Is the 3rd Film in a Trilogy always disappointing?

[Dave]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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

 

[soulsinging]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Return of the Jedi wasn't exactly chopped liver.

 

[Perpetual Man]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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.