Comic book movies: Why is #3 always bad?

[Robert Maxwell]

First, pardon the generalization in the title. Third entries aren't always bad. This is just to get your attention. Read on.

I was watching some comic book movies over the weekend and it occurred to me that, in series that go on long enough for a third film, it tends to be a massive step down from what came before. I don't know that this is a failing of trilogies in general, but it sure seems to hit comic book films pretty hard.

Examples:

Superman III - Superman II was considered quite a worthy sequel, but reaction to Superman III was decidedly mixed and mostly negative.
Batman Forever - To this day, people are of mixed opinions on Batman Returns, but at the time it highly-regarded and made serious bank. However good or bad Batman Returns was, Batman Forever was just not up to that level. It made a lot of money--enough to get another film made--but seems to be where most people agree the series took a turn for the worse.
Blade Trinity - Not that Blade was ever high art, but the first two movies were entertaining and stylish. The third was just a shambled mess.
X-Men: The Last Stand - After (what I consider) a stellar second outing, we get the bloated mess that was The Last Stand. Ugh. There are some good parts here, but by and large it really fails to live up.
Spider-Man 3 - The second Spidey flick is usually considered around these parts to be the pinnacle of comic book films. By that token, maybe SM3 was destined to be a step down. It suffers many of the same problems as the third X-Men film, primarily a lack of focus--just way too much going on, too many characters moving around, etc.

There are some series that buck the trend. I recall most people think the third TMNT film was better than the second, but then they didn't have far to go to top that, right?

What do you guys think? It just seems to be a common trend for comic book films to have a decent first movie, a step up for a second one, and then a sudden crash and burn on the third.

 

[Electric Coleslaw]

In the case of Superman, they went for more camp...and Richard Pryor. But it did have the "bad" Superman and a pretty good fight between him and Clark so the movie wasn't a total loss.

When I first saw Spidey 3, I was underwhelmed but the more I watch it the better I like it. Although, you could say that you got your money's worth because it feels like you're watching 2 movies that were edited into one.

I don't know if there have been enough comic book movies made yet that had a 3rd part. But I would guess that by the 3rd movie, the original showrunners got burned out and were replaced by others who were too much controlled by studio executives who simply misunderstand what made the first 2 movies good.

You could almost add Return of the Jedi to this list. After the great Empire flick, Jedi was a big let down. Almost like it was done on the cheap.

 

[Mr Light]

I liked X-Men 3 and Spider-Man 3 but it is definitely a pattern.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

Batman Forever - To this day, people are of mixed opinions on Batman Returns, but at the time it highly-regarded and made serious bank. However good or bad Batman Returns was, Batman Forever was just not up to that level. It made a lot of money--enough to get another film made--but seems to be where most people agree the series took a turn for the worse.

The way I understood it Batman Returns made significantly less money than Batman ($266 mil to $411 mil worldwide), and this was a major part of the decision to hand the franchise to Schumacher. I was working at a movie theater when Returns came out, and trust me, opinions were very, VERY mixed when people exited at the end of that film, though many people felt compelled to express appreciation for it out of their loyalty to Tim Burton, who had mucho cool cache at the time. When it came out pretty much everyone liked Batman Forever (though considerable criticism was lavished on Jones' cackling Two-Face by hard core Batfans). Its reputation fell after Batman & Robin, because it was then seen as the turning point toward that movie, which apparently traumatized fanboys so severely that even now, 15 years and two good movies later, they still are driven to despise the director. So, I'm not sure Forever follows the threquel curse, except in retrospect.

 

[shivkala]

I think the key is in the second movie, since the first is usually the origin story, which boils down the key elements of the hero and distills them into an enjoyable movie.

The second movie faces the problem of having to stand on its own. Once the origin is told, now what? Where do we go from here? It seems the better super-hero movies finds a well liked storyline from the comics and adapts it to the screen. Superman vs. the Phantom Zone Criminals, "Spider-Man, No More!," etc. or else struggle to tell their own story. These are not literal retellings, mind you, but they do take elements of these recognizable and well-loved stories.

The third movie seems to want to strike out on its own. Often it represents a change in the writer and/or director. The third movie quite often seems to want to take things in a new direction. Of course, as I type this, I know that Spider-Man 3 defies most of these, which makes it even more interesting.

With the more modern super-hero movies, it also makes the mistake of trying to include too much. Too many villains muddy the waters. It always comes across that the first movie is the origin, the second retells a memorable story, and the third either avoids the elements of what made the first two movies enjoyable or on the other end, tries to include too much, without setting out to make it interesting on its own.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

What I find interesting about the X-Men series is that the first movie was, as you said, an "origin story," but it played fast and loose with the lore. X2 was basically an adaptation of "God Loves, Man Kills," which is one of the most well-regarded X-Men stories. The third film wasn't based on any specific X-Men story that I'm aware of, it just gathered up disparate elements sprinkled throughout the history of the X-universe and tried to weave a unique story out of them. Personally, I think a Dark Phoenix story could've been its own movie and didn't need to be mixed with the "mutant cure" story at all. (Note that I am not advocating a "Jean kills billions and dies on the Moon" kind of story, just a better exploration of the Dark Phoenix storyline in general.)

