The Rule of "3" : Why some 3rd Sequels Blow

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Ahh the art of sequels. A situation that back in the 1970s no one imagined sequels taking off as they did. A famous story is Paramount Pictures approved the sequel but didn't want to place a "part 2" number there. Because it had never been done and they worried how people would react.

Francis Ford Coppola convinced them to do this. Opening the gates of sequels with numbers attached. Soon we'd get parts 3 , 4....5 and more from films.

But then usually a weird thing would affect some films in a 3rd film. A reason I'm explaining it is this.....




The 1st 2 , Clerks films are classics. With the growing up of 2 men who in the 1st film are in their early 20s and by the 2nd are in their 30s. Both films are drastic different but work and the 2nd film is a good final touch to say good-bye for both. With them growing up u and running a business together.

Well the last number of years Kevin Smith wanted to return to Clerks and show them now as now early 50ish guys. Where would they be and how would they be now. Maybe it was best to not keep doing updates of films to show a Gen X crowd how were growing old now.

I saw clips and read the spoilers. Which I won't spoil here but its clear , you can't keep going home again. And really not after 16 years have passed where you make the characters have sad lives. Its like the ultimate kick in the nuts.

But Smith isn't the 1st guy to make a bad 3rd sequel. That trend has went on for a number of years and some films just have that happen.




Superman III is famous for just how bad it got and why it got bad. The Salkinds originally planned for Mr. Mxyzptlk and had Dudley Moore in mind for the imp from the 5th dimension. But the budget and the fact they saw Richard Pryor discuss Superman on Johnny Carson changed it all.

At the time Pryor was one of the biggest stars and his comedies were fun to watch. So they cast him and soon the film became....a mess. With a more silver age type aspect attached with how Superman is effected by a new modified kryptonite.

The 3rd sequel is where its said things began to really go bad for the Superman franchise in 1980s.





Its not just action films or comedies that suffer from this curse. Dramatic films like Godfather III suffered this fate after so many years and so do horror films.

The Halloween films in recent memory was a prime example of this curse. The last film ended with a wacky over board ending in a lot of ways to up the murder toll for Michael Myers. So the 3rd film was gonna likely top it.

Instead well....we saw what we got and what we received was not so good.

In all the 3rd sequel curse seems to hit some of these films. Others can escape it at times. Other film series seem able to avoid the "3rd part" deal.

[James Cameron]

I thought Clerks III was pretty decent

[krazijoe]

I thought Clerks III was pretty decent

Clerks 3 was better than Clerks 2 in my opinion.

[ChrisIII]

Return of the Jedi used to have a reputation as the "Bad" Star Wars film before the prequels came around.


Alien 3 as well although it sort of has some new appreciation given the production problems and an early example of David Fincher's work, also being more well done than what followed, much like to a degree ROTJ does. The concept of the Alien "inheriting" traits of it's hosts is kind of a cool concept that some of the sequels/prequels/spin-offs and the 90's action figure line built on.

Still curious what would've happened had Copolla had gone with the Michael Corleone vs. Tom Hagen war that was originally planned for III (and was kind of slowly being set up in the first two), but was dropped when Duvall wanted too much money, so Hagen died offscreen and Hagen's son has a minor role.

Instead we got the kind of confusing Vatican storyline (although based on true events).

Sometimes the "Threequel" can be the better film after the first sequel isn't so great. Back to the Future III (although filmed at the same time as II) is said to have the 'heart' (with Doc and Marty's moral dillemas) that the gimmicky and fast-paced second film kind of lacked. Last Crusade was very much a "course correction" for Indiana Jones after Temple of Doom's controversies.

[Godzilla2099]

If Batman Forever counts, that has my vote.

[Kirby101]

I think I need to see a list. ROTJ was not bad at all, maybe not as good as ESB, but that is an all time great sequel. Indiana Jones Last Crusade is the second best Raiders movie. Back to the Future III was fun. Spider-Man No Way Home was great. Thor Ragnarok much better than Dark World. Cap Civil War didn't suck in the least. Avengers 3 is Infinity War. I liked John Wick 3 more than 2. GotG 3 was wonderful.
I think sequels themselves are problematic. They have to make something worthy of a hit film, it doesn't always work. But are threequels really worse than sequels as a whole?

