Is there a "3rd movie curse"?

[wildojinx]

It seems like the third movie in many series is usually seen as the weakest in the series. Films like Iron Man 3, Rush Hour 3, Superman 3, Spider-man 3, X-Men: The Last Stand, etc. The only third installments that are seen as good (or even the best one) are Star Trek 3, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, and The Dark Knight Rises. Why is it that the third film is seen as the weakest usually?

[Porky's Butthole]

Last Crusade was Godfather compared to Crystal Skull...

[Red Impact]

I disagree with your list. Plenty of thirds are considered better than 2, good, and in some cases the best of the series.

Return of the King
Bourne Ultimatum
Goldfinger
Alien3
Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome
Die Hard: With a Vengeance
Godfather 3

And that's more or less depends who you talk to, like I've heard how Iron Man 3 was the best of the series (or at least better than 2).

But as for the concept, making a trilogy is hard if you want to make them all self-contained. The first movie sets things up, the second is where you tell the real story you wanted to tell without being bogged down with an origin/intro, and the third is where you try to keep the audience interested if were successful in making 2 amazing. So you have heightened expectations and the fact that you told the real story you wanted in the second installment. Unless you planned and set up a trilogy, it's hard to follow that. Even if you did, it's difficult.

[mcmahonfan85]

Nov 9, 2013 23:28:12 GMT -5 wildojinx said:

Films like Iron Man 3...

wrong

Nov 9, 2013 23:44:37 GMT -5 Red Impact said:

I disagree with your list. Plenty of thirds are considered better than 2, good, and in some cases the best of the series.

Godfather 3

congratulations, you are the first and only person to ever say that

[Some Guy]

Nov 9, 2013 23:44:37 GMT -5 Red Impact said:

I disagree with your list. Plenty of thirds are considered better than 2, good, and in some cases the best of the series.

Alien3
Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome
Godfather 3

And that's more or less depends who you talk to, like I've heard how Iron Man 3 was the best of the series (or at least better than 2).

But as for the concept, making a trilogy is hard if you want to make them all self-contained. The first movie sets things up, the second is where you tell the real story you wanted to tell without being bogged down with an origin/intro, and the third is where you try to keep the audience interested if were successful in making 2 amazing. So you have heightened expectations and the fact that you told the real story you wanted in the second installment. Unless you planned and set up a trilogy, it's hard to follow that. Even if you did, it's difficult.

[Red Impact]

Nov 9, 2013 23:45:56 GMT -5 mcmahonfan85 said:

Nov 9, 2013 23:44:37 GMT -5 Red Impact said:

I disagree with your list. Plenty of thirds are considered better than 2, good, and in some cases the best of the series.

Godfather 3

congratulations, you are the first and only person to ever say that

Considering it was nominated for 7 Academy Awards, including best picture, I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person to say that it was a good movie.

[Some Guy]

Nov 9, 2013 23:52:41 GMT -5 Red Impact said:

Nov 9, 2013 23:45:56 GMT -5 mcmahonfan85 said:

congratulations, you are the first and only person to ever say that

Considering it was nominated for 7 Academy Awards, including best picture, I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person to say that it was a good movie.

It's not that it's bad, it's just that it's a massive step down from the first two. Same with Beyond Thunderdome and Alien 3.

[DiBiase is Good]

Toy Story 3 is as good as the first two (maybe even better).
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is the best of the series (with the possible exception of 8)

As has been said countless times, The Godfather Part III is not a bad film at all but as the first two are considered two of the greatest films ever, it seems bad. The Godfather is my favourite film ever (and Part II is also in my top 10) but I still like the third even if it doesn't come anywhere near my favourite films.

[Red Impact]

Nov 9, 2013 23:55:06 GMT -5 Some Guy said:

Nov 9, 2013 23:52:41 GMT -5 Red Impact said:

Considering it was nominated for 7 Academy Awards, including best picture, I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person to say that it was a good movie.

It's not that it's bad, it's just that it's a massive step down from the first two. Same with Beyond Thunderdome and Alien 3.

I didn't mean to say that they were all the best in the series, only that they were all either considered good, better than 2, or the best in the series. He said that those three he listed were the only third movies that were considered good, I was disputing that.

Alien 3 is the only one of those that was really panned, and I think history has been pretty kind to it. Beyond Thunderdome is widely praised, although it's place in the series shifts between best and worst. Godfather 3 was a terrific movie that's only failing is coming after two of the best movies of all time.

[Mochi Lone Wolf]

It might be that the first two movies a the trilogy created lofty standards that the third movie just couldn't meet.

[xCompackx]

I don't really know if it's a curse so much as movie studios just want more than the material really has to give. Spider-Man 3 could've been awesome if it had just been either Sandman or New Goblin. But because we've just gotta see all of Spider-Man, we get 3 villains in a 2 hour movie and it all just feels rushed. The Dark Knight Rises didn't even feel like it needed to be made. I know it was Nolan's take on Batman, but it really could've just been the two movies and had Batman stay as a vigilante. But we had to see Bane, Catwoman and all that. At least with Iron Man 3, it was leading up to Avengers 2.

[Deleted]

This far without mentioning Back to the Future: Part 3? It was a really solid film and easily worthy of its predecessors.

