uneeded
Indiana Jones: The Last Crusade was the rare 3rd movie that was the best of the bunch
My biggest gripe with Last Crusade is that it was a bit of a repeat of the first movie in some ways, but that's not really much of a complaint.
Sean Connery will do that haha
@@vincentmuyo _Last Crusade_ barely tops _Raiders_ in terms of character writing, but falls short in terms of pure technical filmmaking (which, for Spielberg, was the aim of _Raiders)._
What about Apu trilogy from Satyajit Ray?? Arguably one of the greatest works of World Cinema and one of if not the best movie trilogy ever made.
*world cinema.
“Yeah. This is a hammer.”
Some damn good delivery there, got a good laugh out of me
Patrick, you some how come up with a subject I been thinking about, that I couldn't put into words. And yet you make a video essay that speaks my truth. Thank you.
Dead Man's Chest is about finding the heart to stop Davy Jones while At World's End is about gathering the pirate lords to stop Beckett from bringing an end to all piracy.
Also, the films that do get a good 3rd act sometimes get a disappointing follow-up anyway (Indiana Jones, Toy Story)
Abbas Kiarostami's Koker trilogy is great throughout and each film plays off the previous one in a really interesting way, plus the last film in trilogy has one of the most amazing final shots I've seen.
Back to the Future Part 2 and 3 were meant to be one movie, but it was so big and awesome it got made into two
Also, part 2 is the bad movie. 3 is pretty good.
@@evangrover8414 you take that back. Part 2 is great
@@evangrover8414 horrible take
It's funny, it seems like opinions have really shifted on BTTF 2 and 3. On release, BTTF2 was regarded as too dark and weird, and a lot of people didn't like it, while BTTF3 felt like a return to form. But in retrospect, 2 was the much more interesting and creative movie, while 3 feels like it's got too little plot, stretched too thin, and with Doc Brown acting like an idiot to create complications.
(Seriously, the scene where he visits Clara to tell her the truth absolutely infuriates me. He wants to tell her he's a time-traveler, but he doesn't think to bring a single shred of evidence even though he's got a shop full of anachronistic objects! Literally ALL he had to do was show her the hoverboard. It's really one of the most egregious examples I know of where a supposedly smart character does something incomprehensibly stupid just because the plot needed twists.)
@@jasonblalock4429 I think they used the trope of the person who is temporarily stupid because they are in love.
I’m getting very close to considering Patrick my favorite content creator on a platform - that’s recently been mushrooming with overproduced, yet intellectually devoid, “popcorn” content.
As Patrick’s creative confidence increases, razor sharp historical cinematic observations sharpen, and handle on indie editing & color finishing continue to be wound tighter - so does this viewer’s satisfaction in devouring & enjoying each of his subsequent video essays.
It’s fun to watch the exponential growth in subject matter and quality. Can’t say enough good things about being a casual observer on this ride. Appointment viewing has hit RUclips.
I just love hopping into the Patrick Willems lore after missing a few videos and not knowing wtf is going on
I can't believe I'm about to spend money to see what happens to a sentient coconut.
Same. Worth it!
Indeed. Figures that this is the episode where I moved from 'interested' to 'invested'.
Same
Alternative Patrick comes from a universe where he was Coppola's Stoker's Dracula
even though raimi’s trilogy is disqualified for the purposes of the video, I think the arc of the Peter/MJ relationship make for a very cohesive and contained trilogy that is surprisingly mature for the genre (despite the heavy studio meddling that affected 3)
Harry Osborne: _"It's soo good!"_
Reminds me of Nostalgia Critic's rant about that romance in his "Top 11" video for that trilogy. XD
@@jp3813 "That cock-tease romance.....YOU TWO NEED COUNSELING!" lol
Every movie had it defenders. I see you defending bruv.
I’m not entirely worried about a Paddington 3 because from my observation, I found that Paddington 2 is one of those sequels that more or less operated in a standalone fashion...there weren’t really any threads from the previous film that carried over in a significant way...the general conflict of the story isn’t directly related to the conflict of the first movie.
In my opinion, I think Paddington will act much like Indiana Jones does, pretty much three separate standalone stories that we collectively consider a trilogy of films.
