SydLexia.com Forum Index
"Stay awhile. Stay... FOREVER!"

  [Edit Profile]  [Search]  [Memberlist]  [Usergroups]  [FAQ]  [Register]
[Who's Online]  [Log in to check your private messages]  [Log in]
The third movie is usually the worst.


Reply to topic
Author Message
UsaSatsui
Title: The White Rabbit
Joined: May 25 2008
Location: Hiding
PostPosted: Nov 21 2010 10:37 am Reply with quote Back to top

Rydog wrote:
And The Neverending Story was a stand alone movie as far as I'm concerned.

Neverending Story 2 is actually the second half of the book that the first is based on.

The book sucks, from what I hear.

Also, sequels suck in general.
View user's profileSend private message
Izzy
Title: Mascot Gold
Joined: Jul 25 2009
Location: KC, KS
PostPosted: Nov 21 2010 12:34 pm Reply with quote Back to top

slapolakinkaido wrote:
Izzy wrote:
The neverending story 3

You mean it didn't go downhill at 2?


Oh, it did.
But 3 was much worse. The kid from Free Willy played Bastian.
Jack Black was in it, that's about all it had going for it. And even then...

And, as was mentioned, 2 was a continuation of the book. 3 just came out of someone's ass.



 
View user's profileSend private message
Izzy
Title: Mascot Gold
Joined: Jul 25 2009
Location: KC, KS
PostPosted: Nov 21 2010 12:40 pm Reply with quote Back to top

UsaSatsui wrote:
Rydog wrote:
And The Neverending Story was a stand alone movie as far as I'm concerned.

Neverending Story 2 is actually the second half of the book that the first is based on.

The book sucks, from what I hear.

Also, sequels suck in general.


I think the book is actually geared to youth readers with little merit for an adult. But I haven't read it.



 
View user's profileSend private message
UsaSatsui
Title: The White Rabbit
Joined: May 25 2008
Location: Hiding
PostPosted: Nov 21 2010 06:24 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Izzy wrote:
UsaSatsui wrote:
Rydog wrote:
And The Neverending Story was a stand alone movie as far as I'm concerned.

Neverending Story 2 is actually the second half of the book that the first is based on.

The book sucks, from what I hear.

Also, sequels suck in general.


I think the book is actually geared to youth readers with little merit for an adult. But I haven't read it.

I've skimmed it, it's actually a pretty tough read.

My wife is the one who's read it.
View user's profileSend private message
Syd Lexia
Site Admin
Title: Pop Culture Junkie
Joined: Jul 30 2005
Location: Wakefield, MA
PostPosted: Nov 21 2010 06:44 pm Reply with quote Back to top

GPFontaine wrote:
I agree that Rocky III was better than V.

Rocky III was also better than Rocky II. Rocky II was boring. It was basically just Rocky I, except now he wins.

Nightmare On Elm Street 3 is arguably the best in the series, and 2 is generally considered the worst.

Also, Friday the 13th Part III is probably the third best movie in the series, behind the first two.

If we were lucky, Leprechaun III would be the worst movie in the series, but they found a way just keep making them worse.

Hellraiser III, also not as bad as Hellraiser gets.

Jurassic Park III was abyssmal.
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's websiteAIM Address
JoshWoodzy
Joined: May 22 2008
Location: Goshen, VA
PostPosted: Nov 21 2010 07:04 pm Reply with quote Back to top

I consider Nightmare on Elm Street 3 my favorite of the series. I also love Friday the 13th part 3. This rule has some merit, but it isn't 100% because there are plenty of part 3's that are clearly better than part 2's.


Image
 
View user's profileSend private messageAIM Address
Doddsino
Joined: Oct 01 2009
PostPosted: Nov 21 2010 07:26 pm Reply with quote Back to top

slapolakinkaido wrote:
If a movie series ends up with three or more movies in the series, the third movie always seems to be where it goes downhill.
The third Lord of the Rings movie, I also thought was the weakest
Back To the Future 3....the worst in that series
.

They might go downhill, but they are not certainly the worst. LOTR is debatable as is BttF, since a large number of people prefer the 3rd movie over the 2nd. Also I guess I am biased since I HATED the LOTR movies altogether.
slapolakinkaido wrote:
Oh, Exorcist III, Rocky III, and the third Batman movie (although the second one wasn't that much better).

Exorcist II was far worse.
Rocky IV and V were much worse IMO
Batman Forever wasn't nearly as bad as Batman and Robin

The BIGGEST example of this was Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III. What a pile of shit.

Wait I take that back...Austin Powers Goldmember is one of the worst things known to man. This movie made me believe that humor was dead.

