+148

In any series of three, the first one and the last one are the best, and the second is only half decent. amirite?

73%Yeah You Are27%No Way
calebs avatar Books
Share
1 35
The voters have decided that caleb is right! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

Middle Children: you are offended, amirite?

Off the top of my head, Terminator (Second was the best) and Hunger Games(third sucked ass)

Anonymous +12Reply
@Off the top of my head, Terminator (Second was the best) and Hunger Games(third sucked ass)

You're right about the Terminator, but wrong about the Hunger Games. To me the third was my favorite.

calebs avatar caleb Yeah You Are -1Reply

Hunger games.
First= amazing
Second= good
Third= terrible

Anonymous +10Reply

The Hunger Games was okay.
My favorite was the first.
The second was okay.
The last was kind of shitty. I felt she tried to cram so much drama and everything into the last couple of chapters. Like come on, some deaths were so unneeded.

Anonymous +8Reply

Not with Lord of the Rings. The second one was good and so was the third. But the first one was terrible.

Anonymous +3Reply

Shrek? I know there was a fourth, but the third and fourth sucked, and the first and second were great.

Star Wars the Original Trilogy begs to differ

I usually prefer the first two and the third one isn't as good. Lol.

Indiana Jones Series:
First: Great
Second: Okay
Third: Great
Fourth: WTF? ALIENS?!

@Zeerust Indiana Jones Series: First: Great Second: Okay Third: Great Fourth: WTF? ALIENS?!

The Temple of Doom was amazing! If anything it's
First: Great
Second: Equally Great
Third: Okay

The holy trinity:
God: Almighty
Jesus: Hated by all
Holy Spirit: Meh

A "series of three" is called a trilogy.

Hunger Games was in descending order, with the first the best and last the worst.

chchs avatar chch No Way +1Reply

Sly Cooper series in my eyes:

Sly 1: Great game, set up series well.
Sly 2: Good/Average game, Didn't feel much like predecessor, and too much repetition of missions.
Sly 3: Great game, interesting missions, and varied gameplay worked well.

Curts avatar Curt Yeah You Are +1Reply

The first is always good (or else they wouldn't make a sequel), the 2nd is usually awful (or at least not as good as the first), and the third one either amazing or terrible.

My best examples are Back to the Future (third one sucked) and Toy Story (third was amazing, 2nd was not as good as 1st or 3rd)

Also, search "movie series ratings" on google.

Everyone knows the first Lion King movie is the best. Second -> meh. Third -> animation and story sucked.

Pirates of the Caribbean:
1: awesome
2: good, but not great
3: not that good
and we have to wait and see about #4

I hate how on most third books, there is way to much happening and the plot can sometimes be really confusing

Anonymous +1Reply

Catching Fire was the best in the Hunger Games trilogy. The first one was a close second though.

Uglies trilogy = this.

plotbunnyhunters avatar plotbunnyhunter Yeah You Are +1Reply

fable 1 + 2 were way better than the third. Same with the Godfather.

Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies.

@MrRite Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies.

What? The 2nd one was great, and the third one blows.

Godfather trilogy

Toy Story 2 is in my opinion the best Toy Story

@wobbuffet Godfather trilogy Toy Story 2 is in my opinion the best Toy Story

No way. Number 1 is the best but I guess your entitled to your opinion.

You mean a trilogy? Also, Star Wars, Shrek, The Godfather, The Hunger Games.

Fellowship of the rings was only bad because there was to much character building for such a long movie

Austin Powers trilogy agrees with this post.

No, Shreck does not follow this.
First: Great
Second: Pretty good
Third: terrible

Anonymous 0Reply

True for Super Mario Bros. but definitely not true for Donkey Kong Country.

Halo 2 was great.

I loved the second Hunger Games...

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.