logo Sign In

Is Part 3 of Anything Ever Good? — Page 2

Author
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

Frankly, I don't think Superman III is any worse than the first two. All the Chris Reeve movies are corny and poorly written, IMO, especially the first one which has one of the stupidest, most illogical endings I've ever seen in a film.

And, again IMO, Margot Kidder's Lois Lane sucked. Lana in III has her beat as a good love interest.

 I'm not sure you're allowed to say this. (even though I might agree)

Author
Time

CP3S said:

xhonzi said:


Half Life 2: Episode 3

SCREW YOU, XHONZI!!!!

Oh! Erm... you see I...  Well, I meant to say that it's disappointing that it's, er... not out yet.

Spoiler:



Yeah, dat's da ticket!

And, uh, I kind of liked the third Anne of Green Gables movie... (for my sister)

 ;)

IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!

"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005

"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM

"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.

Rewrite the Prequels!

 

Author
Time

xhonzi said:

LexX said:

I have to disagree a little.

Well, then.  I'll have to disagree A LOT! :)

POTC 2 was way worse than 3. It was just boring right from the start. The worst of all POTC films. Third one may have made less sense but at least there was something new and it didn't revolve around Depp that much since his character has always worked better in the backround in POTC films.

Wrong!  Actually, it sounds like it comes down to taste.  In this instance, and the several following...  I'm on the verge of rewatching the PotC trilogy, but right now I think I think PotC2 is right up there with the 1st.  Moody, focused (complex, but consistent), expectation upsetting, funny, adventuresome, charming, etc.  The third one, in my opinion and I would guess also in common opinion, was an unfocused mess that just didn't work or make sense.  It also brought in too many new elements that were poorly handled.  Calypso?  Insanse Jack?  Davy Jones can be on land as long as his feet are wet?  A wedding in the midst of a ship battle circling the drain?  Really?

I also like BTTF III, because it's all fun and cool like a modern western. In my opinion it's better than II although I like them all because of different reasons. All of them have things I don't like, too. Hard to put them in any order, to me it's like a one big movie.

It's possible I haven't seen BTTF III since theatres.  I just remember being very disappointed by it.  Instead of having the thought provoking elements from the first two- about time travel, yes, but more importantly about how our parents and our kids would be at our same age...  Instead of exploring the complexities of time travel... it was more, I think, an excuse to let the primary cast do a western.  Which was what MJF had been wanting to do.

However, their scores on imdb are close (2=7.5 3=7.1) so maybe it was just me.

Matrix Reloaded is one of the worst films I've seen. Third one may not make any more sense but still, at least you can watch it through somehow.

Now these I have just recently watched.  I've always been a fan of all 3.  I know there are a lot of bad bits in them, and I know I've given those bad bits a pass whereas I wasn't willing to overlook the bad bits in the prequels...  But watching them recently was like watching them with fresh eyes.  And the one thought I had after watching Reloaded was: Why doesn't everybody love this movie?!?!?  Yes, the rave/sex scene is long and dumb.  I skipped that part, actually.  But everything else?  A very good movie in my opinion.  Revolutions- I still like it, but I think it needs a lot more good will to give it a pass.  The new Oracle is a fundamental problem, the action scene in the club is a little tired, the freaks in the club are disturbing, the "bring me the eyes of the Oracle" part is brought up and then completely dimissed, the Train section is weird, the "Love is a Word, Neil" part is pretentious, etc.  The tunnel scenes, battle scenes in Zion are really good, except for the kid=I believe, Neo! parts.  Neo and Trinity go to 01 is decent.  The Neo vs Smith battle seems to be a little off in places, but has some good stuff to it.  The rainbow finale is bizarre.  As I said, I still like the movie... it's just incredibly uneven to me.

(IMDB: 2=7.1 3=6.5)

I've always kinda liked Batman Forever, maybe it's just nostalgic for me. Of course it's more a kiddie film but still. I don't like Batman Returns that much so Forever is more fun to watch. The first one is the best of these 4.

Edit: forgot Indy. I'm one of those people who don't like TOD at all so TLC is better.

A lot of this just comes down to personal preference.  Therefore I wouldn't have listed the examples if I thought I could have asked the question without offering them.

But do you agree generally?  Is there something about Part 3's that's often more broken that Part 2?

Maybe I should have asked it this way:

What trilogies (quadrilogies) have satisfactory endings?

POTC 2 is almost an hour too long. The whole island thing doesn't relate to anything and it's very boring and takes a huge amount of time. I don't know what they we're thinking. I've seen it a couple of times and decided not to watch it that often anymore. I agree on all your points on POTC 3 but still it's watchable to me.

Almost the same goes for Matrix films. Reloaded is way too long, it drags so much. All the nonsense about speaking a whole lot and saying nothing. And that comic pilot is just awful. Revolutions is bad too, but it has more happening so you don't get as bored. Neither of them are good movies IMHO, only like the first one a little.

