# Is the 3rd Film in a Trilogy always disappointing?



## Dave (Jul 3, 2010)

They were asking this question on LBC radio tonight, prompted by the recent releases of Toy Story 3 and The Twilight Saga: Eclipse.

While the answer is usually yes, they did come up with some exceptions: Back to the Future part 3, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.

They also slated Alien3, which I like, it was Alien: Resurrection that was the step too far for me.  

Predator 3 also looks okay.

So, is this a general rule with a few exceptions? If so, why? Is it because the studios pass the point of caring and only want to milk a cash cow - Jaws 3.

Why do we still go and watch them?


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 4, 2010)

In part, I think it is because people are always looking for something to repeat the experience they had with the first such film (or book, for the matter of that). The closer sequels come to basically retelling the same story with just enough variations to have a few surprises, the more popular they are likely to be... to a point. Eventually even the most die-hard fans of something hit a point of surfeit with the whole thing and, unless some experimenting and "originality" is blended in, will revolt against what previously they had been demanding.

The perfect balance, of course, is to have enough familiarity to quickly reestablish a known frisson, while also having enough creativity to introduce new thrills and surprises enough to keep an audience on the edge of their seats with suspense over where they are going to be taken; but that is, sadly, a rather rare thing. All too many series, whether they be trilogies, tetralogies, or very long series (the Thin Man, for instance, or Halloween, Friday the Thirteenth, Nightmare on Elm Street, or Rocky) quickly descend into either complete formulaic storytelling-by-the-numbers, or just a repetition of not-particularly-intriguing variations on a theme....

Oh, I would add another third which isn't really what most would call disappointing: *The Son of Frankenstein* (1939). Not up to its immediate predecessor, perhaps, but not all that far below it, either....


----------



## The Procrastinator (Jul 4, 2010)

JD is right, repeating the experience is a huge factor, but I think there's also the random reinforcement factor, brought about by those very exceptions mentioned above (and there are probably others)! Sequels usually suck but _not always_ - so we always go to see them just in case. They're not usually worth it, but its the few that are that keep even the ones who should know better coming back for more.


----------



## FeedMeTV (Jul 5, 2010)

Perhaps the failure of 3rd films is related to the need for shock and awe tactics? If the first film is a success then a sequel can often get by with a rehash of the original plot or a development of an already established theme as j.d mentioned above. By the third film, it seems the film makers are aware this can't be sustained any longer and have to push the boundaries, make the story more outlandish or further from the original idea of the first film in order to entice viewers. I expect sequels to give me the same feeling as the original, I don't want the same story but I expect a similar reaction when watching it - if the story is headed in a completely new direction then it may as well not be a sequal at all but an entirely new film (although not the third, the arrival of the aliens in Indy 4 seemed to me to be an example of this )

The success of a third film also depends on the second in the series. For instance I loved the Mummy, thought the Mummy Returns was flat and therefore never saw Dragon Emperor. It may have been fantastic but the second one left me thinking they couldn't do sequels very well.


----------



## Doctor Crankenstein (Jul 5, 2010)

I* LOVED* Toy story Three. All three movies are huge favourites of mine. I Liked Alien 3 as well but Aliens is my favourite of the series.

I heard that the third Shrek movie was pretty crappy but I haven't seen it myself. 



> In part, I think it is because people are always looking for something  to repeat the experience they had with the first such film (or book, for  the matter of that).



Agreed. So many people walk out of movies saying "It was nothing like the book, It was wrong, etc" as if this is some sort of criticism. If you want the book read the book! If you want the computer game play the computer game! The latest example of this for me was Prince of Persia which I thought was great fun. Lots of people had ridiculous criticisms like: "The movie ended where the computer game started" ... So?


----------



## Rand (Jul 14, 2010)

Dave said:


> They were asking this question on LBC radio tonight, prompted by the recent releases of Toy Story 3 and The Twilight Saga: Eclipse.
> 
> While the answer is usually yes, they did come up with some exceptions: Back to the Future part 3, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.
> 
> ...



I enjoyed the third (by release date) Star Wars movie more than the  other two, but I agree that usually when they get to the third  installment it's MOTS only slower.

Back to the Future part three is a kind of difficult call, since it was  really just the second half of Back to the Future part two.  I remember sitting in the theater watching in disbelief as the screen cut to displaying words to the effect of To Be Continued Next Summer.


----------



## tygersmovie (Jul 22, 2010)

Well, if THE GODFATHER is any indication, then yes.


