When we talk about trilogies, we often judge their consistencies from prequel to threequel, and their affiliation with comic books. Before I get to the main question that is the focus of this post, here are a few comic book movie trilogies (21st century) already established on the big screen.
X-Men trilogy or film series
While the first two started way earlier than expected and set up the foundation right then, the third one was what took the climax downhill and had it almost demolished with an origin story that was better delivered in bits and pieces by X-Men and X2. Then again, we get a different timeline for a rebooted success starting with First Class and so on, that gives FOX a total of at least three good movies if not a total trainwreck with the X-Men and Fantastic Four, though I did enjoy some moments from the Tim Story movies.
Let's just consider X-Men, X2 and X-Men: The Last Stand, shall we?
The first two were perfectly handled by Bryan Singer (who departed before X3 but got back into the project eleven years later) and the third was ruined by Brett Ratner.
All three movies handled by one director, Spider-Man had his superiority on the big screen during his first two encounters but lacked the proper paced source material in the third as Director Sam Raimi had no creative control over it. Though it still may offer a visual blast with surreal action scenes, it still isn't quite there.
The Dark Knight Trilogy
Director Christopher Nolan steps in and saves Batman's fate at the movies through a reinvention suitable enough to accomplish wonders in a universally acclaimed trilogy, without which DC would probably have to stick to its graphic novel releases. Well good for you, DC. Unfortunately though, of all the three, only the first one had actually seemed familiar in terms of source material, well sort of, Nolan himself revealed in the interview of Batman Begins that he was no comic book expert but there's no denying that he'd revived the character at long last. All three handled by one director again, with proper use of creative control.
Iron Man trilogy
Need I state the obvious? The first encounter was perfectly done and well received. The next two? Eh, not so much. While Marvel switched from Favreau to Black only in part III, Favreau wasn't exactly up for his game in Iron Man 2, which I believe was still pretty good and I know it pits me in the minority here.
Before I get to the main question, here are two more upcoming trilogies that don't seem as twisted as what Thor's will be.
Captain America trilogy
The setting already seems ship shape as we know it. A super soldier in alliance with Howard Stark is lost in time to battle his brainwashed friend Bucky and later on go up against Howard Stark's son. It's unique but not quite twisted, given that the first one was undertaken by director Joe Johnston and the rest by the Russo brothers.
Feel the hype yet? While the first one was well set by director Joss Whedon, the second one did share its similarities and differences in being as equally awesome though the first one was received better by general audiences and critics. We do however know that Infinity War is in good hands as the Russo(s) have signed up for that too.
And finally, here it is... the Thor trilogy
From Kenneth Branagh to Alan Taylor to...uh, who was that again, that guy from Green Lantern, wait wait wait I know it, I know it...Taika Waititi, that guy. Well it wasn't his fault that Green Lantern wasn't well received and I believe he will pull off a worthy threequel in times to come, but something really tells me it already seems twisted. I mean think it over, three directors, different experiences in storylines here and there and the increase in hype as Ragnarok stars the HULK as well!
Well at least it makes more room for this!
Hopefully, [Thor: Ragnarok](tag:956858) might just outweigh its namesake predecessors, or passable ones if Tom Hiddleston is taken into account.
Is Thor set to have the most twisted trilogy of all time?
Let me know what you think in the comments below!