Not sure if I agree even on general level. I think sequels are usually worse than the first one, hard to think a third part that's better than the first. Indy maybe, in my opinion, never liked Raiders that much, either. How about this: is there a fourth movie that's any good? Now that I agree on.

And in the time of greatest despair, there shall come a savior, and he shall be known as the Son of the Suns.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

LexX said:


...hard to think a third part that's better than the first. Indy maybe, in my opinion, never liked Raiders that much, either.

Suddenly I'm pleased that you are ignoring me.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Well back to the Future III was pretty bad but not as bad as part II.

Rambo III sucked.

Rocky III was okay but not great.

Ghostbusters II was an abomination.

Pirates of the Caribbean III was a piece of garbage.

Return of the Jedi i like so i would not include it in the list but it does have some disappointing moments, it is very uneven kind of like Last Crusade.

To me the last really exceptional Lucasfilms were Raiders and Empire, though i will admit i like star wars '77 better as an action adventure feel good yarn, and empire as a character piece, that is quite depressing actually unless you are an imperial fan.

Superman II is crap unless its following the serious style of part one, as the unfinished Donner version did.

Superman III,  was bad because it was a joke film in the style of Lester's other films.

Another reason it was more a Richard Pryor film than a superman film.

And i do like Pryor and he had some funny moments in the film, but i found it inappropriate to the universe as created in part 1.

Part IV was just an embarrassment in terms of the plot the special effects and acting.

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time

skyjedi2005 said:

And i do like Pryor and he had some funny moments in the film, but i found it inappropriate to the universe as created in part 1.

*cough*Otis*cough*

Author
Time

The rapture?

admittedly the first 2 were kinda rubbish [Sept. 6, 1994 and May 21, 2011]

mabe they'll get it right on the 3rd go [oct. 21, 2011]

 

Author
Time

Johnny Ringo said:

The rapture?

admittedly the first 2 were kinda rubbish [Sept. 6, 1994 and May 21, 2011]

mabe they'll get it right on the 3rd go [oct. 21, 2011]

 

It probably won't be. Afterall, God has to keep rescheduling just to prove a point...

<span style=“font-weight: bold;”>The Most Handsomest Guy on OT.com</span>

Author
Time

I guess last crusade was okay, pirates 3 seriously needed some subtitles to make more sense, the matrix revolutions proves we should have taken the blue pill and ignored the Wachowskis, I have never seen Superman III and think the whole superman franchise is hokey, I didn't really like back to the future III, and jedi is relatively good when it comes to threequels. I'm surprised no has mentioned Revenge of the Sith, maybe because it's the PT. And I'm sure transformers: dark of the moon will be tossed around after that comes out, but the last two were typical Bay films: overstylized, noisy garbage.

Thinking on a philosophical point, maybe the reason third installments suck is that the universe is binary (one view and its opposite view), and no human being can conceptualize a third view, so we have to rehash or go off the deep end to in the third installment of a franchise.

Author
Time

generalfrevious said:

I'm surprised no has mentioned Revenge of the Sith, maybe because it's the PT.

That's because it's #6.

 

And I'm sure transformers: dark of the moon will be tossed around after that comes out, but the last two were typical Bay films: overstylized, noisy garbage.

All three of those robot-porn movies are equally crappy.

Star Wars Episode XXX: Erica Strikes Back

         Davnes007 LogoCanadian Flag

          If you want Nice, go to France

Author
Time

A Nightmare on Elm street 3: Dream Warriors was ok-ish, far better than 2.

But then the whole series turned to shit...

 

BloodnoseThePirate said:

skyjedi2005 said:

Return of the Jedi i like

Its a miracle!

 

haha!

http://www.facebook.com/DirtyWookie

Author
Time

generalfrevious said:

Thinking on a philosophical point, maybe the reason third installments suck is that the universe is binary (one view and its opposite view), and no human being can conceptualize a third view, so we have to rehash or go off the deep end to in the third installment of a franchise.

I think this is part of it.  If in part one you consider one angle, and in part 2 you explore its opposite...  what's really left?

I would like to also reiterate my philosophy from post #1-  The worse #2 is, the better chance #3 has at being good.  Generally (but not always) the rule of sequels is they get worse as they go on, but sometimes they hit the bottom and bounce back.  See Episodes 2 & 3 of the Prequels (yes, I first didn't mention it because #1 it is part 6 and #2 I like to pretend it doesn't exist).

See also Star Trek 2,3,4.  After letting someone other than Nicholas Meyer make 3, they learned their lesson and let him return for #4.  (Then they forgot it for #5 and remembered again for #6)

To be self-referential (again), http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Act-Breaks/post/433382/#TopicPost433382 this thread.  The whole thread (minus the usual fluff) but especially from that post and the next several and most of them through until the end.  Looking at trilogies as macro examples of the three act structure.  Especially comparing Return of the Jedi to Pirates of the Caribbean 3.  While we found easily recognizable three act structure in parts one and two of the trilogies, there was a slight issue with the third parts. 

