Welcome to the second edition of "Into the Fray." A quick reminder of how this goes: Using set criteria, I evaluate films, as an example, to declare a winner in a specific topic. One set of criteria is used to pick contenders and another to grade them, with inevitable overlap. I will write brief passages for each contender in each grading criterium followed by a score, and end with an overall score. To get a better idea, click here to read the first edition about sequels.

Into the Fray: Trilogies

Why a trilogy? Sometimes it is an opportunity to tell a story that will not fit in one film, and these are usually planned, e.g., The Lord of the Rings, The Dark Knight, etc. But, sometimes a first film is successful, and there is enough of a desire to experience that world again, even though it's not quite the same. The number of sequels end up making a trilogy, and that is the subject matter for today. To choose contenders, the trilogy had to have started with a standalone film and then be fairly solid throughout. That latter part can be tricky, because sometimes the third and final film can kill a continuity. So, by fairly solid, I just mean each entry has to be enjoyable even with its faults. The first film has to have remained the best, and it has to, to date, remained a trilogy, so Indiana Jones, The Matrix and Toy Story are out. Grading criteria is as follows: greatness of its starter- how good is the first film as a "hook", quality of the sequels- how well do the follow-up films add to the world introduced in the first film, cohesiveness of the trilogy as a whole- how well do all three films fit together, and level of enjoyment- how satisfying is it at the trilogy's conclusion. Into the fray!

Back to the Future (1985-1990): Back to the Future is a series that is simultaneously a product of its time (1980s, primarily) and timeless, in spite of its base setting in 1985. It has several marks of being memorable: repeated (and repeatable) catchphrases, repeated gags, and a famous car among them. Starter: Back to the Future (1985) is a film that nearly has it all: a buddy comedy with action, adventure, fantasy, science-fiction, a fish-out-of-water angle, and even a bit of romance (between George and Lorraine). Besides that, it mostly follows an unintentional time travel excursion, leaving the audience wondering how a trip with purpose would play out. It does not hurt that it ends teasing this either. 5/5. Quality: The two sequels, Part II in 1989 and Part III in 1990, explore three additional elements: the former, an envisioning of the future and a dystopian alternate present, and the latter, a take on the western genre. Through this exploration, we see Hill Valley, California, in various stages of development, and various ancestors and descendants of the McFly and Tannen families. 5/5. Cohesiveness: The films never fully lose everything that made the first film great, particularly the actor chemistry between Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd sells the whole trilogy, in my opinion. The best compliment I can give is it feels like the entire trilogy had been planned prior to the first film, even though that was not the case in spite of the aforementioned teaser. 5/5. Enjoyment: Back to the Future as a trilogy, though not without flaw, is a fun ride from beginning to end. Its opening sequence of multiple synchronized clocks contains a level of detail (and lots of exposition if you pay attention to those details) that continues through all three films, and it ends balancing completion of the immediate story with "more to come" without begging those be told. 5/5. Overall Score: 5/5.

Jurassic Park (1993-2001): Jurassic Park is unique among the contenders in two ways: it's the only one with beginnings as an adaptation of a novel, and it's the only one that spun off another trilogy (yes, I am playing the technicality card that Jurassic World is a separate trilogy, at least for the time being, as opposed to purely legacy sequels). The first film particularly is a high point in the illustrious career of Steven Spielberg and opened the way for other Michael Crichton major successes including ER and Twister. Starter: To paraphrase a quote of Dr. Alan Grant, dinosaur and man were separated by 65 million years and are suddenly thrown in together, and that is the appeal both in-universe and as an audience. Besides a character driven film typical of Spielberg, the special effects in Jurassic Park (1993) never take one out of the moment and still hold up today. As the survivors escape, though, one cannot help but wonder, "What will happen to the dinosaurs?" 5/5. Quality: The Lost World (1997), very loosely based on Crichton's own sequel novel of the same name, answers that question indirectly by establishing another island that served as the primary breeding site, how the dinosaurs survive provision of a necessary nutrient missing purposefully in their engineering, and a feasible reason to visit (another) island populated by killer reptiles. III (2001), on the other hand, contains a plot contrivance that feels forced and commits the sometimes cinematic error of a sequel attempting to outdo previous films. But, that is not to say it is a bad experience, by any means. 3/5. Cohesiveness: Accompanying a near scientific plausibility, the core of Jurassic Park (film) is an underlying commentary on corporate greed and antagonism. All three movies keep with the science. But only the first two entries embrace the corporate angle, and it is fully lacking in the third (this theme returns in all three Jurassic World films). Still, with Isla Sorna as the setting for both The Lost World and III and the return of Dr. Grant in the latter, the films are definitely connected well. 4/5. Enjoyment: While none of the films of the Jurassic Park trilogy disappoint in the "humans being chased by dinosaurs" aspect, the films feel more episodic than telling a single story. So while each is satisfying on its own, there is no encompassing conclusion. 2/5. Overall Score: 3.5/5.