I think the only trilogy where I like (prefer) the third installment best is Richard Linklater's Before Trilogy. Not to say that Before Sunrise and Before Sunset are not great movies. It's just that Before Midnight resonated more with me and I think it has to do with the fact that I was around the same age (and stage in my life) as Jesse and Céline in the movie. Also, one of the few trilogies where you can say all 3 parts delivered, at least in my opinion.
I can't wait for the CHARL ENDGAME movie. And you know that you are going to have to do a comprehensive compilation of all of Charl's scenes as a kind of Charl complete story. I NEED Charl the complete collection!!!!
No! We're just feeding Charl's clout!!!
Yes I NEED THE CHARL BOXSET
@@bonesgrey & make it a trilogy
Release the Charl cut!
The lord of the rings:
One trilogy to rule them all,
One trilogy to find them,
One trilogy to bring them all,
And in to shameless bind them.
I found those movies boring
@@renaigh you’re a bad person.
@@samuelchristie570 cause I didn't like a movie? grow up.
@@renaigh Ok, boomer
@@Scriptadiaboly how does not liking a movie make me a Boomer?
Patrick was really good about using qualifiers. But I have to say it anyway. I absolutely love The Dark Knight Rises. And while I can see why Patrick would say the philosophical stuff gets muddled I think it's there and it's strong. The movie is asking whether Batman is necessary, whether we need superheroes to fight for justice and keep society together. Why do we come up with these legends to tell ourselves?
That also nicely ties into the internal conflict for Bruce of whether his life has purpose without Batman, which ties into the external conflict of the League of Shadows taking advantage of the fact Batman isn't around anymore to achieve its goal of restoring balance to the world by destroying Gotham.
I think people get a bit confused (fairly) about the political stuff going on with Bane, which is what Patrick shows clips of when he's critiquing the movie. I think that was just a backdrop for Bane being able to take over the city. Alfred mentions Bane was behind a coup before coming to Gotham and the faux-populism thing is a common way for leaders of a coup to get popular support that gives legitimacy to them taking over. But even as mostly backdrop it serves to tie in with Selena's internal conflict.
Back to the larger philosophical conflict, the John Blake character is the through line for this. He's the audience surrogate who's always there to nudge Bruce back into the fight. You also see it with the kid at the orphanage and Matthew Modine's character. I think where it gets muddled a bit is basically from when Bruce gets back to Gotham through when the bomb goes off. There's so much being thrown at you that all the other conflicts disappear. But a lot of the ending montage is about wrapping up the main philosophical conflict, not just about Bruce being alive. In fact, the last shot of the movie isn't Bruce, it's the audience surrogate answering the question and becoming Batman.
I agree with a heap of this, thanks for putting it so eloquently. Bane's legitimacy was always shown as pretty hollow anyway - most of the population seems to be living in fear by the time winter comes.
I remember being so excited after seeing TLJ. They had wrapped up all the major arcs and story beats, so that meant they could do anything with the next movie. But then they just backpedaled for the first half or so of the final film
Buuuut, as Patrick pointed out that’s kinda the problem. If all the major character arcs are wrapped up then whatever the final movie is it won’t measure up
I think a trilogy people always dont mention is the Before the Sunrise trilogy, great films the 3 of them, great thing you did.
13:52 - My point exactly when discussing any type of media. The less we use TV-Tropes terminology to qualify culture, the better. And yeah, I'm aware that the expression was coined by Blake Snyder. But currently is just one of too many names for tropes that just try too hard to flatten common paterns in storytelling.
Likewise The Hero With A Thousand Faces was a study in semiotics, not a how-to. We have lots of films falling to problems born out of that fallacy, particularly heroes spending an hour or more of their first film Refusing The Call and therefore not driving their own story (Green Lantern, Man of Steel, TFA).
That PotC portion got my so hyped! Need a full Verbinski vid!
Thank you for showing Robert McKee, having heard about him so much and read his books I don't think I've ever seen his face :s
the audio mixings definitely improved and is noticably more subtle, wish more youtubers took this effort I cant imsgine its easy but well worth it for car and tv viewers/listeners
I've been trying to put a finger on why I love the analysis bits so much more than the skits in between and I finally think I have it:
Patrick is The Nostalgia Critic for people with a film degree.