----------



## soulsinging (Sep 22, 2010)

Dave said:


> They were asking this question on LBC radio tonight, prompted by the recent releases of Toy Story 3 and The Twilight Saga: Eclipse.
> 
> While the answer is usually yes, they did come up with some exceptions: Back to the Future part 3, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.


 
They pick Back to the Future 3 as one of the exceptions? I don't know about that...

One big exception: Revenge of the Sith... the only watchable one out of the 3 Star Wars prequels.


----------



## Rodders (Sep 22, 2010)

Perhaps we're asking the wrong question. Perhaps it's more of a question of part two of a trilogy being so strong? 

Everyone says that ROTJ was the weakest of the Original Star Wars Trilogy, but i really enjoyed it (and still do), but its not as good as Star Wars or the Empire Striles back. I enjoyed Alien 3, but it wasn't as good as Alien or Aliens. It's not that they're bad movies, it's just that they're not as good as their predecessors. 

Besides, endings are difficult at the best of times. Even classic SF&F books have difficulty with it.


----------



## Moonbat (Sep 23, 2010)

Predator 3 is not very good! But then Predator 2 wasn't as good as the first.

With things like Lord of the rings, they are different from the formulaic trilogies that we have a problem with. Jaws was literally the same story told each time, Lord of the rings is a long story that must be told in three parts. Harry potter is a story that has to be told in 7 (or 8 if you are hollywood) parts.
I think there is a definite difference between the Halloween/Freddy type sequels/trilogies/quadrilogies and so on than those which have a plot that spans more than one film. Star Wars is not just a re-hash of the first film, but an extension of the plot.
Die Hard is a re-hash of the first film, but the third wasn't too bad. Even something like terminator 2 was just a re-hash of the first film, but by wating 11 years they could really do something good with the effects and push its boundaries in other ways. And terminator 3 was awful. 4 wasn't that good either.
Although Matrix was a trilogy in the extended plot sense it was hampered by the fact that Act 1 (or the first film) was the strongest of the three and so the sequels lacked the quality of the first.

so the answer is no. the third film in the trilogy is not always disappointing. It mostly depends on the trilogy, is it a retelling of the first film three times, or is it a long story that needs 6-9 hours to be told?

Austin Powers: Goldmember is a great third film in a trilogy. IMHO the best of the three, and it isn't an extended plot film.


----------



## Perpetual Man (Sep 23, 2010)

It also comes down to personal opinion, just be reading the comments here, anyway.

soulsinging, obviously rates Revenge of the Sith over the other two 'modern' Star Wars movies, but I cringed all the way through it, and despite being a completest have not been able to bring myself to buy it on DVD - I just felt it shattered my fond recollections of the original films.

As Dr Crankenstein (great name that) points out Shrek 3 has a reputation for being the weak movie in that series; however having been subjected to it a couple of times now, I can't actually see what is wrong with it, and would probably say I find it more entertaining than the more critically acclaimed Shrek Goes Forth (I've not seen that as much though!)

But yeah, it does seem that the third movies in a series do seem to lack something of the earlier ones. Perhaps it is the same kind of thing as the second album syndrome in the music industry


----------



## digs (Sep 23, 2010)

Doctor Crankenstein said:


> I* LOVED* Toy story Three. All three movies are huge favourites of mine. I Liked Alien 3 as well but Aliens is my favourite of the series.


Me too! I think they're all consistently brilliant, which I imagine is pretty hard to accomplish. Were they saying on the radio that Toy Story 3 was bad? I read somewhere recently that they're slating it for a Best Picture nom at the Oscars because it's been one of the most critically acclaimed movies of the year - how awesome if it won!

But yeah, there have been some disappointing thirdies. Some recently that spring to mind are the Spiderman and X-men trilogies, which for me both got worse as they went along. There are some pretty strong exceptions though. To me the key thing seems to be whether the creators are really committed to making something great or whether they're in it for the cash.


----------



## Mouse (Sep 23, 2010)

I also loved Toy Story 3. Thought it was actually the best one of the lot. (Ken!)

I also preferred the third Shrek one to the others, but then I love Prince Charming so...

I agree about X-Men though. The Origins one gives me so much rage I can't even think properly.


----------



## soulsinging (Sep 23, 2010)

Perpetual Man said:


> soulsinging, obviously rates Revenge of the Sith over the other two 'modern' Star Wars movies, but I cringed all the way through it, and despite being a completest have not been able to bring myself to buy it on DVD - I just felt it shattered my fond recollections of the original films.