In the terms of RotJ, we found no internal structure to the third part and only found resolution of the macro structure, and resolution of unresolved character issues from parts 1 & 2.  A small portion of RotJ (the first third) seems to have its own mini act structure.  Then the rest of the playtime is devoted to the bigger story.  We wondered whether this was a cause of Return of the Jedi's apparent weakness?  Or a source of its strength?

PotC3 was both similar and different.  The first part (roughly a third?) was devoted to its own "rescue the hero who was captured at the end of part 2" bit.  But then the rest of it, instead of really giving over to resolving the macro problem, seemed to introduce a lot of new elements (the pirate counsel, the sea-witch, whatever else I've purged from my mind). 

Comparing this "introducing new content" to RotJ's "resolving old content" is interesting.  I find both movies to be disappointing sequels, but I'm generally pretty happy with RotJ as it wraps up the macro storyline (despite its inclusion on the "known duds" list above) and find PotC3 to be all but unwatchable.  That being said...  Appealing to just these two examples, one can not make a conclusive statement as to whether having its own TAS (PotC3) or simply serving the resolution of the Macro TAS makes for a better finale to a trilogy...  But I'm leaning toward this thought:

Not having a rigid three act structure in the third part of the trilogy is a risky business.  In the first place, it creates a flexibility and a lack of competing content which allows the movie (or whatever) to resolve the unresolved from the previous parts, and to make good on the unmadegood promises of the previous parts.  Cramming all sorts of new content in there iprevents the movie from doing that.  However!  (This is an important "however")  It also means that you need to have enough stuff to properly fill out your two hours (or whatever).  It's like walking the tightrope without a net.  It's great when it works- it's disasterous when it doesn't.  So, when you're making the grand third part to your trilogy, you have to either play it "safe/mediocre" and make a film that can't be fulfilling... or play it dangerous and make a film that can exceed expectations... or completely fall flat.  Whether is succedes or fails depends on a lot of factors, including the intrinsic interest in your unresolved story and character threads... and on your competency as artists to work without a net.

IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!

"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005

"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM

"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.

Rewrite the Prequels!

 

Author
Time

While Parts 1 and 2 weren't up to much, Part 3 of BS 5400 was widely considered to be the world's most comprehensive code of practice for the design of steel bridges.

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time

xhonzi said:

See also Star Trek 2,3,4.  After letting someone other than Nicholas Meyer make 3, they learned their lesson and let him return for #4.  (Then they forgot it for #5 and remembered again for #6)

The directors of the first six Star Trek films were, in order: Robert Wise (TMP), Nicholas Meyer (TWOK), Leonard Nimoy (TSFS and TVH), William Shatner (TFF), and Meyer again (TUC). (Meyer did have a hand in the TVH screenplay, though.)

The Nightmare on Elm Street films (in reply to another message) did pretty much devolve into camp right around the third film, turning Freddy from a truly scary villain into a wisecracking practical joker (that just happened to kill people). The only other film in the series (besides the first) that was worth anything was, in my opinion, New Nightmare.

There are 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary, and those who do not.
Author
Time

Season three of Lost was absolutely horrible. Does that apply?

I thought seasons one and two, for the most part aside from some bad filler episodes, were pretty great. Season four was a step in the right direction, season five was unbelievably good, and season six was just painful. 

If you divide it into two trilogies of seasons, every third season was pants.

 

Author
Time

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/10/r18078971270085489.jpg

However, in practice you must take into account the “fuckwit factor”. Just talk to Darth Mallwalker…
-Moth3r

Author
Time

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/9333/r17751251248444277.jpg

Jesus is just alright -- He makes Holy Ghost seem that much better!

However, in practice you must take into account the “fuckwit factor”. Just talk to Darth Mallwalker…
-Moth3r

Author
Time

CP3S said:

Season three of Lost was absolutely horrible. Does that apply?

I thought seasons one and two, for the most part aside from some bad filler episodes, were pretty great. Season four was a step in the right direction, season five was unbelievably good, and season six was just painful. 

If you divide it into two trilogies of seasons, every third season was pants.

 

I think Lost is worth watching just for season five. It has some of the best TV I have ever seen. Five was the season I was waiting for. I don't even really care about season six because five was so good.

Police Academy 3 was where they started getting really bad wasn't it? Although Bobcat was better as a cop. I think 4 was where they weren't even good enough to get Steve Guttenburg anymore.

Author
Time

Return of the Jedi's problem besides the added kiddie content like Ewoks and other things put in to sell action figures and vehicles, was that Lucas compressed 4 movies into one.

The original context of Luke's journey would have taken 6 films to tell.  Add on the prequel trilogy and you get 9 films.  I suppose the sequel trilogy other than having Luke as very old in the first episode would have been completely different from the saga of 9 films, just still set in the same galaxy or universe.

The sequel trilogy makes it 12 films.  Also at one point Lucas also considered 2 other unrelated films, which would make 14.

Now we know Lucas only made the six and claims it was always darth vader's story,lol.

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time

zxhonzi said:

Half Life 2: Episode 3