Tuesday, November 23, 2010

The Trilogy Tournament

Last week Joe and I had an epic conversation about which trilogy we thought was better -- Indiana Jones or Star Wars.


The conversation was pretty solid, led to some interesting arguments and has eventually led to the obvious question...

"What exactly is the best trilogy of all time."


It has been a question that has been brought up by many, but rarely given a satisfying answer. It is a question that has puzzled millions and has brought countries to the brink of epic war.

Of course, the only official way to settle this is to use a Sweet 16 bracket so that we can analyze 16 different trilogies on a match-up by match-up basis.


I have spoken to a few of you about this, but here is how we think it could work:

Every week we will randomly assign folks to a different trilogy in a specific matchup. That person will be responsible for submitting a brief, but POTENT argument as to why that trilogy is indeed better than the movie they are matched up against. Once both arguments are submitted they shall be posted onto the blog. We will then set up a poll so we can see how the arguments measure up. Note I said "Arguments" not "Trilogies". That's right, you will be responsible for the fate of the trilogy.


In order to keep this relatively organized we will be setting up "deadlines" in order to keep this thing moving week-to-week.

Well, without further ado, below is the bracket:

Now, invariably, I am sure some of you will take issues with this. You may have a specific trilogy in mind that you think belongs in the tournament. No worries! Just put your trilogy in the comments below. If folks have certain strong opinions about including some movies over others we'll make the required alterations

So, check it out, comment, and get prepared for the greatest debate of your lives.

Addendum: I realize that I misprinted in one of the bracket spots. It should say HP III - V.


  1. Naturally Star Trek represented as II-IV. Despite the fact that every bracket must have its mis-seeding, should Spiderman really be seeded above Star Trek, or even Mighty Ducks or Bourne?

  2. It's an interesting point. I personally like the match up of the matrix and spiderman, but what we could do is switch the seedings for the man with no name and star trek. Therefore star trek would be #7 and man with no name #10. How does that work for you?

    Also, do you have any additional trilogies you'd like to add to the mix?

  3. I am also willing to submit that Jurassic Park may be seeded to high at #11. Perhaps switch that with Bourne?

  4. I must advocate for a few inclusions to the trilogy list. First, The Naked Gun Trilogy. There is one other comedy trilogy on the list, which is Austin Powers. Either Mike Myers or Leslie Neilson died today. I want you to consider which one would make you more upset, and which one makes you sad that their will never be a #4 in the series. All three naked guns were hilarious. Austin Powers was great for 1 and 2. And we must admit that it is only only this list because it is an awesome original and sequel that happens to have a third one *ahem godfather*.
    Number 2 suggestion: Die Hard Trilogy. Other than the Man with No Name trilogy this is the only action trilogy that attempts to exist in the real world. No starships or dinosaurs, etc. This started over 20 years ago, and it holds up. This is if the Rock, Con Air, and Face-off were a series. Ok maybe that was a bad analogy because not everyone has the love/hate relationship I do for Nick Cage. It is one of the few trilogies which made a better movie each time. The 3rd was samuel L jackson doing what samuel l jackson would do for the rest of his career.
    In order to make room, I must advocate against Jurassic Park. This is again, another one that is on the list because of the original. But this is worse, because even the second one wasn't good. Jurassic park one is awesome, one of the greatest movies ever. but just because they made 2 others, doesn't make it a good trilogy.
    In conclusion I list some trilogies which are better than the Jurassic Park trilogy: Aliens, Xmen, Terminator, Hannibal Lecter, Chronicals of Riddick, Underworld, Three colors trilogy, Crocodile Dundee, Evil Dead, and Road Warrior, even Rush Hour.

  5. I am down for dis-including the Jurassic Park Trilogy. Specifically, I would be into Xmen or Rush Hour taking its place. I still believe tha tAustin Powers should be kept in, but I also agree that we need The Naked Gun trilogy. Thoughts on other week entries?

  6. The Mexico Trilogy:

    El Mariachi - Budget: $7,000
    Desperado - Budget: $7,000,000 (thats three more zeros)
    Once Upon A Time in Mexico - Budget: Johnny Depp.

    Hold on, Hold on, Hold on...
    Antonio Banderas, Salma Hayek, Mickey Rourke, Eva Mendes, Enrique
    Iglesias, Cheech of Chong, Willem Dafoe, Steve Buscemi, Johnny Depp
    and Effing Quentin Tarantino? Oh yeah, and That Badass Mexi-can with
    All the Tattoos?!

    And did these movies buckle under the weight of the obscene amount of
    tallent? ¡No!. These three movies broke the trend of weak ending
    trillogies and manged to outdo itself with each new installment.

    With empty bloody fucking eye sockets - YES!

    Alright, I don't realisticaly expect this to make it into the play
    offs, but it at least deserved a mention.

    I second Die Hard, and would like to add the following to Seth's JP
    subs: Aladdin, Blade, The Mummy and Ocean's 11-13. Also, Google the
    Vengeance Trilogy.