Sure he doesn't wear the same outfit, doesn't have the obsession with fake guns, and his orbit of friends is...very different, but at the end of the day the skits are their own ongoing story that can swing from being a recreation of the movie (pastiche) or just straight up ditch that to focus more on a coconut with googly eyes that yes, definitely is alive, evil, and can end the world.
I cannot believe Patrick is introducing doppelgängers that span across the multiverse to fight a mysterious all powerful coconut before his video essays. It’s like...nostalgia critic but good.
That's a pretty good summary of this channel.
I just watched a video about the Nostalgia Critic and one of his infamous... somethings, and the reviewer said "in theory, this sounds great." And I thought "yeah, it sounds like something Patrick and his crew could pull off."
Not gonna lie, I’ve been waiting for a live-action Oresteia film trilogy to happen since high school
They even teased it a little at the end of 2004s Troy - but I'd prefer to have seen Seas Bean go on the Odyssey.
I would throw all my money at a Sean Bean/Odyssey film, given the right director
@@MagusMarquillin I love Sean Bean and he'd be a great Odysseus in a leading role, but I don't know how you make an Odyssey that follows up a version of the Iliad completely devoid of anything supernatural or fantastical.
@@digitaljanus That's a good point, they'd either have to break from the style of the previous film and have the supernatural be more real then they already believed, or do something allegorical like in Oh Brother Where Art Thou, which could be unsatisfying when going to see the actual Odyssey - but if they maintain most of the story being a retelling by Odysseus near the end of his journey, you can maintain some plausible doubt and keep the amazing story.
"Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade": easily my favorite of the trilogy, and the first of that series was a bloody masterpiece. Definitely an exception to the "weak third entry" rule.
What makes it work is it wasn't trying to payoff a story started in the previous films. It was just the third adventure.
I like when series extrapolate on what came before. Yes, this is about movies, but I read a book where the heroes vanquished the evil lord of their land in a heist story, which while making them in charge created a power vacuum and the second book was a political thriller about how to keep the remaining kingdoms in check.
More stories, and movies, should embrace the world they create.
I love how invested I've become in the Charl Saga over the past year or so. I only discovered the channel post-pandemic ad was getting very confused and annoyed by all this weird coconut (heh, Tun 'o Coc) stuff. The more it's gone on, though, the more it's pulled me in. Signing up for my Curiosity Stream Account right now.
10:44 I love how you don’t even flinch at pronouncing Sienkiewicz.
Pouring one out tonight for our boy...Jake was a comedic genius
He was the heart of the story
Too bad that heart's now splattered all over the pavement
Your wrong about LotR. It was a failed trilogy. Tolkien was revising on each book and the third one he had no idea how to end it. Arwen comes completely out of no where to marry Aragon, having no previous introduction and was only briefly mentioned in The Fellowship. Up until this point, we were led to assume Eowyn was the love interest. In fact there is several endings which can be chocked up to cleaning up the epilogue but then Tolkien added an entire action sequence that paled insanely bad to the rest of the book. That was the Taking of the Shire. It was completely unnecessary. It made no sense to why it happened. It betrayed the idea of the Hobbits as being isolated and peaceful and was an absolutely awful bookend the undermined the whole story. In the films, Jackson left this sequence out for a damn good reason and didn’t even add it in the extended versions because it would have ruined that too.
Jake really missed a chance to say "are we gonna keep yammering, or get hammering?"
He woulda won if he said that.
Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 3. Complete success.
The funny thing about Star Wars is that in the prequel trilogy, the third film is the one that came the closest to being good and is far and away the best entry in its set.
Granted, I don't think Revenge of the Sith is an overall better movie than Return of the Jedi, but Sith does succeed in bringing its trilogy in for a better landing than Jedi.
The less said about The Rise of Skywalker, the better. I would rather watch The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones back-to-back twice in one day than sit through Episode IX again.
Babu Frik can stay though. He's cool.
The Charl story continues! These bits get better and better!
*EDIT
I can't believe the saga will be concluded! I have been so invested in this series... Patrick is such an underrated RUclipsr!
I was just biting my nails hoping Patrick would talk about the Before trilogy 🥳🥳🥳🥳😍😍😍😍
It looks really interesting, I should probably check it out.
@@Grayvorn probably? This should be a compulsory viewing!
@@xen2297 Duly noted, I stand corrected.
