Page 1 of 1
Films and the 'Rule of Three'
Posted:
Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:03 pmby Steeleye
Reading a few threads in the movie forum got me thinking. There are supposedly going to be three films in the "Transformers" series. Can anyone name me a third film in a franchise that is actually any good?
Worryingly the only one I can come up with is "Revenge of the Sith" being better than "Phantom Menace" and "Attack of the Clones". "Return of the Jedi" is the worst of the original Star Wars trilogy IMO. Heres a few more 3rd films that were noticeably inferior to their predecessors IMO:
"Alien 3" ("Aliens" is the best)
"Terminator 3" (2 is the best)
"Pirates of the Carribean" (1st is the best)
"Alien Vs Predator" (I'm counting it as the 3rd Predator movie) (1st is the best)
"Shrek 3" (1st)
"Spiderman 3" (2nd)
"X men 3" (2nd)
Oooh hang on, "Back to the Future 3" was pretty good.
"LOTR Return of the King" ("Two Towers" FTW)
I'm getting bored someone else pick this up please.
Re: Films and the 'Rule of Three'
Posted:
Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:34 amby Pyrostrata
The third Indiana Jones movie was FAR superior to the second one, but sucked compared to Raiders.
Only one I can think of.
Re: Films and the 'Rule of Three'
Posted:
Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:48 amby Jeysie
The Search for Spock is one of the few odd-numbered Trek movies that didn't totally suck.
Other than that, I'm having trouble thinking of many non-schlock movie series that even *made* it that far, let alone were good. Um. The third Matrix movie sucked, I know that...
If we look at books, we fare better there. The third Harry Potter book, Prisoner of Azkaban, is still the best in the series, IMHO. Xenocide is my favorite out of the Ender's Game saga, and Second Foundation is also my favorite out of the Foundation books.
Re: Films and the 'Rule of Three'
Posted:
Tue Jan 01, 2008 1:05 amby Defcon!
Army of darkness Baby!!! Third in the evil dead series with Bruce Campbell!! Shop smart shop s-mart baby!!!
Re: Films and the 'Rule of Three'
Posted:
Tue Jan 01, 2008 1:18 amby Jeysie
Gah, you're right! How could I have forgotten Army of Darkness?
Re: Films and the 'Rule of Three'
Posted:
Tue Jan 01, 2008 1:50 amby Defcon!
How about the Rocky series? The first one was a classic. The second one was good. The third was really good. The fourth was classic 80's with a Vince DiCola score that was worth it on it's own. The fifth though was horrid! And i have to say the final one i thought was really good. Any takers?
Re: Films and the 'Rule of Three'
Posted:
Tue Jan 01, 2008 3:23 amby Pyrostrata
Defcon! wrote:Army of darkness Baby!!! Third in the evil dead series with Bruce Campbell!! Shop smart shop s-mart baby!!!
*slaps forehead* good call! How could I have forgotten that one?
"This is my BOOMSTICK!!"
Re: Films and the 'Rule of Three'
Posted:
Tue Jan 01, 2008 5:00 amby Evil_the_Nub
The Naked Gun 33 & 1/3
Re: Films and the 'Rule of Three'
Posted:
Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:49 amby Defcon!
National Lampoons Christmas Vacation!!!!
Re: Films and the 'Rule of Three'
Posted:
Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:49 pmby Malikon
Friday the 13th Part 3 Introduced Jason and his iconic Hockey Mask
Re: Films and the 'Rule of Three'
Posted:
Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:25 amby Pyrostrata
Malikon wrote:Friday the 13th Part 3 Introduced Jason and his iconic Hockey Mask
Yeah, but in that series, they have all sucked! Even the first one was flushable!
Re: Films and the 'Rule of Three'
Posted:
Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:43 amby Tammuz
once upon a time in mexico.
the reason the third film usually sucks is that it's either a 3rd itteration of the same story(terminator), a completely new story(AVP) or it's the 3rd act(LOTR); in the former, the 3rd telling of the story, MOST of the characters have already been introduced, so the first act is short and any new characters are liable to be plot devices or ancillaries making the 2nd act rather predicatable) and the entire fil rather boring. if it's something completely new then it battling against a change in audience demographic,if you like the first, and second, you might not like the third (GEEWUN!), and conversely if you didn't like ,or see,the first 2 you might right of the third totally without viewing it. if the film is a third act, then compared to it's two prequels (the second in particular) it's not going to be as dark or as novel or have anywhere as near the suspense (1st act;introduce characters, 2nd act; put them in a a crisis, 3rd act they get out)
Re: Films and the 'Rule of Three'
Posted:
Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:38 amby Insurgent
Pyrostrata wrote:The third Indiana Jones movie was FAR superior to the second one, but sucked compared to Raiders.
Only one I can think of.
Really? I would say Last Crusade was the best of the three.
Back to the Future 3 was much better than 2, but not quite as good as 1.
Re: Films and the 'Rule of Three'
Posted:
Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:32 amby Moonbase2
I liked Spiderman 3....they called it emo, but he should've been wearing the eyeliner in the second...
Back to the Future 3 is WAY better than the second, and a notch below the first.
Jurassic Park 3 was poo but still better than the second...kinda.
The Last Crusade I like better than Raiders but FAR FAR FAR less than Temple of Doom. I don't care what people say, that movie is one of the best ever.
But I guess I can't think of a movie where the third is the best. Thing is, by then it's not exactly novel and original anymore.
Oh, and at least AVP was better than Predator 2. BLEH!