On the other side of the argument, no mention of TMNT 3? What a turd that was.

[StuntGranny®]

Nightmare on Elm Street 3 was good, in my opinion.

[chazraps]

There is no way to even suggest in jest that Iron Man 2 is better than Iron Man 3. Or that Alien 3 is better than Aliens. My goodness.

To somewhat say what Ice Demon was saying, I think when you have a third film, you aren't dealing with just a movie that connects to another movie, you're at the make-or-break point of a franchise. As a result, there's too many cooks in the kitchen and the film-maker is burdened with the responsibility to both 1) give movie-goers everything they liked about the first two films and 2) give them something brand new that they enjoyed just as much about those first two films as well.

I think Austin Powers in Goldmember is the shining example of how NOT to make a third film. From blowing its best ideas in the first ten minutes, to underbaking all the new characters to trotting out the same trademark sequences over and over to linking itself too much into dated reference in efforts to make this new installment seem fresh, it's a colossal misstep in absolutely every direction.

[Jiren]

Good part 3s
- Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of The Sith
- Nightmare on Elm street 3: Dream Warriors
- Friday the 13th Part III
- Back to the future III

Also Superman III is NOT the weakest, IV is by far

[wildojinx]

Nov 10, 2013 0:47:18 GMT -5 StuntGranny® said:

Nightmare on Elm Street 3 was good, in my opinion.

Thats actually my fav film in the series, so that is a notable exception, as are return of the jedi and toy story 3. I also like all the films i mentioned in my OP, but the fact remains that there were a LOT of critics and fans who were harsh on them.,

[Cela]

Nov 10, 2013 0:48:40 GMT -5 chazraps said:

There is no way to even suggest in jest that Iron Man 2 is better than Iron Man 3. Or that Alien 3 is better than Aliens. My goodness.

To somewhat say what Ice Demon was saying, I think when you have a third film, you aren't dealing with just a movie that connects to another movie, you're at the make-or-break point of a franchise. As a result, there's too many cooks in the kitchen and the film-maker is burdened with the responsibility to both 1) give movie-goers everything they liked about the first two films and 2) give them something brand new that they enjoyed just as much about those first two films as well.

I think Austin Powers in Goldmember is the shining example of how NOT to make a third film. From blowing its best ideas in the first ten minutes, to underbaking all the new characters to trotting out the same trademark sequences over and over to linking itself too much into dated reference in efforts to make this new installment seem fresh, it's a colossal misstep in absolutely every direction.

Iron Man 2 was an Iron Man movie. Iron Man 3 was a Shane Black movie with a terrible twist. The humor was good, but it was not a good flick.

[Jiren]

Nov 10, 2013 0:55:56 GMT -5 Cela said:

Nov 10, 2013 0:48:40 GMT -5 chazraps said:

There is no way to even suggest in jest that Iron Man 2 is better than Iron Man 3. Or that Alien 3 is better than Aliens. My goodness.

To somewhat say what Ice Demon was saying, I think when you have a third film, you aren't dealing with just a movie that connects to another movie, you're at the make-or-break point of a franchise. As a result, there's too many cooks in the kitchen and the film-maker is burdened with the responsibility to both 1) give movie-goers everything they liked about the first two films and 2) give them something brand new that they enjoyed just as much about those first two films as well.

I think Austin Powers in Goldmember is the shining example of how NOT to make a third film. From blowing its best ideas in the first ten minutes, to underbaking all the new characters to trotting out the same trademark sequences over and over to linking itself too much into dated reference in efforts to make this new installment seem fresh, it's a colossal misstep in absolutely every direction.

Iron Man 2 was an Iron Man movie. Iron Man 3 was a Shane Black movie with a terrible twist. The humor was good, but it was not a good flick.

I didn't think humour was good, Good God I hated IM3

[Deleted]

Basically, when you revisit any one idea for the third time, you're generally out of good ideas and are just looking to get paid.

Movies are stupid. There's SO many one off ideas that were incredible that got twoed, threed, foured, etc. simply because it turned a profit.

[chazraps]

Nov 10, 2013 0:55:56 GMT -5 Cela said:

Nov 10, 2013 0:48:40 GMT -5 chazraps said:

There is no way to even suggest in jest that Iron Man 2 is better than Iron Man 3. Or that Alien 3 is better than Aliens. My goodness.

To somewhat say what Ice Demon was saying, I think when you have a third film, you aren't dealing with just a movie that connects to another movie, you're at the make-or-break point of a franchise. As a result, there's too many cooks in the kitchen and the film-maker is burdened with the responsibility to both 1) give movie-goers everything they liked about the first two films and 2) give them something brand new that they enjoyed just as much about those first two films as well.

I think Austin Powers in Goldmember is the shining example of how NOT to make a third film. From blowing its best ideas in the first ten minutes, to underbaking all the new characters to trotting out the same trademark sequences over and over to linking itself too much into dated reference in efforts to make this new installment seem fresh, it's a colossal misstep in absolutely every direction.

Iron Man 2 was an Iron Man movie. Iron Man 3 was a Shane Black movie with a terrible twist. The humor was good, but it was not a good flick.

Iron Man 2 wasn't a movie. It was a visible gas.