A. Thinking about Threequels in General
The trilogy is the most commonly-utilized format for multiple films connected in series. Sometimes a story only gets as far as a single-sequel duology (
Sin City, as of now) and sometimes a series stretches to four or more installments (e.g.
Harry Potter) but for the most part, films are grouped in threes. This follows the classic three-act dramatic structure and allows a story to be played out in detail but still within limits that make casting and other logistics manageable.
In the past, it was often the case that sequels were cheaper and less credible. They were cash-ins, free of much artistic ambition. That still holds true in some cases, but sequels like
The Godfather Part II and
The Empire Strikes Back proved that a classic film could be not only equaled by its follow-up, but arguably improved upon if given healthy resources to work with. Nowadays, we expect a lot of our sequels even as we brace ourselves for the all-too-familiar scenario in which they don’t deliver.
Even when a sequel does live up to the reputation of the first installment, though, the third—and ostensibly final—chapter has a very mixed history. Many such ‘threequels’ are of poor quality, and some are decent if anticlimactic in one or more ways. Very few, however, manage to provide a truly satisfying ending to the continuing story while maintaining the initial quality that made the given franchise a success to begin with. Why is that?
1. Creative Burnout
This is especially true if the same director has been handling the trilogy from the start (Sam Raimi, Christopher Nolan) although in some cases, a change is not for the better (Brett Ratner, Joel Schumacher).
2. Temptation to ‘Go Bigger’
Conventional wisdom suggests that the third act should probably be the most epic, with a huge, all-inclusive finale. That’s great in theory, but in practice it is often difficult to build upon an already-huge second act. Many threequels would have been better served by exercising a bit of restraint, the classic example—but by no means the only one—being
Spider-Man 3.
3. Finishing is Harder than Beginning/Continuing
This is something that most often comes up in discussions of television shows like
Lost and
Battlestar Galactica, but it applies to film trilogies as well. Unless there is a clear long-term plan in place from the beginning, a story can find itself without a clear way to tie up all of its loose threads as its end approaches. Setting the pieces in motion is easier than bringing them to a logical, let alone satisfying halt.
4. No Economic Incentive for Quality
…and then there is the harsh, business-side thinking to consider. A film trilogy that has been popular and profitable through its first two installments can usually be counted on to remain just as profitable, if not indeed more profitable, regardless of whether the final installment rates highly in terms of quality. Franchise inertia is a powerful force.
B. Reviewing Existing Threequels
It’s difficult to group these films into ‘bad’ and ‘good’ (and of course ‘ugly’) categories because so many of them are either mixed blessings or notoriously divisive. For that reason, I haven’t gone as far as ranking them, but rather taken some time to think about the pros and cons of each.
The most oddball example in the CBM category is
Superman III. After the first two films starring Christopher Reeve were shot (mostly) back-to-back on an elaborate scale, the hands guiding the franchise decided to go a different way, introducing elements of slapstick comedy and a decidedly cheaper approach overall. The film has its moments, most notably the “good Superman vs bad Superman” showdown and the part of Lana Lang played nicely by future Martha Kent—
awkwaaard—Annette O’Toole. But it clearly represented the first true CBM franchise’s decline into cultural and economic irrelevance.
And then, a decade later, there was
Batman Forever. But enough has been said about that…
The “silver age” of CBMs, if you will, was inaugurated by
Blade,
X-Men and
Spider-Man as Marvel Comics characters finally got their big-screen debuts. All three of those films were successful and led to trilogies. And that’s where it started to seem as though there was a curse on threequels.
Each trilogy had followed the
Star Wars model of a groundbreaking first installment leading into an even-better-received second installment. But in each case, the third installment was a clear step down in quality (even if it did, as was the case with
Spider-Man 3 in particular, make huge money anyway).
I will admit that I’ve never watched
Blade: Trinity, and that is not likely to change anytime soon. However,
X-Men: The Last Stand and
Spider-Man 3 share a problem: trying to do too much. The former clumsily crams in the Dark Phoenix Saga, simultaneously overshadowing a better “mutant cure” B-plot, wasting various characters (Cyclops, etc.) and underachieving in portrayal of one of the classic storylines in all of comics.
