I disagree.
Largely because a number of the movie series mentioned are not trilogies. Wikipedia is dead wrong on this one.
A true trilogy is one story that has been split into three parts by design.
The Godfather, for instance, is a movie series with three films –– but it is not a trilogy. Alien is a film franchise too. Already at four movies. Plus two, sort of. Likewise with the Terminator. Indiana Jones (as you admit). Shrek. Rush Hour. Pirates of the crappy movie series. And the Ocean's movies.
In these cases, three just happens to be where the studio or creative team stopped.
Lord of the Rings was a good, consistent trilogy.
Back to the Future is a trilogy too. But with those movies, the third is far than the second.
So I guess I don't agree with you entire premise about trilogies.
Nor do I agree with the assertion that Spiderman 3 is any more of a mess than the first two movies.
Tonally, 3 was absolutely consistent with the first two movies. There have always been too many plotlines.
Or did you forget about Peter's stress over his aunt losing her home, or his temporarily losing his powers, or his being later for all of MJ’s shows. I could list more examples, but I don’t feel the need. There has been too much in every Spiderman movie, and some characters and subplots had to be cut back. I just think that when it’s Venom and Gwen Stacy being cut... maybe comic book fans don’t like that as much?
And stupid plotlines... did I mention that in the second movie Spiderman temporarily lost his powers? I’d take amnesia over that any day of the week.
Spiderman 3 was at least as good as the first two movies. Watch them again. You very well may agree.
It was not Revolutions.
A true trilogy is one story that has been split into three parts by design.
The Godfather, for instance, is a movie series with three films –– but it is not a trilogy. Alien is a film franchise too. Already at four movies. Plus two, sort of. Likewise with the Terminator. Indiana Jones (as you admit). Shrek. Rush Hour. Pirates of the crappy movie series. And the Ocean's movies.
In these cases, three just happens to be where the studio or creative team stopped.
Lord of the Rings was a good, consistent trilogy.
Back to the Future is a trilogy too. But with those movies, the third is far than the second.
So I guess I don't agree with you entire premise about trilogies.
Nor do I agree with the assertion that Spiderman 3 is any more of a mess than the first two movies.
Tonally, 3 was absolutely consistent with the first two movies. There have always been too many plotlines.
Or did you forget about Peter's stress over his aunt losing her home, or his temporarily losing his powers, or his being later for all of MJ’s shows. I could list more examples, but I don’t feel the need. There has been too much in every Spiderman movie, and some characters and subplots had to be cut back. I just think that when it’s Venom and Gwen Stacy being cut... maybe comic book fans don’t like that as much?
And stupid plotlines... did I mention that in the second movie Spiderman temporarily lost his powers? I’d take amnesia over that any day of the week.
Spiderman 3 was at least as good as the first two movies. Watch them again. You very well may agree.
It was not Revolutions.
posted by M S Martinez at 5/09/2007 07:53:00 AM
7 Comments:
Allright.
Maybe I should have titled my post, "Why do third films in franchises be sucking?"
But even your definition of a trilogy is a bit loose. Star Wars and the Matrix were one-offs that got spun off into trilogies after the initial success. Back to the Future as well.
Lord of the Rings is a trilogy, but ironically only because the publisher split the original novel into three parts. [And, I maybe in the minority, but Return of the King was a disappointment.]
I am not really wedded to the idea of a trilogy, which is now more a marketing than literary concept, I just wanted to use the term to talk about lame third movies.
Like Spiderman 3.
Sure the tone was consistent. I loved the camp -- the omelet making, the emo eyeliner, the Bruce Campbell.
So far, so good. Nuff' said.
And there have always been too many plotlines -- but shortchanging Peter Parker's pizza delivery is one thing, under-developing Venom is another.
[I can't believe they introduced JJJ's son as an astronaut if they weren't going to incorporate him into the Venom story arc. The Spiderman cartoon did an awesome job of weaving in all of these storylines while avoiding the ridiculousness of the Secret Wars.]
Spider-man 3 needed to be a half-hour and couple villains shorter, or an entire movie longer.
I don't disagree with that. The idea of a Trilogy is all marketing.
And the answer is an entire movie longer. Venom should have just appeared at the end of the movie, with the climax being Spiderman coming to terms with his darker side and seeing how harmful the symbiote is.
People like movies about people coming to terms with things. Things like problems and issues.
That is what I was thinking...
An extra movie would have allowed more time to see the general transition to dark Parker [in the comics, unbeknownest to him, he was doing all his dirty work at night -- ala Fight Club].
Wasn't his douchebagness enough to drive Mary Jane (temporarily) away? Did we really need the external motivator? Also, it would have been great to see him struggle to get rid of the suit... not just stumble upon the the symbiote's one weakness. And it would have given plenty of time to let the Eddie Brock hatred stew.
Your ending would have been perfect -- maybe even a last second patch-up with Mary Jane.
But whatever. It was fine. It just could have been so much better.
p.s. Butler reveal = super lame.
Thanks gramps. You could have saved me a world of grief!
mark, there's no way spiderman 3 was as good as 2. 3 was like a long episode of full house where everybody conveniently learns the same lesson at the end of the episode. with maybe 10 minutes of decent (not stellar) fight scenes.
and by the way, back to the future 3!? by far the weakest one.
i love disagreeing with logan, but i just can't here.
Are you kidding? You both like the lame flying cars, 3-D effects and uneven redux of the original that is Back to the Future 2?
Spider-man industrial complex?
It sucked.
Post a Comment
<< Home