The "rule" of two.

[Azrael]

Consider this.

Burton did two Batman movies, with the sequel accepted as being equal, for some, even better. Due to studio interference a different director came in and the movies went to hell, the trilogy never came full circle.

Raimi did the same with Spider-Man, a great first film, a second one which was hailed as even better than the first and then, due to studio interference, a very messed up third movie with too much going on that is generally accepted as an uneven (at best) movie. The trilogy came full circle, but with a limp and some cringe-inducing moments.

The same could be said about Singer's X-Men, similar to Spider-Man's case but with a different director for the third, "limp", one.

The Terminator might not seem a very good example because of the 12-year gap and Cameron's total lack of involvement, but it's still a case of an (arguably) better second film, and a downgrading for the third one.

Godfather 3? Alien 3? Star Wars: Return of the Jedi? All had sequels equal or even better, and a limp third film.

Yeah, these thoughts are not real arguments and every case is a different one, but it's as if the third movie is destined to "suck" in some way, or be uneven, at best.

Do you think that Nolan can "pull an Indy"? Indy and the Last Crusade is the only great third film in a series I remember right now, but it came after a messed-up second film it could only improve upon by going back to basics, not to mention it had Sean Connery in it.

Let's not even start with fourth movies

[Dark Knight Detective]

I think that Return of the Jedi is probably the greatest third film in a trilogy I've ever seen. But yeah, I do agree w/ you about the third film meaning that it's the end of a series. Just look at Superman 3. It had absolutely no potential. Once you see Richard Pryor in a superhero film, you'll know that it will BOMB!

I even think that a second film could ruin a series or put it in development hell. Mortal Kombat: Annihilation bombed at the box office big time back in 1997 (like another movie we all know). But I believe it's b/c of the fact that there was a new director in charge, almost a completely new cast & to top it off, a horrible script that really didn't follow the plot of Mortal Kombat 3. There were too many characters to develop. Everything just felt rushed. Things like that can also ruin film franchises.

[Joker81]

Smokey and the Bandit 3 was far better than the first two, Tom Selleck was amazing in that film, he deserved an oscar!!

[DocLathropBrown]

I completely disagree. Loved Spider-Man 3, and thought Temple of Doom was better than Last Crusade. Truthfully, I thought Kingdom of the Crystal Skull blew LC right out of the water.

But no, I don't think that Nolan's third will be successful. It will be another Spider-Man 3-style reaction. There'll be a huge amount of Nolanites who try to deny it, but face it. The Joker, especially as done by Heath Ledger, just cannot be topped. What Batman villain can you have that's bigger and badder than the Joker? Any film after TDK will just feel like a let-down.

Doesn't mean it will be a bad film, but it means that it will be remembered and treated as a "disappointment," like Daredevil, Elektra, The Fantastic Fours, Spider-Man 3, Batman Forever, Superman Returns and Hulk. ALL of which I'm open-minded enough to love, mind you.

These films, like Nolan's third-to-be, can only be appreciated by those open-minded enough to see what the director saw in it. This is the only way that following the Joker in B89, BR is so good. Are Catwoman and the Penguin better villains than the Joker? Hell no. But is the film just as good? Yes, because we all see the depth that Burton was trying to go for. The same goes for any of the "hated" films I listed above. Some of them do have their problems (SR chief among them), but there's plenty to love in ALL of them, but the narrow-minded just write them off. And a third installment? People are conditioned to be disappointed with them, it's a common superstition that is self-fulfilling.

That's why I wasn't let down by the third Spidey film, because I "got" what Raimi wanted me to. I didn't go into it looking for what the haters were saying about it, like most everyone did (even if they didn't think they were trying to).

[Dark Knight Detective]

Superman Returns wasn't that bad, but it didn't feel like anything was fresh to me (other than for certain things like Lois & Cyclops as a couple LOL). I read about the reboot. I think it just sounds moronic. What do you think DocLathropBrown?