 
Oh, it's definitely got cringe-worthy parts, but did you see the two before? I thought they were AWFUL. Did you really like those better?


----------



## clovis-man (Sep 23, 2010)

*Return of the Jedi* wasn't exactly chopped liver.


----------



## Perpetual Man (Sep 23, 2010)

soulsinging said:


> Oh, it's definitely got cringe-worthy parts, but did you see the two before? I thought they were AWFUL. Did you really like those better?



Weelllll no! I think it was a culmination of different things. There was so much excitement before the Phantom Menace and then it did not live up to what we all expected. Then the same happened with Attack of the Clones (Only it was worse). Then despite everything the anticipation began for the third - fuelled by an interview with a Mr Lucas  who said that the others had to be light and flimsy to accommodate the darkness and the depth of the third, following the fall of a good man into darkness... only to be betrayed once again, with it being more of the same, flimsy and filled with contradictions for what was to come in the later movies.

Truth to tell I think it probably is better than the first two, but the sense of disappointment that came with it is what stop me buying it or watching it again! (I might have the other two but I don't watch 'em)


----------



## Pyan (Sep 24, 2010)

FeedMeTV said:


> The success of a third film also depends on the second in the series. For instance I loved the Mummy, thought the Mummy Returns was flat and therefore never saw Dragon Emperor. It may have been fantastic but the second one left me thinking they couldn't do sequels very well.



Dragon Emperor is the worst of the three, IMHO, and not only confirms the "third is the worst", but also the Law of Diminishing Returns...


----------



## Dave (Sep 24, 2010)

pyan said:


> ...the Law of Diminishing Returns...


My original point was that that Law sometimes does not apply to the first sequel - on occasions the second film in a series is as good as, or sometimes better. However, it is very, very rare that a third film in a trilogy is good. That appears to be the tipping point. Still, with some exceptions - Star Trek (odd/even business), James Bond.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Sep 24, 2010)

digs said:


> But yeah, there have been some disappointing thirdies. Some recently that spring to mind are the Spiderman and X-men trilogies, which for me both got worse as they went along.


I would disagree with that. In both cases, the second was vastly superior to the first (which, in the case of Spider-man, was decidedly mediocre) and the third was a let-down. 

(And in the case of Spider-man, a complete and utter disaster that was offensive to my eyesight. Why on Earth they're bothering with more movies, I have no clue. Although the lack of Sam Raimi and Tobey "I couldn't act to save my life" Maguire might inject some life into the series.)


----------



## Rodders (Sep 24, 2010)

Just because they were not as good as the other two doesn't necessarily make them bad films. I very much enjoyed both Spiderman and X-Men 3.


----------



## soulsinging (Sep 24, 2010)

Perpetual Man said:


> Weelllll no! I think it was a culmination of different things. There was so much excitement before the Phantom Menace and then it did not live up to what we all expected. Then the same happened with Attack of the Clones (Only it was worse). Then despite everything the anticipation began for the third - fuelled by an interview with a Mr Lucas who said that the others had to be light and flimsy to accommodate the darkness and the depth of the third, following the fall of a good man into darkness... only to be betrayed once again, with it being more of the same, flimsy and filled with contradictions for what was to come in the later movies.
> 
> Truth to tell I think it probably is better than the first two, but the sense of disappointment that came with it is what stop me buying it or watching it again! (I might have the other two but I don't watch 'em)


 
I guess that makes some sense. No doubt, they raised expectations for the 3rd to height it did not achieve. There was a lot of "the fans spoke on the last two, so we listened!" And in reality, they hadn't listened at all and the third was just a slight improvement mainly because even a poorly done battle between Obi-Wan and Anakin was going to be more interesting than the dreck the first two movies were. My buddy and I recently did a marathon of the prequels and age has not been kind to them. Oddly, they look MORE dated than the originals do in many places!


----------



## Perpetual Man (Sep 24, 2010)

There is a key moment in ROTS which crystallized things for me (ironically right at the end), but it goes back to the ROTJ, perhaps one of the most human moments from that movie. Luke having just realised that Leia is his sister and all that comes with it, asks her if she remembers her mother.

Leia replies that she was very young when her mother died, but that when she does remember her she always seemed sad 

And as I got to the end of ROTS, as Padme lies dying in childbirth, something just ended... Looking back now, I think Attack of the Clones was the weakest of the prequels and I'm just going to have to watch Revenge again...