[Gaastra]

Toy story 3 was pretty good. Also agree last crusade was great. Harry potter 3 was the best in the series and most loved by most. Rocky 3 was pretty fun.

[Riv86672]

I thought Clerks III was pretty decent

^^^Totally agree.

[Captain Craig]

Maybe I'm interpreting things different or being overly pedantic so apologies.

Third sequel should by my take mean the Fourth entry in a franchise. The FIRST sequel is part two.
The thread title "Why some 3rd sequels Blow"

Third Sequels/Fourth Films in a Franchise for example:

• SW: Attack of the Clones
• Superman IV The Quest for Peace (this entry still works for the OP)
• Alien Resurrection
• Friday the 13th The Final Chapter
• Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Master
• Halloween 4 The Return of Michael Myers
• Die Hard With a Vengeance
• Star Trek IV The Voyage Home
• Rocky IV
• Jurassic World
• Batman and Robin
• Fast and Furious (actually saved and revitalized this franchise)
• Indiana Jones Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
• Thor Ragnarok

However I see when really talking about the stated topic it is about the THIRD overall entry into a franchise

[krazijoe]

Maybe I'm interpreting things different or being overly pedantic so apologies.

Third sequel should by my take mean the Fourth entry in a franchise. The FIRST sequel is part two.
The thread title "Why some 3rd sequels Blow"

Third Sequels/Fourth Films in a Franchise for example:

• SW: Attack of the Clones
• Superman IV The Quest for Peace (this entry still works for the OP)
• Alien Resurrection
• Friday the 13th The Final Chapter
• Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Master
• Halloween 4 The Return of Michael Myers
• Die Hard With a Vengeance
• Star Trek IV The Voyage Home
• Rocky IV
• Jurassic World
• Batman and Robin
• Fast and Furious (actually saved and revitalized this franchise)
• Indiana Jones Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
• Thor Ragnarok

However I see when really talking about the stated topic it is about the THIRD overall entry into a franchise

Taboo 4 was pretty good...

[AnthonyO'Brien]

What was THREE FROM HELL like? RZ said years he the Devil's rejects killed off coz he didnt want a crappy threequel . But then...

Thunderdome : Saw this at my hometown cinema in Australia back in 85. It was a watered down PG sequel and only made half as much here as Road Warrior (Mad max 2)

[Mister Mets]

I liked Halloween Ends more than Halloween Kills.

Although it may be an example of how third films are different.

Halloween Kills was a conventional sequel where the monster gets bigger and bolder.

Halloween Ends was more about his protege. The influence was the unusual sequel Curse of the Cat People.

Sometimes what happens is that the sequel is a film they want to make.

#3 is a cashgrab.

I think the rule of three is a bit messy because the series that a third film usually have a successful sequel. There's no third Saturday Night Fever film since Staying Alive did so poorly.

[Wildling]

John Wick sequels got better reception every time, going by their increasing box office.

The horror genre can be certainly infamous about pumping out sequels and sequels, but I also respect Halloween Ends for going a different route than Halloween Kills.

Friday the 13th and Nighmare on Elm Street can be more associated, or at least expanded, with their sequels rather than just the original vision.

Currently Terrifier became a cult phenomenon by going bolder with the newer movie so I'm curious how the new movie will turn out.

The third movie of the current iteration of Scream, now I suspect that will be a total dumpster fire, not because of the previous movies but studio decisions. If it's still going to be made at all, it will have to be majorly recast and I wouldn't be surprised if most everyone who made the previous two movies become hits will pass on it.

[Jackalope89]

The Mummy 3. The first two I loved, and still do. 3 was, well, lets just say I prefer Rock's Scorpion King as the third film in the franchise.

[Nods]

Yeah this isn't a thing.... just to keep in mind

1. Goldfinger
2. The Good the Bad and the Ugly
3. Clear and Present Danger
4. Captain American Civil War
5. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
6. A Nightmare on Elm Streetream Warriors
7. Lord of the Rings: Return of the King
8. Toy Story 3
9. The Exorcist III
10. Escape from the Planet of the Apes