Restraint would also have been advisable for the team that threw the proverbial kitchen sink—Harry Osborn as the New Goblin, Gwen Stacey, Eddie Brock, Sandman, Venom, Emo Peter Parker, etc.—into
Spider-Man 3. In hindsight, it would have been better to save some of those things for the future. Or a reboot, of course.
The other Marvel character franchises launched in the early 2000s failed to find lasting traction.
Hulk and
Fantastic Four each essentially made it to a sequel, and
Daredevil somehow led to
Elektra, but no further. It was left Batman and Iron Man to reintroduce trilogy-worthy staying power.
The Dark Knight Returns is an example of what one might call the ‘
Return of the Jedi Effect.’ It was received reasonably well on its own terms and did handsomely at the box office, but in the minds of many failed to live up to the standards of its widely acclaimed predecessors,
Batman Begins and
The Dark Knight.
Iron Man 3, meanwhile, took on a sort of dual identity. Generally speaking considered an objective improvement over
Iron Man 2 (not to mention a huge box office smash), it nonetheless drew intense ire from many fans for its twisty treatment of the Mandarin. Is
IM3 a good threequel? The depends greatly on who you ask.
For kicks, it’s fun to also include some non-CBM threequels in the discussion. Specifically those
in the sci-fi and fantasy genres, which are often discussion topics on this site anyway.
Science fiction has historically been a great setting for serialized films. Notable examples of threequels include:
-Escape from the Planet of the Apes
-Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi
-Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home*
-Back to the Future Part III
-Alien 3
-Jurassic Park III
-Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
-Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
-Resident Evil: Extinction
-Transformers: Dark of the Moon
Most of the above are considered more or less decent, but few are seen as improvements on their respective franchise predecessors. The most well-regarded are probably
Star Trek IV and
Revenge of the Sith, although the latter’s positive reception has some to do with low expectations going in.
(*Yes, this is the fourth film technically, but story-wise it concludes the trilogy begun in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.)
As far as the
fantasy genre goes, there have been fewer so far. Notable examples include:
-Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (grouped here for lack of a better place to put it)
-Lord of the Rings: Return of the King
-Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
-Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (third released) /
Underworld: Awakening (third in chronology)
Interestingly,
Return of the King and
Prisoner of Azkaban are arguably two of the most highly-regarded threequels in all of cinema. Perhaps that has something to do with the established written-page source material that they respectively draw from, but credit must also go to the producers of the films, in the case of the Harry Potter installment especially. Even
The Last Crusade has a fairly good reputation for a threequel.
C. Looking Ahead to Upcoming Threequels
-Captain America 3
-Thor 3
-X-Men: Apocalypse
-[The Amazing Spider-Man 3]
-[Star Trek 3]
-[The Avengers 3]
-[Wolverine 3]
-The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies
-The Hunger Games: Mocking Jay pt. 1/2
Well. There is quite a variety of different expectations here.
Captain America: The Winter Soldier and
X-Men: Days of Future Past each went over quite well, and hopes are high for their respective sequels. The stories that have played out so far do seem like good setups for quality endings to the trilogies. So that's encouraging.
Sony's current Spider-Man franchise is in a state of remarkable flux, with
TASM3 theoretically delayed until 2018 and rumors of a soft reboot and/or a Marvel Cinematic Universe connection casting great uncertainty over the interim. Personally, I think that Spider-Man needs to be blown up and reassembled from scratch--not another origin story, mind you, but a completely new approach in substance.
Marvel Studios'
Thor trilogy is somewhere in between.
The Dark World performed well at the box office, but in my estimation it is the weakest of the
Avengers-related films and did little to develop its characters in new ways. On one hand, Marvel Studios still needs to prove to me that it knows how to meaningfully advance Thor beyond his origin story. On the other hand though, there is great potential for
Thor 3 to do just that. Perhaps the Enchantress or some other character (dare we hope for Beta Ray Bill yet?) will be able to help inject more interest to the story.
There are plenty of other threequels on the horizon, and many more beyond that as new Star Wars, Avatar, Terminator and other franchises get reboots and/or continuations up and running. Hopefully, the "big, interconnected thinking" that is now par the course will pay off in the form of more balanced trilogies with better endings.
----------
Thoughts? Disagreements?