-
Website
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/ -
Original page
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/10-lessons-from-failed-threequels.php -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
And, yes. Lost World is awful, but Jurassic Park 3 is far worse.
They were both dumb, somewhat entertaining movies. But Sam Neil was in the third. So I'm sold.
JP3 has a Spinosaurus that knows karate, a 12-year-old that can survive on his own for 3 weeks while dinosaurs are roaming around (but then is magically attacked a shit ton as soon as Grant shows up), and Ellie has the Marines on speed-dial.
Neill is the only reason to give a shit about JP3 (however, I do love that we're arguing which awful movie is better). And, what, no love for Ian Malcolm?
Life finds a way people!
They are both essentially the same movie, that shit out the intelligence of the first and just give us dinosaur/human chases. But since I didn't really care about the plot (since, as I've said, they're both ultimately about dinosaur chases) I prefer the serious Sam Neill approach to the somewhat campy second film. I like Malcolm, but he's no Grant. Though they both worked better when they were in the same movie.
I don't remember the Spinosaur karate, but didn't the 12 year old take shelter in a "Lost"-esque hatch?
I could have said that more eloquently but I didn't.
Lost World=No Neill<JP3<JP=Neill+Goldblum
And if you ask me, The Two Towers was the best... Just my opinion.
And to be honest I actually like "Godfather Part III" more than Part II, which many say is the best in the series.
I'd love to hear your arguments for The Godfather III being better than II. I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that. Especially since the stories are so radically different, although most critics boil down their distaste to Sophia Coppola's acting which seems a bit unfair.
Why do you like it better?
1. Batman forever wasn't good. I'm not sure it was as terrible as you make it, it had SOME moments. But it certainly was a drastic turn. It's biggest sin is this: It was successful enough that WB thought the answer was more of what they did, thus setting up the shit-down-your-throat terrible Batman Returns. I'd say the same is true for Superman. Superman III was a remarkable step down (it's worse than Batman Forever), but it allowed Superman IV to suck ass. You could continue this and write about four-quels. The only one that I wasn't terribly disappointed with was Die Hard.
2. Spider-Man 3 sucked because it had too many villains, but also because it was far too cheesy, but worst of all: With three villains, one of them an alien symbiote, what were the stakes? Mary-Jane. That's it. They didn't do anything, but go after Mary Jane. Now I'm fine if she somehow finds herself in trouble at the center of their dastardly plan, but there have to be higher stakes than her life. The fucking city was getting sucked in in the second one. Here, zilch.
3. Jurassic Park III was, I felt, better than the second. Though neither were stellar.
4. Ice Age 3D, The Final Destination 3D... You're right, it's not as gimmicky as it was, but still...
5. You mention BttF 3. I used to really not like that film, but since I've seen it again, I see that it IS a step back from the series, but it's not terrible.
6. I prefer The Two Towers of Return of the King. That could be an example of "dont stretch your ending forty minutes."
7. Pirates of the Caribbean went in the wrong direction with the second one, which was bad. But the third was slightly better.
8. Ewoks are bad, but I've long forgiven him for that. I'm now seething about episodes I and II.
Shrek 3, that was something I was hoping to see on this list as well. Shrek 3 was baaaaaddd.
There are two more lessons to be learned from JP3:
A: Do not let producers decide your story. Spinosaurus clearly came from someone at Universal asking "so... what's a bigger dinosaur than T-Rex?" just so they could promote the movie's "villain" as "bigger and badder than anything you've seen before" even though science largely suggests that Spinosaurus was more like a crocodile or grizzly bear, preferring to eat fish than to fight other large predators like it does with T-Rex in JP3.
B: Finish the script before you start shooting. Yes, they started shooting JP3 before the script was done -- always a hallmark of excellence.
I loved the rest of the article.
Someone asked about good threequels: the criteria would have to be defined, as far as Part 3's go. Does it count as long as it's just not the worst in the series? Does it have to be the best installment? What if it's a pretty good movie but just not as good as either of the first two (example: Return of the Jedi)?
Good/not-the-worst threequels, off the top of my head: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly (if you consider "The Man With No Name" trilogy to qualify as a standard trilogy), The Bourne Ultimatum, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, Revenge of the Sith, Return of the King, The Last Crusade, and Return of the Jedi. Die Hard with a Vengeance and Ocean's Thirteen would also receive some votes.
Alien 3 is an interesting example because it's a totally enjoyable movie on its own (though nowhere near as good as Alien or Aliens) but it is a really bad sequel, as it killed off so many prominent franchise characters and the rest of the movie dabbles in story inconsistencies (because of all the production troubles including, of course, production starting without a finished script).
if it didnt have that i would considered it an adequate wrap up of Micheal Corleone's story. i did enjoy his attempts at redemption, i thought it made sense. what i didnt like was the awkward cousin loving going on
First Film - establish characters and have an involved but safe plot to run through
Second Film - take established characters as far as you can through through more crazy and/or ridiculous circumstances, thusly ruining the setup of film one
Third Film - Realizing the 2nd film went to far, put characters in moderately crazy but familiar setting to restore balance because now you know how far you can go without going to far
This is true of the TMNT series and to some degree BTTF series and maybe even the Indiana Jones series, although only very slightly.
The films in this article's list obviously did not learn the lesson between the second and third films of the series.
Also, Fast and Furious 3 (Tokyo Drift) took place in Japan, but had entirely different characters than the first two films, making it more a violator of rule 10, except that it was a better movie than 2 Fast 2 Furious. On that note, 2F2F also took place in Miami, after the first movie took place in LA.
Despite being the 4th in a franchise, the latest Fast and Furious was a huge violator of rule 5.
I just saw filming this weekend in Washington Square Park for.... Step It Up 3D. After watching like 3 takes of one character popping bubbles by jabbing his fingers around towards the camera that they are stepping it up with the gimmicks.
Rush Hour 2 (2001)
Rush Hour 3 (2007)
There's some editing that needs to be done.
Rush Hour 3 came out nine years after the 1st, six years after the 2nd.
Jurassic Park 3 was the best in the series because it was free from the shackles of attempting to follow a novel. It was vastly better than the appalling sequel.
" ... three major villains ... despite throwing 300% more villains ..."
Oops! Two villains is 100% more, three villains is 200% more. Do the math!
Although, the thought of four villains ...
what is interesting is that the 3 sequels that do work are those that are part of a story designed to be 3 acts (or even more), like Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter etc. it is like the structure from designing a longer story told in smaller pieces keeps them from jumping all over. note that does NOT include the Matrix which was actually one very successful movie shoehorned into a 3 part one for the money. and that's a sequel and 3quel that were horrid