I don't think X-Men 3 was mentioned, but it was pretty bad.

I concur with Syd about Jurassic Park 3, however the 2nd movie was almost as bad. Almost.

Spiderman 3 was laughably bad, not that I was a fan of the other 2, but this was shit.

I watched about 10 minutes of Addams Family Reunion before I turned that shit off.

Maniac Cop 3, but it's not like the other 2 were flat out horrible.

Critters 3 was probably the worst.

Porky's Revenge? WTF?

Look Who's Talking Now....bleh.

Crocodile Dundee in Las Angeles...I mean did anyone care about Dundee 15 years after he was popular?

Child's Play 3 was also just weird...I haven't seen Seed of Chucky, so I can only go by this and it was ridiculously bad even for a Chucky movie.

Army of Darkness...while I could sit through the first 2 Evil Dead movies and just roll my eyes...this one just pissed me off. Nothing made sense scene for scene and the only funny scene came at the very end of the movie.

I never saw it but Honey We Shrunk Ourselves was like the last live action movie Rick Moranis did, so I can only assume it sucked so bad that he quit movies because of it.

I could also make the argument for Episode III, due to the fact that it tries desperately to tie all the loose ends together to fit with the original trilogy, however each of the prequels were bad for different reason, but I digress.
View user's profileSend private message
Syd Lexia
Site Admin
Title: Pop Culture Junkie
Joined: Jul 30 2005
Location: Wakefield, MA
PostPosted: Nov 21 2010 08:14 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Last Crusade was way better than Temple of Doom, and LIGHT YEARS better than Kingdom of Crystal Skulls.

Alien 3 is better than anything that came after it that had Aliens as a major antagonist.
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's websiteAIM Address
sidewaydriver
2010 SLF Tag Champ
Title: ( ͡� &#8
Joined: May 11 2008
PostPosted: Nov 21 2010 08:24 pm Reply with quote Back to top

I liked Die Hard 3 better than Die Hard 2. I'm not sure what the general concensous is though.


Shake it, Quake it, Space Kaboom.
 
View user's profileSend private message
Syd Lexia
Site Admin
Title: Pop Culture Junkie
Joined: Jul 30 2005
Location: Wakefield, MA
PostPosted: Nov 21 2010 08:42 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Die Hard 3 is easily the second best Die Hard movie.

Lethal Weapon 3 is the worst Lethal Weapon though.
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's websiteAIM Address
SNESGuy
Title: El Duderino
Joined: Jul 31 2010
Location: Da D.C
PostPosted: Nov 21 2010 08:45 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Army of darkness was badass, Die hard 3 was indeed way better then Die hard 2, sequels basically suck huge amount of ass in general but godfather II was good, and empire strikes back, Clerks 2 was kinda funny.


Image
 
View user's profileSend private message
sidewaydriver
2010 SLF Tag Champ
Title: ( ͡� &#8
Joined: May 11 2008
PostPosted: Nov 21 2010 08:48 pm Reply with quote Back to top

I thought Die Hard 4 was the second best, next to the first of course.


Shake it, Quake it, Space Kaboom.
 
View user's profileSend private message
Syd Lexia
Site Admin
Title: Pop Culture Junkie
Joined: Jul 30 2005
Location: Wakefield, MA
PostPosted: Nov 21 2010 08:56 pm Reply with quote Back to top

snesguy1012 wrote:
sequels basically suck huge amount of ass in general

X2 > X-Men
Dark Knight > Batman Begins
Aliens > Alien
T2 > Terminator
Road Warrior > Mad Max
Wrath Of Khan > Star Trek: The Motion Picture
First Contact > Generations

There are a LOT of sequels that are better than the original movie.
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's websiteAIM Address
Doddsino
Joined: Oct 01 2009
PostPosted: Nov 21 2010 09:17 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Disagreed on a few of those, Syd.

Batman Begins was simply the better Batman story, since there was actually a story for Bruce. Dark Knight missed this, especially after Rachel's death...he seemed to get over it quickly and continued to go through the motions. I still liked Dark Knight a lot though.

Alien was better than Aliens because I felt the threat of one Alien was better than hundreds of them. When you add more aliens in there, you have to dumb them down as well as provide for a higher body count. Alien I think had like 6 characters, and every time someone died, you felt pretty bad for them, since you've been with them for the whole movie and got to know them better. Aliens had a large group of soldiers who were nothing more than meat. I can't stress enough that killing off people who we know nothing about is a bad thing for a film maker to do, since if we don't know the characters, then we don't care that they died. I liked Aliens, but it was an entirely different movie than Alien, which in a way, was a good thing.
View user's profileSend private message
Syd Lexia
Site Admin
Title: Pop Culture Junkie
Joined: Jul 30 2005
Location: Wakefield, MA
PostPosted: Nov 21 2010 11:23 pm Reply with quote Back to top

I guess I could go either way on Alien/Aliens.