----------



## Dave (Sep 25, 2010)

Attack of the Clones is not the third film in a trilogy, it is the sixth film in a series, or the third film in a prequel trilogy. It therefore doesn't really count in this discussion, however, since we are on the subject, I also hated the same betrayal of the original trilogy plot as Perpetual Man did. There is definitely and generational thing about the two trilogies. When my son was young he much preferred _The Phantom Menace_ with the young 10-year old Anakin, to the more dated original trilogy. Now he is older, I think he prefers the original trilogy, though he doesn't rate _A New Hope_ that high. I, on the other hand, still call that film _Star Wars_ and understand that without it, none of the rest would have ever been made. And I agree that parts of the newer trilogy have dated more than the original.


----------



## digs (Sep 25, 2010)

Rodders said:


> Just because they were not as good as the other two doesn't necessarily make them bad films.


That's true, however, even if they're not really _bad _films they can still be a disappointment. If, say, the first one or two movies in a trilogy are brilliant but the third is just sort of mildly enjoyable, it can still be disappointing, even if you had a good time watching it.

For example, I think the Star Wars prequel trilogy is really enjoyable - they're great blockbusters with awesome action and special effects set in a beautifully imagined universe. For me, though, they were disappointments because they lacked that soul or whatever it was the original trilogy had.


----------



## Rodders (Sep 26, 2010)

Are these really trilogies? Certainly LOTR and the Star Wars films as the same story  is running through out the three films. Spider Man, Alien, Batman etc are three individual films featuring the same character.


----------



## Dozmonic (Sep 26, 2010)

It often feels that films are meant to be standalone and the making of a second and third is just milking the franchise. When books that are a series are made into film, then they're likely to be better because it was probably the author's original intention to have the series culminate in such a manner in the final book. However, there aren't that many good books that're made into films. Or if they are, they're often too cannibalised and Hollywoodised. I mean, come on Jackson, do we really need Legolas skiing down everything in sight?

Something like the matrix felt great as a standalone movie. The second and third installments were more of an "ok what can we add that sort of makes sense with what's happened so far?". Something like V For Vendetta is a great movie but it would suffer from sequels. JK Rowling claims she always wanted to have a 7 part series but it's very evident that the first two books are a class lower down in terms of plot and forethought than the rest of the series.

While the Golden Compass was considered a flop, I enjoyed the movie but could not for the life of me work out why they ended the movie a chapter short of where the book ended. However, as it is a work that relies so heavily on imagination, I don't feel that a trilogy would have done the whole series justice. In reality I guess I just wanted to see Iorek fighting (but not talking) and more of Eva Green 

Some trilogies not yet mentioned that I've loved have been the Ocean's movies and the Naked Gun.


----------



## Captain Campion (Sep 26, 2010)

In regards to Star Wars, I think the prequels are the exception to one of the most ingrained "rules" in the movie world: the rule that the more studio execs and other people get involved, the worse the final product.

It seems to me that the more control Lucas gained over his 'vision' the worse he made it. He could have used more cooks in the kitchen with the prequels. 

I grew up on the original Star Wars--loved em' (my grandpa worked the projection equipment in a theater; I stayed with him an entire weekend watching Star Wars over and over). I wanted to love the prequels, but with the exception of a few scenes here and there, I think he made movies that were so poorly scripted and so reliant on special effects that if they weren't part of a beloved franchise they would have been Mystery Science Theater material.

The sad part is I think there is actually a pretty good story underneath it all; Lucas just needed to get some help bringing it all out.


----------



## soulsinging (Sep 28, 2010)

Dozmonic said:


> Something like the matrix felt great as a standalone movie. The second and third installments were more of an "ok what can we add that sort of makes sense with what's happened so far?".


 
Pirates of the Caribbean felt the same way. Both trilogies had first movies that were fantastic and inspired and fresh. However, once success came, the temptation to Say Something Important overwhelmed the fun and excitement that made the original movie so successful. The result for both was a fantastic first film, followed by a pair of muddy sequels that tried to shoehorn very deep plots into summer popcorn films and the result is a suffocatingly serious script that turns beloved characters into annoyingly long-winded philosophers.


----------



## Red 13 (Nov 16, 2010)

Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade is a brilliant third film.Lets not mention number 4 though...in my mind it never happened.


----------



## Null_Zone (Nov 17, 2010)

Tremors 3 was a good film, not great but certainly not a disapointment.

And it had Burt Gummer in it.


----------

