Why are the 3rd film of movies never better than the films before?

[SPIDERMAN117]

Think its mostly the studios fault to name a few

Batman Forever: With Batman Returns not doing as great as finacialy wise like Batman 89 did and parents called the film "Too Dark" they took Burton out and didnt let him finish his trilogy and let Joel take order from WB. "Make the film less dark." and well you know what happen next. So as much as fans want to blame Joel for BF and B&R all he did was listen to the studio.

Spider-man 3: Sony/Avi Arad presured Raimi to put Venom into the script and Raimi didnt want his in at all. The whole black suit and everything. So it originally was gona be Sandman/Vulture/New Goblin in the third film but as people demanded and so did the studio. They went with Venom and he never wanted him at all in his trilogy. And the rest is history. Sure it made millions of dollars but was it as good as the first 2? No not at all.


And more reason why you think they dont succed like the films before

 

[TheVileOne]

The Bourne Ultimatum.

The Prisoner of Azkaban.

The Return of the King.

This thread is epic fail.

 

[Spider-Vader]

Revenge of the Sith, is a huge improvement over TPM & AOTC. Compared to those movies ROTS is like Godfather.

 

[The Chris]

I think he's just talking about comic book movies. Change of director, studio interference, change of tone are some reasons.

 

[DeaDheaD]

Die Hard With Vengeance was the best of the series IMO

 

[Mister J]

Judging from the thread's placement in 'Misc. Comics Films', as well as citing two comic films in the opening post, I'd say the thread starter was specifically referencing third films from the comic book/superhero genre. None of the films that have been cited since really fall under that heading.

Overall, I'd be hard pressed to disagree with the premise here (if limited to the listed area). Superman III, Batman Forever, Blade III, Spider-Man 3, X3, whatever; I really couldn't reference any of them as 'good', though some were partly enjoyable.

 

[The Major]

Studios go for the quick cash rather then the quality, the film makers don't reign themselves in, standards drop, and in some cases miss the point of why the franchise did well in the first place. It's no surprise franchises die on their thirds with this pattern keeping on repeating.

 

[thcapedcrusader]

it seems like each movie builds expectation for the next one and maybe they are trying too hard to fit everything into a trilogy format.

for non-comic movies, lest we forget godfather III, terminator 3, aliens resurrection

 

[TheVileOne]

Alien Resurrection was Alien 4. Alien 3 was Alien 3.

 

[thcapedcrusader]

Alien Resurrection was Alien 4. Alien 3 was Alien 3.

ah yes, thanks for pointing that out. t:

 

[Dr. Fate]

Studios go for the quick cash rather then the quality, the film makers don't reign themselves in, standards drop, and in some cases miss the point of why the franchise did well in the first place. It's no surprise franchises die on their thirds with this pattern keeping on repeating.

All very true.

 

[Hectorminator]

Best non-comic trequel: Mission Impossible III. Miles above MI and MI:II.

Hopefully Batman Begins 3 will be as good as The Dark Knight, but I doubt it because Heath Ledger passed away. =(

 

[bullets]

usually part three in the comic genre has already reached the point where some that made the previous installments have decided to move on.

 

[Pluto]

usually part three in the comic genre has already reached the point where some that made the previous installments have decided to move on.

It isn't always this way...

 

[The Major]

usually part three in the comic genre has already reached the point where some that made the previous installments have decided to move on.

Even if that's true they shouldn't allow the franchise to self destruct when they do leave.

Who knows when or if other film makers want to make new movies out of it when they are gone but are unable to because of this.

 

[kirbyfan]

I like Spiderman 3, it's the best one to me, I like the wild more comic book type action! I love the superhero movies they are making, but I want more of the big time action that's in the comics.

 

[WeaponXProject]

Alot of the problem with 3rd movies is the "bigger and better" issue. The movie becomes an action pushed movie with lack of story.

Other issues are when the third movie is or is suppossed to be the finale of the series. It puts so much pressure and expectations on a movie. Like X-3, Episode 3 (which I liked), POTC 3.

Another issue is the change of tone of the series, a la Spidey 3 was an attempted darker tone than 1 and 2.

Finally the worst is the director and production change. Terminator 2 to Terminator 3 was just atrocious.

 

[bullets]

Part three is always expected to be epic. it might be harder to meet the demands I guess but even with a darker tone Spiderman 3 should have been able to handle it, considering the talent behind that film.

 

[steelio2006]

Spider-Man 3 failed because of the studio. They wanted VENOM. And Sandman isn't that great, imo. He wasn't really needed that much.

I can't say much bout Superman 3 as I have the Ultimate Superman Collection and have never watched it yet.

X-Men 3 failed because of the original director leavin not to finish his trilogy. Instead they got the guy that directed Rush Hour trilogy. And they decided to have it be cameo-friendly when it should have been very character driven. Can't forget the mis-use of some characters. (Come on, Colossus should have been shown more frequently. As well as Angel and Kitty Pryde)

 

[WeaponXProject]

X-Men 3 failed because of the original director leavin not to finish his trilogy. Instead they got the guy that directed Rush Hour trilogy. And they decided to have it be cameo-friendly when it should have been very character driven. Can't forget the mis-use of some characters. (Come on, Colossus should have been shown more frequently. As well as Angel and Kitty Pryde)

Tom Rothman bumped Brian Singer out of directing it with his bull crap. Brett Ratner is garbage.

I completely agree with you.

 

[steelio2006]

But Singer left to go direct Superman Returns. and with him, he took Marsden. who was another character that was mis-used.

 

[WeaponXProject]

But Singer left to go direct Superman Returns. and with him, he took Marsden. who was another character that was mis-used.

There is this old article before X3 came out on AICN and it says that Singer was getting creative control taken from him so Rothman kinda pushed him away more than he abandoned it.

He does have a passion for Supes over all other characters. I think he made a bad decision leaving for Supes. Without him I still thought X3 was better than Sup. Returns. Both weren't that great though.

 

[The Major]

WeaponX:

Blame Rothman for that.

I'm sure Singer would have made X-3 if he wasn't involved.

 

[WeaponXProject]

WeaponX:

Blame Rothman for that.

I'm sure Singer would have made X-3 if he wasn't involved.

My sig says enough, doesn't it?

 

[steelio2006]

while X-3 could have been better with Singer, we'll never know what his next x-men movie would have been like. i don't consider X-Men: The Last Stand to be a part of the x-men series. cuz X-Men and X2 are good movies that dont deserve to have a bad sequel. and then if Wolverine is good, i'll consider it a part of the series. but yeah, Last Stand isn't a part of the X-Men movies, imo. it was diff. in tone than the previous two (and how hard would have it been to keep a similar title sequence)