re: Let's discuss the third movie curse in trilogies

Well Batman is barely in Returns...for starters. And secondly, the film is driven entirely by the villains. Batman is a supporting player in what should be his own movie. Instead, however, Burton focuses on the freaks (a trademark of his), thus making it a Burton movie.

Batman Forever, for all its flaws, still made Bruce Wayne/Batman its primary focus.

quote:

---

another bad one:

Hunger Games 3

---

The first one would have to be good for this to qualify. I'll grant you the second one though; that one was a good flick.

quote:

---

They frick up a perfect trilogy though, so I think that still qualifies.

---

I would disagree. There's a lot of us that love ROTJ. TDKR has also gotten better with age, IMO. The more I watch it, the more I enjoy it now. Hardy's Bane is an awesome villain.

Toy Story 3 might have been the best in the trilogy which is rare.

quote:

---

Dark Knight Rises

---

quote:

---

very good movie

---

No dude

Ahh, I gotcha. I agree with that. I think the prequels have skewed my opinions of the originals. I probably used to think of ROTJ less favorably, but it Phantom Menace made it look like Citizen Kane.

One of the mistakes that people make with third movies is that "more is more." You see this with Iron Man 3, Pirates at World's End, and X-Men 3.

The scope becomes too big. Why have one Iron Man, when you can have all the suits in action? Why have one Pirate leader, when you can have them all? Why have just one X-Men team when you can bring in the whole world of mutants?

No, no, no.

One of the reasons why the Good, the Bad and the Ugly and Toy Story 3 succeed is that they stick to the central message of the movies. The "core" is preserved. Toy Story focuses on the bond between the main characters and their owner. The Man with No Name trilogy succeeds because its core is suspense. It buys into mysterious characters in a big way, and maintains that mystery. You really don't know what they will do next.

You don't need a third movie "showdown to end all showdowns" to make the audience believe their investment in characters was worth the trouble. What's more important is the character journey, not what "happens."

quote:

---

Why have one Pirate leader, when you can have them all?

---

I thought At World's End was a good concept, just extremely poorly executed.

quote:

---

Considering Terminator and T2 are in my top 10 favorite movies of all time, I have to say that T3 definitely belongs in mentions of god awful 3rd movies.

As does X:Men Apocalypse if you consider it, First Class and Days of Future Past as its own trilogy.

---

I like T3. The action scenes in it are physical and brutal -- no CGI horse shite there. And appreciate the fact that they had the balls to put in such a downer ending. It just had the misfortune of following two of the best sci-fi action movies of all time.

XMen Apocalypse was a giant steaming turd. It may be worse than XMen 3.

And if you want to count the Hugh Jackman solo Wolverine movies as a trilogy, Logan is head and shoulders above the rest. (Admittedly, I only watched half of Origins and never bothered with the second one.)