[DocLathropBrown]

Agreed.

I hate restarts, mostly because they do as Batman Begins did and devide the fanbase. I mean, I can understand reboots ofm comic book movie franchises under certain circumstances. If there's been like 20 years since the last installment, I'd say it's okay to restart. If 2006 had a Superman reboot rather than SR, I wouldn't have been too broken up, as a whole generation went without a Superman film (my generation). But I applaud SR for being so ballsy, but then I'm a tad disappointed that it dropped half the ball. And Bryan Singer was right, why bother remaking the original? You can't do it better than Donner did, and I appreciated that it was in the same continuity (albeit with a time-period shift). Where Singer dropped the ball continuity-wise by only including certain parts of Lester's Superman II, when it should have had it ALL in continuity, or none of II at all.

But I think comic book movie restarts, only a few years after the previous installment, is cheap and cowardly. Take it like a man and do something interesting with what you're given. I would have prefurred a Batman 5 that fixed all of the Schumacher problems than a new continuity (Nolan's) that now has to strive to change what already worked in the first place.

I don't think Superman should be restarted. Not at all. Just get Geoff Johns to script and consult with Singer (to keep him in line), and do something interesting with the kid. If you have the kid get kidnapped by Darkseid, you can bet your ASS that that could be some powerful stuff if Clark has to battle his own son, turned against him by Darkseid in the next film.

They could go anywhere, but no, movie studios are afraid of being ballsy with these movies, not like they are about regular films. WB should bite the bullet and give Singer another chance. It's not like the guy is incapable of learning. But more than WB, I hate the people who are vehemently anti-Singer (thecolorsblend aside), deciding to just cast aside any chance that Singer has a brain and can understand criticism. Likewise, I hated that they restarted the Hulk series, when really, with a few exceptions, it's the same kind of film we'd have gotten from a sequel to the 2003 movie anyway. There was no point.

In order to please fanboy bitching, they just give up and restart these days. That didn't happen with the original Superman franchise. III sucked, but what did IV do? It didn't restart continuity. There was no need to mention anything from III. So don't. Problem solved. Theater-goers generally don't care about how the previous film's mistakes matter. They mostly care about what's up with the film they're watching right at the moment.

People felt BR was a mis-fire. BF swept BR's "errors" under the rug without restarting, and look how successful that was? Hugely successful.

Only internet fanboys care about a previous film "tainting" continuity. General audiences don't give a damn.

[Azrael]

When talking about "good" or "bad" sequels I mostly referred to the general critical reception and the consensus surrounding these films, not my personal views. Personally, I find nothing wrong with Alien 3, Star Wars Jedi or even X-Men 3, and Batman Forever indeed saved (commercially) the franchise despite (or maybe because of) being a movie that destroyed everything Burton tried to do, but this doesn't change the fact that all of these films are somehow "tainted" and considered as "lesser" entries. Sub-par.

Same thing with Indy 2, people like it and it's certainly not a bad film in a strict sense, but it was (and still would be) something of a misguided black sheep if Indy 4 never came out or had a chance of being a good film.

I wonder if Batman Mk. II Part 3 will turn out to have a similar fate, especially after TDK's massively overhyped reception.

[Dark Knight Detective]

BR, IMO, was the subject of hate for a lot of those soccer mommies back in 1992.

Critically, from what I've read, it was better than BATMAN. With Returns, I think Burton brought what a graphic novel film adaptation should be like. In fact, TDK would be nothing w/o BR. It would've been bashed by soccer mommies in the same manner.

[batass4880]

How come Returns was criticized for being very dark and violent when the first movie was just as (if not more) dark, violent and VERY disturbing? Why was there no backlash against '89 or the new ones?

[DocLathropBrown]

First film: most of the darkness came from Nicholson, who also came off as "funny" to disguise the darkness.

New films: times have changed and things are overall more "liberal."