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

The comic book threequels have tended to be handed over to new directors who are either less talented than the original director or who are talented but a poor fit for the material (compounded by the fact that sometimes they're under orders to deliver a jokier, more toy-oriented sequel).

The Spider-Man series is the only comic book series where the original director made all three films, but even that didn't turn out well because it fell prey to the other bugbear of threequels, which is that the urge to top the previous films leads to a film overstuffed with plot and characters.

 

[Greg Cox]

Movie 1: Everyone works hard to get the series off to a strong start. If the stars are kind, everything comes together and you have a hit. Yay!

Movie 2: Everyone is jazzed from the success of the first film and determined to do even better this time. With the hard work of creating the universe and handling the origin over with, you can take the time to flesh out the story and characters. And you probably have a bigger budget to do all the things you couldn't afford the first time.

Movie 3: Creative exhaustion sets in. "You mean we have to do this again?" Key creative personnel start to defect or maybe just go through the motions. And, yeah, merchandising possibilities become more and more of a factor. "We need make the story more toyetic . . . ."

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I like your progression, Greg. It seems to make sense.

 

[Nick Ryder]

I did like Batman Forever - was a fun movie honestly. Maybe too light and too day glow neon for my tastes and you can really tell the difference between a gay director and a straight one... all that lead to nipples on the Batsuit and close ups of Batman and Robin's asses. Oh yeah and "Holey rusty metal Batman!"

 

[Dream]

Supeman III. They decided to go with campy superhero movies, instead of epics like the first two. They stupidly kicked out Donner and replaced him with Lester. Superman III is the result of this. Superman II was only good because the first and second movie was orginally written as one story which ended up being split into two movies, which was why Zod fit in so well.

Batman Forever. Warners went the wrong direction with the franchise. Modern viewers don't like campy. For some reason Warners forget about how the last two Superman movies went to hell the more funny they tried to be. I can't stand watching Batman Forever these days, knowing that this is what leads to the horrid Batman and Robin. Batman Returns is awesome and a flawed masterpiece. It's my favorite Batman movie alongside TDK.

Blade Trinty. I still haven't seen this.

X-Men: The Last Stand. They tried to do too much. The whole Phoenix plot was a massive disappointment.

Spider-Man 3. It had the same problem as the X-men 3. Too many villians. I also hated the dance scenes. Whoever thought that was a good idea needed to be punched in the face. The Venom storyline was badly done. Random rock falls next to Peter? The cartoon did a much better job with Venom, using a space shuttle and Jameson's son to introduce the symbiote, and it did the entire Venom saga in one hour! I wish they had copied the storyline from the cartoon, instead of going the three villains route.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Actually, I'd say it's the second and not the third that are mostly always bad. The sequels always tend to fall into the same traps of having too many villains which take away from the story. Superman II is one of those exceptions, as well as Ironman 2 and The Dark Knight. Once the second one is bad, it's hard to recover with a 3rd one and it just ends up sinking lower.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Nah, second films have a much better track record than third ones in comic book film series. In fact the second film is sometimes the best of the lot.

Here's hoping Christoper Nolan delivers the first great superhero threequel.

 

[Greg Cox]

Actually, I'd say it's the second and not the third that are mostly always bad. The sequels always tend to fall into the same traps of having too many villains which take away from the story. Superman II is one of those exceptions, as well as Ironman 2 and The Dark Knight. Once the second one is bad, it's hard to recover with a 3rd one and it just ends up sinking lower.

I'd add X2 and Spider-Man 2 to the list of good sequels. And maybe BLADE 2 as well . . . .

 

[Smiley]

There are a lot of first movies that did poorly, too. They just never got a second or third installment because they were so bad.

Count me among the crowd who likes Batman Forever.

 

[sojourner]

The escalation to multiple villains seems to play a big part as well.

 

[stj]

Two things are going on, I think.

In serials, the individual episodes do not stand on their own. By the third instalment, even a movie series is threatening to turn into a serial. Most ordinary sequels are poor because the first movie told the story. Afterthoughts are usually either trivial or undo the first story.

For comic book movies in particular, though, the nostalgia appeal is surfeited. Most comic book movies, let's face it, are pretty dreadful except for the nostalgia. When that starts wearing off, which it does by the third outing, then the stupidity of it all becomes more noticeable.

 

[EnsignRicky]

Because after two, you pretty much get it.

 

[Lord Garth]

#1. Sets up the status quo. Tests the inexperienced protagonist.

#2. Challenges the status quo. Tests the experienced protagonist.

#3. Unless it concludes the status quo, is just another movie. How much further can you take the protagonist in a way that's not redundant? Also, the best non-origin idea was already taken up by #2.

#4. After #3, #4 goes to extreme, outlandish, and exaggerated lengths to keep things interesting. Or starts to move so far away from #1, 2, and even 3 that it's unrecognizable.

A movie series that can get to #4 and not suck is a good one.

 

[HaplessCrewman]

I think Lord Garth may be on to something.

The only way a part three can be satisfying is to end the story - be a true third act.

I hope Nolan realizes this and ends the story of Batman in the third film. I mean, they're going to reboot him anyway, why not let Nolan create a finished story?