Just watched the blade trilogy and realised just how bad the third one is compared to the first two. Same with the x-men trilogy (x-men 3 isn't of the same calibre as the first two). Return of the Jedi could be seen in the same light (it is weak compared to Star Wars and Empire strikes back)
Anyway, my question. Does anyone think that if a trilogy is made, most often than not, the third and final film is by far the weakest of the three?
Give us your views
2006-10-06 23:15:41 · 21 answers · asked by Knight-wing 3 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
RE: Lord Z. Matrix is by far the best example to my question that is going. I felt the third film made less sense than any other trilogy ender in existence.
2006-10-06 23:53:39 · update #1
I have been thinking hard about this... and I am struggling to find a film that goes against the '3rd weak link'.
Matrix: The first one was awesome.... the last two were still good, but dissapointing. The seconds and third should have had more thought.
Lord Of the Rings: I really enjoyed the first one, mainly because the characters were all together. 2 and 3 was all over the place flicking from frodo to Gandolf made it hard to keep up and was only good at certain parts. To be honest I wished I never watched them now because it has ruined my visions of it after reading the book a few years before. Dont get me wrong as all 3 films were brilliantly made... I didnt enjoy the 3rd one compared to the other (first) two.
Star Wars: I still feel that the Return of the Jedi is actually really good. The fight scene between Vader and Luke was awesome. However, I feel those little E-Woks killed it. However, the Emipre Strikes Back was brilliantly made and it was going to be difficult to top that. (I believe Steven Spielberg did help with Emipre Strikes back but not Return of the Jedi).
However, if you refer to Episode 1, 2, and 3 as a trilogy.... the 3rd one was the best one.... but they were still disapointing compared to the original star wars (4, 5, and 6)
Terminator: My last example will be the Terminator. The first one was awesome, and when I heard of a second one I thought they were stupid. Terminator 2 is the best one surprisingly... THEN THEY KILL IT BY ADDING TEMINATOR 3!!!!
I am sure it is the same for Blade and X-Men... as I havent seen the last installment because I have a feeling their dissapointing. I will see them though when I can be bothered.
However, what about American Pie? The first two was good, and their last one (the Wedding) wasnt toooo bad either. It does seem a little rushed to a degree... but just as funny as the first two.
Some of these examples I have mentioned may not be classed as 'Trilogies'.... but what about if we include films like Batman or Superman? I guess the third films always end in dissapointment. It makes me wonder how Spiderman 3 will turn out, considering the trailers look good.
I just hope their aint a Toy Story 3 or a Shrek 3 in the future!!!
I'll end it there.... I guess there are more trilogies with a dissapointment last film than the better.... however....
What about Alien? What about Indiana Jones? What about Die Hard? The list goes on....
All the best!!
2006-10-07 06:15:29 · answer #1 · answered by The Avenger 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In some movie plots there is the need for a third and final movie to tie up lose ends, eg: Return Of The Jedi (balancing the light and the dark), Revenge Of The Sith (bringing the original trilogy together with the new trilogy) and Return Of The King (the end of the story).
But there are those where the third film has let them down, eg: Matrix Revolutions (the acting was bad and so was the plot), Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (bad graphics) and X-Men: The Last Stand (killing off main characters and leaving the door open for a fourth and probably not doing it).
So I think there are factors that only the viewer can determine weather or not the third film is a weak link in what possible could have been a good pairing.
2006-10-07 20:13:23 · answer #2 · answered by Jester 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
wait a minute.........
Blade 2 was rubbish, in fact the whole film was a rip off of Alien Resurrection and even included one of the same cast members, Blade 3 was a much better film.
X-men 3 was in the same league as the other two, my only gripe was it was too short.
As for Star Wars - the second trilogy also squashes your argument as how can anyone say that Revenge of the Sith was weak compared to the Phantom Menace.
However, I will agree that more often than not, some trilogy's do suffer when it comes to the final part, it does feel like they don't really know how to tie up all the loose endings, and the whole film seems rushed and disappointing, just look at Rocky 3, Robocop 3, Scream 3, Superman 3, Batman 3, just to name a few, although some of these are not trilogies these films did indeed feel weak compared to previous efforts.
2006-10-07 13:11:11 · answer #3 · answered by Dr Doom 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not so with Lord of the Rings or the Matrix.
The problem with the third movie is that it closes off all the loose ends that make the other movies interesting leaving only a few loose ends to make you wonder what it was all about. Most people find movie three a downer. they felt the same way about Harry Potter and that isn't even a trilogy. Perhaps it has as much to do with the audience's expectations as it does with the fact that all thing must come to an end. You can't satisfy everybody.
2006-10-07 06:23:33 · answer #4 · answered by LORD Z 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so. In my opinion, Return of the Jedi was a stronger movie than the Empire Strikes Back. I viewed the fifth movie as a filler, which I believe to be true with a lot of trilogies. For me, the 3rd movie of a trilogy is a usually well put together ending. Though I do agree with you about the Blade movies.
2006-10-07 15:40:45 · answer #5 · answered by Holly 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I totally agree. Look at The Terminator. The third one is horriable! And Back to the Future, why did they even make a third movie? The only trilogy I can think of that is good, is The Lord of The Kings.
2006-10-07 06:20:55 · answer #6 · answered by Chris 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It does seem to be so...though I think Back to the Future 3 was far better than 2. Return of the King to me was better than the Two Towers...granted they were books. And I have very high hopes for Spiderman 3. I believe that people are expecting trilogies now more than they used to so there may be better planning involved in the furture. But there are plenty of 3's that suck...should I even mention Godfather III.
2006-10-07 06:38:32 · answer #7 · answered by sonicbob 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Usually.
Most of time, people only watch them to find out what happens.
The only exceptions for me personally, were Return of the Jedi (which at the time was the third of the trilogy), and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (unless the much rumoured Indy 4 comes out).
2006-10-07 13:47:08 · answer #8 · answered by Andrew W 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think the third film is the weak link.I like the third film of Lord of the Rings, Back to the Future, Karate Kid, Star Wars, Indiana Jones.I can't think of any more off the top of my head but I know there are more.
2006-10-07 09:20:35 · answer #9 · answered by kas 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you. I think the main reason for it is the fact that films are so long, that they can only have so many ideas for it. If you make a film, you might have loads more ideas to put into it, so you can make a second, but quite often, there aren't enough ideas to make a third film, yet they still go ahead and do it anyway.
2006-10-07 06:19:28 · answer #10 · answered by Mike 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