RoboCop (1987-1993): One intrigue of a good cyborg character is man vs machine as an internal struggle. RoboCop, by using the device of "we see what RoboCop sees," is effective to spotlight the conflict without overuse, regardless of other film elements. (2014's remake of the first film does not disqualify it as a contender. The short-lived 1994 television series is an alternate continuity following the events of the first film and and the miniseries Prime Directives only loosely follows this trilogy at best.) Starter: Allow me to talk about film genres for very long, and you will eventually hear me use the phrase "action with heart." My meaning is it is a film that is not a series of loosely connected mindless action scenes, but actually a story that could be told in another genre. That is RoboCop (1987); it's told over a hyper-violent, dystopia of near-future corrupt Detroit with a large dose of social commentary. With this and only the origin story, one must be curious at its end: How does OCP and Detroit PD continue to adjust? 5/5. Quality: 2 (1990) does answer that question in two ways that could be natural: swaying to public opinion and reprogramming the "obsolete" model and of course, developing a new one. 3 (1993), on the other hand, focuses more on the other ongoing plot, RoboCop (Murphy) getting back in touch with his humanity. 4/5. Cohesiveness: Despite subtle but important connections film to film, the RoboCop trilogy suffers from a severe shift in tone over the course of the three. As mentioned, the 1987 film is hyper violent; the original cut was in fact to be X-rated due to that content before it was trimmed down to make the R (restored in the "unrated" version). The second film maintains the R, but the third film is almost family-friendly with its PG-13, possibly because the franchise had seen a 1988 animated series and associated toy line. The titular character was also recast for 3. 3/5. Enjoyment: Even with their shortcomings, each sequel brings its own quirk. But, it cannot be ignored that neither get close to what makes the first film great. A saving point of 3 in this respect is Murphy is fully in touch with his humanity by the film's end, an arc and theme throughout the trilogy. 3/5. Overall Score: 3.75/5.

Spider-Man (2002-2007): Good superhero films are either fully serious (The Dark Knight trilogy, parts of the DCEU) or fun balanced with serious stakes (Shazam!, Guardians of the Galaxy trilogy). To do a Spider-Man film right, the latter is the only way, and Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy finds that balance. Starter: On the fun end for Spider-Man (2002), you have the beginnings of Peter Parker's journey to his superhero persona and the characterization of J. Jonah Jameson. But on the serious side, you have Uncle Ben's death (and important advice) and threat of Green Goblin. While the conclusion of the film is satisfying, it leaves enough open threads to warrant more. 5/5. Quality: Following these threads, we are audience to the expansion of Peter's (and Spider-Man's) world in 2 (2004) and 3 (2007). I firmly believe the intent is to make it more personal for our friendly neighborhood main character, but including the first film, every major villain has some connection to him: his mentor, his next mentor (in 2), the true murderer of his uncle, his former best friend and his work rival (all in 3), which is quite coincidental in the most populous city in the U.S. 4/5. Cohesiveness: Since 2 follows the threads left open in the first film, and 3 both continues to do so and additionally follows new ones created in the second film, there is the illusion of a planned trilogy. But, it's also helpful it is the same director, throughout. It mostly maintains the same tone throughout, only breaking for the awkward dark suit chapter of 3 (I believe, intentionally). 5/5. Enjoyment: In a seemingly recurring theme, the Spider-Man trilogy begins strong but finishes weak. The inclusion of Venom in 3 was forced upon Raimi, and it shows. The film vastly improves with 2017's editor's cut, yet it never quite rises to the original film or the first sequel. Still, even in the theatrical version, the bad does not outweigh the good, and Sandman's arc is the best of the series' villains. 4/5. Overall Score: 4.25/5.

Conclusion: The winner for the best (unplanned) trilogy is... Back to the Future! BTTF is a near perfect trilogy: its first entry hooks you in, its sequels build onto the world of it, its films fit as a complete trilogy, and it concludes (as the second film literally promises onscreen) satisfyingly. The runners-up in order of rank are Spider-Man, RoboCop and Jurassic Park. As before, it is just as important to establish what this "Into the Fray" does not mean as to what it does. It is not picking the best trilogy or film series; either of the two planned ones mentioned in the introduction are very likely to take that title. It is, instead, crowning the best "unintentional" trilogy, one that did not start off to be one. These runners-up scoring lower than the runners-up in the previous edition speaks to how important having a plan is to a film series. It's the long way to say, one great film does not always mean there should be more.

Next time...Into the fray with Batman!