Any chance there's another one coming in 2022??? (And 2031, etc.) Did they say definitively it was a trilogy?
@@jreimster we can only hope!
_The Rise Of Skywalker_ is not just an end to a trilogy, but a trilogy of trilogies (Prequels, Originals and Sequels, 9 movies). It's even harder than any other third instalment mentioned, even though I would argue that it's not so hard to get the main conflict of the 9 movies if you really pay attention.
The Sequels are narratively inconsistent (Just Rey vs Rey Palpatine), but I would say they're thematically consistent. The main idea throughout the trilogy is *_anti-determinism_* , your past and where you came from don't necessarily indicate your future. Finn was a stormtrooper, that didn't stop him from deserting the First Order after a crisis of consciousness and doing the right thing. Rey was (a) a poor orprhan girl from nowhere who was abandoned by her family or (b) the granddaughter of a space tyrant, but that didn't stop her from becoming the heroine of the story. Poe was a spice runner, that didn't stop him from leaving this way of life behind and becoming a Resistance fighter and eventually a Resistance leader. Kylo/Ben was the son of Han, a smuggler who became a war hero, and Leia, a princess, diplomat and military leader, nephew of Luke Skywalker, the Jedi Master, protagonist hero of the previous trilogy, but that didn't stop him from becoming the villain. Rian and J.J. had different ideas of executing the same message (Rian's ideas were better).
I think what's so hard about third instalments in a trilogy is that they have to follow the more artistic and ambitious approach of the second film. If we want to understand why third instalments are so disappointing, we need to answer why so many famous second instalments tend to be more subversive, stylized and daring. Since the first one was not design as part of a trilogy, it works on its own to the point of becoming almost a storytelling manual and/or formula. When the second tried to not simply emulate that manual, but instead innovate it, it's hard for the third film know what to do. Follow a perfect structure provided by the first one or continue the challengeing approach of the second one?
There are third instalments that we don't feel disappointed because the second wasn't even good to begin with. We usually get disappointed with third films that usually need to face the high stakes established by the second film. Even if _A New Hope_ is perfect, Star Wars would never be what it is if _Empire_ wasn't....you know.... _Empire_ .
If the first movie in a trilogy is a construction (establishing concepts and ideas that are the basis of the universe), the second is deconstruction ( re-evaluating the ideas presented in the original, questioning them and showing that the pillars that sustain the universe are more fragile than we think), the third one needs to be a reconstruction (addressing the questions presented in the second and try to find a balance, a more mature version of the first one). The key is not how the third one relates to the first one (how to end the story that began in the original), but how the third one relates to the second one, because it's the second one that makes interesting questions and the third one has the difficult task of answering those questions.
_The Godfather Part II_ , _The Empire Strikes Back_ , _Spider Man II_ , _The Dark Knight_ , _The Last Jedi_ etc. Even second instalments that are not better than the original, but are not copy and paste of the first one: _Matrix Reloaded_ , _Mission Impossible II_ etc etc etc. I think _The Last Crusade_ was the only time a third film decided to go back and emulate the structure of the original and not follow the weirdness of the second one ( _Temple Of Doom_ ) and worked so well that it's even better than both the original and the sequel.
But, to be honest, many of these films are not disappointing when you're a kid, when you don't have expectations at all. People who grew up with them tend to defend them with their hearts. So it's not the end of the world. Also, I find more interesting rewatching those movies and analysing them for what they are than talking about what I think they should have done. Less expectations and more curiosity, please.
Spot on!
All hail the greatest of all comments
23:57 Will, Elizabeth, and Will admit that they love each other
That's an interesting version I'd love to watch
I have some thoughts. 1 your discussion of Shakespeare writing in 5 acts is incorrect - the five act structure was implemented into his plays in the 1720s, they were written in 3 acts based on Aristotles ideas.
2. Lord of the rings is a different question imo. It was all shot as one film, based off three books of one story, which itself was written as one story initially. It was first published as one novel, made up of 6 books and appendices. It has been since published in 3 volumes to make it easier to read and later due to the success of the films. That’s why all 3 are good, it’s different to something like the matrix or most other trilogies - which is one story, which then had to be topped by another new story, which then had to be topped again by yet another film. The Lord of the rings is one story, the matrix and other trilogies were written as one story but then made a lot of money so they made more of them after the fact.