I'm noticing a weird pattern with trilogies...

Writing an ending is way harder than writing a second act where the big bad thing happens imho.

Also with films there tends to be a lot of production pressures on a third instalment which can fuck up a good narrative.

I think that’s about right.

Only exceptions I can think of are Lord of the Rings (last movie won 11 Oscars!!), and Toy Story - until they decided to make a 4th film which was great too. Ennio Morricone’s spaghetti western trilogy ended on the best movie too, arguably (Good, Bad and Ugly).

Godfather is the perfect example of a dud third instalment. As a stand-alone movie it would’ve been alright, but compared to parts I and II, it’s just bad.

Most trilogies, yes. That or only the first one is good, but the rest suck. The only trilogy I can think of where it gets better with every movie is [i]The Lord of the Rings[/i] trilogy. I suppose the [i]Star Wars[/i] prequel trilogy as well, but that's not saying much since it went from bad, to okay, to good. lol

I dunno man. Return of the King was pretty amazing in its own right. Jedi was okay. The space battle was the best part. However, Empire definitely carried that trilogy.

Until the early 80's sequels were extremely rare, so they never really learned to develop them, Empire Strikes Back was essentially a pioneer in that field.

With the hunger games. Catching fire is the best imo

Well I hope the ones that I am writing are awesome from start to finish.

I swap the second and third

Depends.
I mean the original Star Wars trilogy, all three were good. Empire is the best though.

We don't really talk about the prequels and WE DO NOT MENTION THE SEQUELS.