Batman Begins, I disagree wholeheartedly. Ra's Al-Ghul was boring, lacking all the intrigue and charm he had on Batman:TAS, and his immortality was weakly alluded to in a throwaway line. Scarecrow was pretty meh too. They tried to make him too realistic, and the character just doesn't work that way.

Villains define a comic book movie. Dark Knight told its villain stories better, and that made it a better movie. By the same token, I don't understand why people like the first Iron Man movie. The villain was super lame.
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's websiteAIM Address
sidewaydriver
2010 SLF Tag Champ
Title: ( ͡� &#8
Joined: May 11 2008
PostPosted: Nov 21 2010 11:27 pm Reply with quote Back to top

I think Batman Begins would have been so much better if Scarecrow was the only villan. I liked how they did him but he was relegated to back up villan.


Shake it, Quake it, Space Kaboom.
 
View user's profileSend private message
JoshWoodzy
Joined: May 22 2008
Location: Goshen, VA
PostPosted: Nov 21 2010 11:30 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Completely agree with Syd. Ra's Al-Ghul was terribly uninteresting and bored me to tears.


Image
 
View user's profileSend private messageAIM Address
Doddsino
Joined: Oct 01 2009
PostPosted: Nov 21 2010 11:46 pm Reply with quote Back to top

While I agree that Ra's Al Ghul left a lot to be desired, I could almost say the same thing with Two-Face. With his apparent death, it really left me with a disappointment feel that we only get to truly see Dent's transformation and destruction so late in the movie. I mean, I would've liked to at least maybe see him as the lead villain in the next movie, although with how things go down, I'd rather not now. I just come back to Bruce Wayne though, it's as if he didn't really have a story or any real growth in this movie, something we got a shitload of in Batman Begins.
View user's profileSend private message
SNESGuy
Title: El Duderino
Joined: Jul 31 2010
Location: Da D.C
PostPosted: Nov 21 2010 11:49 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Syd Lexia wrote:
snesguy1012 wrote:
sequels basically suck huge amount of ass in general

X2 > X-Men
Dark Knight > Batman Begins
Aliens > Alien
T2 > Terminator
Road Warrior > Mad Max
Wrath Of Khan > Star Trek: The Motion Picture
First Contact > Generations

There are a LOT of sequels that are better than the original movie.

Those are actually good sequels blast I'm not worthy! I'm not worthy!
View user's profileSend private message
Doddsino
Joined: Oct 01 2009
PostPosted: Nov 21 2010 11:53 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Also if you want to call them technical "sequels", the Dollars trilogy got better with every movie.
View user's profileSend private message
sidewaydriver
2010 SLF Tag Champ
Title: ( ͡� &#8
Joined: May 11 2008
PostPosted: Nov 21 2010 11:58 pm Reply with quote Back to top

I think it's better when the focus is on one villan.


Shake it, Quake it, Space Kaboom.
 
View user's profileSend private message
Doddsino
Joined: Oct 01 2009
PostPosted: Nov 22 2010 12:01 am Reply with quote Back to top

Depends on the movie, Dick Tracy for example, while not a cinematic marvel, it was awesome to see all the villains on the big screen.
View user's profileSend private message
sidewaydriver
2010 SLF Tag Champ
Title: ( ͡� &#8
Joined: May 11 2008
PostPosted: Nov 22 2010 12:03 am Reply with quote Back to top

Well multiple villians work well when they're working together but when they have seperate story lines, it can make the movie disjointed.


Shake it, Quake it, Space Kaboom.
 
View user's profileSend private message
Izzy
Title: Mascot Gold
Joined: Jul 25 2009
Location: KC, KS
PostPosted: Nov 22 2010 12:05 am Reply with quote Back to top

Sequels can be bad but as others have pointed out:

-Godfather II
-Empire Strikes Back
-Superman II
-BttF II
-Dark Knight
-Wrath of Khan

And Die Hard III and The Last Crusade were better then the second in their respective series.



 
View user's profileSend private message
Drew Linky
Wizard
Joined: Jun 12 2009
PostPosted: Nov 22 2010 12:05 am Reply with quote Back to top

Rydog wrote:
Pirates of the Caribbean III sucked.

I will eviscerate your bowels.
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Display posts from previous:      
Reply to topic

 
 Jump to: