# Best Threequel



## Morrus (Feb 19, 2021)

People often discuss the best sequels to movies. Terminator 2, Empire, Aliens, etc.

Less frequently they talk about the best threequels. Which movies have had a strong third instalment?

(For shared universes, count the individuals — eg Iron Man 1, 2, 3) 

I’m thinking —

Indiana Jones & the Last Crusade
Return of the Jedi
Thor: Ragnarok


----------



## aco175 (Feb 19, 2021)

*Matrix 3* was a good conclusion to the trilogy along with *John Wick 3*, but that was less story and more same killing.  Then there is LotR *Return of the King* and even the Hobbit3. *Battle of 5 armies* which could have been shorter set of movies if they had gone by the books, but a bunch of other stuff was thrown in.  They were good for movies and not for comparing to the books.


----------



## Nikosandros (Feb 19, 2021)

Avengers: Infinity War


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Feb 19, 2021)

Hard to argue with Thor: Ragnarok or Return of the Jedi. I'd add George Romero's Day of the Dead. The Return of the King springs to mind as well, though admittedly it fumbled a few spots.

I'm tempted to mention Halloween III: Season of the Witch - I think it deserves more credit than it gets, and the series would've be stronger had it gone with an anthology format rather than focusing solely on Michael Myers.


----------



## MarkB (Feb 19, 2021)

I always thought Star Trek III was a lot better than the old "all odd-numbered Trek movies are bad" adage gave it credit for. Star Trek II, III and IV make a very solid trilogy.


----------



## Ulfgeir (Feb 19, 2021)

Star Trek?


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 19, 2021)

Avengers: Infinity War (my 2nd favorite MCU movie)
Iron Man 3 (the MCU movie that's most grown in my estimation upon rewatch)
Thor: Ragnarok (redefined the whole series for the better)
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
Toy Story 3
Logan (if you count X-Men Origins and The Wolverine to make a loose trilogy)


----------



## Morrus (Feb 19, 2021)

MarkB said:


> I always thought Star Trek III was a lot better than the old "all odd-numbered Trek movies are bad" adage gave it credit for. Star Trek II, III and IV make a very solid trilogy.



Truth.


----------



## Ulfgeir (Feb 19, 2021)

MarkB said:


> I always thought Star Trek III was a lot better than the old "all odd-numbered Trek movies are bad" adage gave it credit for. Star Trek II, III and IV make a very solid trilogy.



Wasn't IV the one where they went back in time to collect a whale? Personally I thought that was the weakest of the old movies.


----------



## Arilyn (Feb 19, 2021)

Captain America--Civil War. 
I'll also throw in my vote for Toy Story 3
Back to the Future 3--Has its critics, but I always enjoy it.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Feb 19, 2021)

Goldfinger
Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome
Army of Darkness
Bill & Ted Face the Music


----------



## Morrus (Feb 19, 2021)

Ulfgeir said:


> Wasn't IV the one where they went back in time to collect a whale? Personally I thought that was the weakest of the old movies.



It's my favourite of them.


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 19, 2021)

"World's End" was a solid end to the Cornetto Trilogy but, then again, they were all solid.


----------



## Arilyn (Feb 19, 2021)

Morrus said:


> It's my favourite of them.



Mine too.


----------



## MarkB (Feb 19, 2021)

Ulfgeir said:


> Wasn't IV the one where they went back in time to collect a whale? Personally I thought that was the weakest of the old movies.



I think it's the weakest in terms of standing alone, but as a conclusion to that story arc it works well.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 19, 2021)

Army of Darkness is perhaps my favorite 3rd movie of all.  It’s the only reason I’ve even seen the first 2 movies in the series.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Feb 19, 2021)

Return of the King, definitely.


----------



## MarkB (Feb 19, 2021)

Gladius Legis said:


> Return of the King, definitely.



Not to me. It's still good, but there was a subtlety to the storytelling in Fellowship of the Ring that was progressively lost over the two subsequent movies, ending with Sauron as a literal guard-tower searchlight in RotK.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 19, 2021)

MarkB said:


> Not to me. It's still good, but there was a subtlety to the storytelling in Fellowship of the Ring that was progressively lost over the two subsequent movies, ending with Sauron as a literal guard-tower searchlight in RotK.



I think it depends on whether you read the OP as "what 3rd movies in a series are really good movies in general" or "what 3rd movies are really strong in comparison to the other movies in the series".

I agree with you that RotK is the weakest of the 3 LotR movies, although I'd view it as an A-/A movie where FotR is an A/A+ movie.  They're all really good, and any weakness is subtle.


----------



## DemoMonkey (Feb 19, 2021)

The third D&D movie, "Book of Vile Darkness" was the best of the three despite being another direct-to-video release.

...admittedly, that is faint praise...


----------



## embee (Feb 19, 2021)

Henry IV, Part II. which was definitely greater than either Richard II or Henry IV, Part I, largely due to Falstaff. 

Of course, it is then eclipsed by Henry V, which has more quotability, a tighter plot, and richer character development, Henry V is definitely the high point in the tetralogy.


----------



## embee (Feb 19, 2021)

Ulfgeir said:


> Wasn't IV the one where they went back in time to collect a whale? Personally I thought that was the weakest of the old movies.



Definitely agree. It is a fun romp but is highly dated and didn't age well. It only has value at this point as a historical document.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Feb 19, 2021)

Back to the Future  III and Chasing Amy


----------



## embee (Feb 19, 2021)

MarkB said:


> I always thought Star Trek III was a lot better than the old "all odd-numbered Trek movies are bad" adage gave it credit for. Star Trek II, III and IV make a very solid trilogy.



Plus, who doesn't like Christopher Lloyd and John Laroquette as Klingons?


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 19, 2021)

embee said:


> Definitely agree. It is a fun romp but is highly dated and didn't age well. It only has value at this point as a historical document.



I don't know about that. If you have historical context, then I think that it still stands up. If you don't and were born after The Wall came down, then the Soviet based jokes are probably going to fall flat. Other than that I think it's the most fun of the early Trek movies. What it lacks in action when compared to "Wrath of Khan" is more than made up for by the comedy. I'd put it solidly head and shoulders above the Kelvin Universe movies.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 19, 2021)

*Tokyo Drift.*


----------



## Bawylie (Feb 19, 2021)

Morrus said:


> People often discuss the best sequels to movies. Terminator 2, Empire, Aliens, etc.
> 
> Less frequently they talk about the best threequels. Which movies have had a strong third instalment?
> 
> ...



I agree with all of these. I would add that Spider-Man 2 - Far From Home is the best of the three Spider-Man 2s.


----------



## embee (Feb 19, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> I don't know about that. If you have historical context, then I think that it still stands up. If you don't and were born after The Wall came down, then the Soviet based jokes are probably going to fall flat. Other than that I think it's the most fun of the early Trek movies. What it lacks in action when compared to "Wrath of Khan" is more than made up for by the comedy. I'd put it solidly head and shoulders above the Kelvin Universe movies.



The Kelvin Universe is objectively bad. Not even remarkably terrible. Just generically and lazily bad.

ST2K9 is an okay popcorn movie with plenty of judo chop! but aside from Simon Pegg and Karl Urban actually having fun as Scotty and Bones respectively, the movie is utterly forgettable. STID is just bog-standard JJ Abrams fan service with plot holes so large that Kirk has to be magicked back to life. STB was an improvement over that, largely because it was neither directed by JJ nor written by the writing duo behind Transformers.

Better than Kelvin is faint praise.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 19, 2021)

Bawylie said:


> I agree with all of these. I would add that Spider-Man 2 - Far From Home is the best of the three Spider-Man 2s.



The fact that there's a trilogy of reboot sequels within the span of 15 years is objectively hilarious.


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 19, 2021)

embee said:


> The Kelvin Universe is objectively bad. Not even remarkably terrible. Just generically and lazily bad.
> 
> ST2K9 is an okay popcorn movie with plenty of judo chop! but aside from Simon Pegg and Karl Urban actually having fun as Scotty and Bones respectively, the movie is utterly forgettable. STID is just bog-standard JJ Abrams fan service with plot holes so large that Kirk has to be magicked back to life. STB was an improvement over that, largely because it was neither directed by JJ nor written by the writing duo behind Transformers.
> 
> Better than Kelvin is faint praise.



True; it's not exactly an endorsement. I do, however, tend to think that the Kelvin Universe movies got worse as they went along. They were generic SciFi actioners that could have been set in any property. It's a pity, too, because I think that all of the roles were excellently cast and they wasted that.


----------



## embee (Feb 19, 2021)

TwoSix said:


> The fact that there's a trilogy of reboot sequels within the span of 15 years is objectively hilarious.



Or an indictment of the commoditization of art to a point that drek is churned out as part of a rights-management strategy.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 19, 2021)

embee said:


> Or an indictment of the commoditization of art to a point that drek is churned out as part of a rights-management strategy.



I like my answer better.


----------



## Ulfgeir (Feb 19, 2021)

Batman Forever
The Dark Knight rises


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 19, 2021)

Bawylie said:


> I agree with all of these. I would add that Spider-Man 2 - Far From Home is the best of the three Spider-Man 2s.



Wait a minute...I made a funny comment about this, but totally glossed over that you think Far From Home is better than Tobey Maguire Spider-Man 2!  That's a hot take.


----------



## embee (Feb 19, 2021)

Ulfgeir said:


> Batman Forever
> The Dark Knight rises



Blade III
X-Men: Last Stand
X-Men Apocalypse
Resident Evil: Extinction
The Godfather: Part III


----------



## turnip_farmer (Feb 19, 2021)

Morrus said:


> People often discuss the best sequels to movies. Terminator 2, Empire, Aliens, etc.




Alien 3 is better than Aliens.

I know you all disagree with me. You're all wrong.


----------



## embee (Feb 19, 2021)

turnip_farmer said:


> Alien 3 is better than Aliens.
> 
> I know you all disagree with me. You're all wrong.



Charles Dance was excellent in it and it neatly wrapped up Ripley's arc. Plus, I love Charles S. Dutton.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 19, 2021)

Morrus said:


> It's my favourite of them.



It's also the one where Scotty is telling the 80s engineers about transparent aluminum.  Which, by the way, is now a real thing as well.  Star Trek: right after The Simpsons when it comes to predictions lol


----------



## Deset Gled (Feb 19, 2021)

There are a lot of longer running series that really start to hit their stride with #3.  Friday the 13th Part III is the first one where Jason wears the hockey mask and really establishes the version of Jason that is used in future movies.  Likewise, Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors is the one that really codifies Freddy, and sets the tone for the dream sequences and dialogue the series is now known for.  And the most interesting one: King Kong vs Godzilla was technically both the third Godzilla and third King Kong movie.  Maybe not my favorite, but a solid entry in both series that was instrumental in defining the legacy of both franchises.

Evil Dead 3 is Army of Darkness, which is an amazing movie.  Hard to compare it to Evil Dead 1 though, as they're not even in the same genre (ED 2 is kind of a "crossover").

I really liked Die Hard 3 (With a Vengence).  Definitely better than 2.  Not sure if it's better than 1, though.

If you don't count "Magical Mystery Tour" since it was released for TV, then "Yellow Submarine" was the third Beatles movie.  It's my favorite of their films.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Feb 19, 2021)

I love all three, but to me Fellowship of the Ring is the one that knocked it out of the park. The others are good, maybe even great, just not amazing.



MarkB said:


> Not to me. It's still good, but there was a subtlety to the storytelling in Fellowship of the Ring that was progressively lost over the two subsequent movies, ending with Sauron as a literal guard-tower searchlight in RotK.


----------



## Shadow Over Mystara (Feb 19, 2021)

Die Hard with a Vengeance.

Great movie, although I wish they had reworked the ending to take place in New York, since that was a big part of what made it so good. A life-falling-apart John McClane, back in his old hometown & long-removed from being the shining hero with a happy ending in sunny Los Angeles, having to solve "Simon Says" puzzles while hungover, being repeatedly trolled by a vengeful terrorist who makes McClane crisscross the cramped confines of bustling NYC in impossible time limits, butting heads with but needing the help of one very annoyed "Hey" Zeus Carver.

The alternate ending is an interesting "what if" as well, but I don't think the movie did enough to build towards that.


----------



## turnip_farmer (Feb 19, 2021)

Sacrosanct said:


> It's also the one where Scotty is telling the 80s engineers about transparent aluminum.  Which, by the way, is now a real thing as well.  Star Trek: right after The Simpsons when it comes to predictions lol



But that's also the comedy scene where Scotty is one minute talking to a mouse because he doesn't understand 20th century technology; and then the next minute coding in Basic. That bothered me.


----------



## aco175 (Feb 19, 2021)

I'll admit that I saw this, but not sure on if there is the best one.  I did hear that this series was being remade as well.


----------



## embee (Feb 19, 2021)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> I love all three, but to me Fellowship of the Ring is the one that knocked it out of the park. The others are good, maybe even great, just not amazing.



For me, FOTR is to TTT as The Godfather: Part I is to The Godfather: Part II. 

TTT is a bit more epic in scale. Also, the Extended Version contains a really potent scene in the Dead Marshes that adds a bit more pathos to Gollum.


----------



## Deset Gled (Feb 19, 2021)

turnip_farmer said:


> But that's also the comedy scene where Scotty is one minute talking to a mouse because he doesn't understand 20th century technology; and then the next minute coding in Basic. That bothered me.




Honestly, I've seen this sort of thing multiple times in my life now.

In college, the lab upgraded from Windows 2000 to to XP with no notice (my home box ran ME).  I legitimately had to ask a Computer Science professor for help navigating the Start Menu, and seconds later was working on a C++ assignment.

My kids learned computers on iPad before anything else.  I had to show them how to use a trackball on a PC.  Seconds later, they're building a world in Minecraft.


----------



## MarkB (Feb 19, 2021)

Deset Gled said:


> Honestly, I've seen this sort of thing multiple times in my life now.
> 
> In college, the lab upgraded from Windows 2000 to to XP with no notice (my hoe box ran ME).  I legitimately had to ask a Computer Science professor for help navigating the Start Menu, and seconds later was working on a C++ assignment.
> 
> My kids learned computers on iPad before anything else.  I had to show them how to use a trackball on a PC.  Seconds later, they're building a world in Minecraft.



I never saw it as him not understanding it, so much as having to calibrate his expectations down far enough.


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 19, 2021)

aco175 said:


> I'll admit that I saw this, but not sure on if there is the best one.  I did hear that this series was being remade as well.
> 
> View attachment 132999



Hopefully if they do go for a remake they do it straight-up, and not another parody. And, hopefully, they do powered armour.


----------



## turnip_farmer (Feb 19, 2021)

MarkB said:


> I never saw it as him not understanding it, so much as having to calibrate his expectations down far enough.



It's ridiculous. There is absolutely no reasonable way he would know how to use a programming language that nobody had used for three centuries before his birth. If you sat down with someone in the palaeolthic, would the fact that you were a systems engineer in the 21st century mean that you would be an expert at knapping flint? No. You would be worse at knapping flint than the children. Every 21st engineer would be bad at knapping flint. And every 24th century engineer would be bad at 20th century programming languages they had never practiced with.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Feb 19, 2021)

The Godfather is a series that I always just bounce off of. But I know enough to get the analogy  

The new scenes in the Extended Editions are a mixed bag - sometimes it throws the pacing off, sometimes it falls flat, and sometimes you can't understand why in the world they cut the scene in the first place.



embee said:


> For me, FOTR is to TTT as The Godfather: Part I is to The Godfather: Part II.
> 
> TTT is a bit more epic in scale. Also, the Extended Version contains a really potent scene in the Dead Marshes that adds a bit more pathos to Gollum.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 19, 2021)

turnip_farmer said:


> It's ridiculous. There is absolutely no reasonable way he would know how to use a programming language that nobody had used for three centuries before his birth. If you sat down with someone in the palaeolthic, would the fact that you were a systems engineer in the 21st century mean that you would be an expert at knapping flint? No. You would be worse at knapping flint than the children. Every 21st engineer would be bad at knapping flint. And every 24th century engineer would be bad at 20th century programming languages they had never practiced with.



Realistically, no one from the 24th century would need to know how to do syntax-based programming at all; they would give natural language directives and AIs would translate that into workable code.


----------



## turnip_farmer (Feb 19, 2021)

TwoSix said:


> Realistically, no one from the 24th century would need to know how to do syntax-based programming at all; they would give natural language directives and AIs would translate that into workable code.



Exactly. Which is what they do in _Star Trek. _And is what Scotty tries to do at first in 1986. But when that fails he's suddenly a programming whiz.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 19, 2021)

turnip_farmer said:


> Exactly. Which is what they do in _Star Trek. _And is what Scotty tries to do at first in 1986. But when that fails he's suddenly a programming whiz.



Star Trek isn't remotely realistic, is all I'm saying.


----------



## embee (Feb 19, 2021)

turnip_farmer said:


> Exactly. Which is what they do in _Star Trek. _And is what Scotty tries to do at first in 1986. But when that fails he's suddenly a programming whiz.



Ahhh... But let's not forget who we're talking about.

Montgomery Scott, engineer extraordinaire.

When something needs to be fixed, Scotty unfailingly figures out the fix in record time. I mean, he'll lie to you about how much time he needs first (to make himself look like a miracle worker) but he'll also figure it out quicker than anyone else.

Even Georgie LaForge would take an agonizingly long time to figure out how to couple a tachyon emitter to the main deflector dish to try to reverse the polarity of the phase shift anomaly. In that amount of time, Scotty would have been able to reroute power from the phaser emitters through the port nacelle to give a crippled Constitution-class vessel better than 3/4 impulse after the dilithium reserves are depleted. It willna be pretty, Captain, but it should git ye where ye need t'go. He kin do it in an hour, but since ye need it in fifteen, he'll do it fer ye in ten.

Could his nephew Peter Preston have done that? No. I mean, obviously we'll never know, as Khan killed him, but Preston was more the loyal and dutiful engineer than the whiz-bang engineer like his uncle.

So figuring out how to code at the level of a Stanford graduate circa 1986 should present no significant problems.


----------



## turnip_farmer (Feb 19, 2021)

TwoSix said:


> Star Trek isn't remotely realistic, is all I'm saying.






embee said:


> Ahhh... But let's not forget who we're talking about.
> 
> Montgomery Scott, engineer extraordinaire.




But it's the _contrast _in that scene that gets me. The joke about 'future guy doesn't understand our technology' immediately followed by the future guy acing our technology.

You could have had him look at a diagram or a production centre and tell them 'you want to increase the kiflidium content in the base material and inject an izwot-jinjulium alloy to the mix at this stage here'; and the boss would be all 'throw out this lunatic' and then some engineer in the back would go 'hang on, sir! I think this might be a breakthough!'

That's the only change required to make this the best _Star Trek_ film till _First Contact_.


----------



## MarkB (Feb 19, 2021)

embee said:


> Ahhh... But let's not forget who we're talking about.
> 
> Montgomery Scott, engineer extraordinaire.
> 
> ...



Yeah, this is a guy who reads technical manuals for fun, in his spare time. If anyone has a good grip of programming and engineering history, it's him.


----------



## embee (Feb 19, 2021)

turnip_farmer said:


> But it's the _contrast _in that scene that gets me. The joke about 'future guy doesn't understand our technology' immediately followed by the future guy acing our technology.
> 
> You could have had him look at a diagram or a production centre and tell them 'you want to increase the kiflidium content in the base material and inject an izwot-jinjulium alloy to the mix at this stage here'; and the boss would be all 'throw out this lunatic' and then some engineer in the back would go 'hang on, sir! I think this might be a breakthough!'
> 
> That's the only change required to make this the best _Star Trek_ film till _First Contact_.



He understands it. He then derisively calls it quaint.


----------



## embee (Feb 19, 2021)

turnip_farmer said:


> That's the only change required to make this the best _Star Trek_ film till _First Contact_.



You clearly have never enjoyed Shakespeare in the original Klingon...


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 19, 2021)

Sinbad and Eye of the Tiger was my favorite Sinbad Harryhausen movie, and it was the third.


----------



## Deset Gled (Feb 19, 2021)

turnip_farmer said:


> But it's the _contrast _in that scene that gets me. The joke about 'future guy doesn't understand our technology' immediately followed by the future guy acing our technology.
> 
> You could have had him look at a diagram or a production centre and tell them 'you want to increase the kiflidium content in the base material and inject an izwot-jinjulium alloy to the mix at this stage here'; and the boss would be all 'throw out this lunatic' and then some engineer in the back would go 'hang on, sir! I think this might be a breakthough!'




But that ...is... the joke.


----------



## turnip_farmer (Feb 19, 2021)

Deset Gled said:


> But that ...is... the joke.




Your sense of humour is wrong.


----------



## Dioltach (Feb 19, 2021)

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 19, 2021)

embee said:


> He understands it. He then derisively calls it quaint.



Using a keyboard, that is. I don't know that we're ever told that he's using a programming language, which is what others have stated. An engineering application that permits the entry of chemical formulae, perhaps?


----------



## embee (Feb 19, 2021)

Dioltach said:


> The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.



This is the most correct response.


----------



## Professor Murder (Feb 19, 2021)

Not naming ones already stated that I agree with. Just looking to offer new input.
Rocky 3. Exorcist 3.


----------



## pukunui (Feb 19, 2021)

I'd say _Revenge of the Sith _is the best of the SW prequel trilogy. It's at least the most watchable anyway.

_Return of the Jedi _is good, but not as good as _Empire Strikes Back_.

_Back to the Future III _is pretty good too.

Agree that _Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade _is the best of that trilogy.

_Cars 3 _is good.

_Skyfall _is probably my favorite of the Daniel Craig 007 movies.

The _Mockingjay _films (taken together as the third part of the trilogy) are really good.


----------



## Bawylie (Feb 20, 2021)

TwoSix said:


> Wait a minute...I made a funny comment about this, but totally glossed over that you think Far From Home is better than Tobey Maguire Spider-Man 2!  That's a hot take.



It IS better. I recently watched both. And as much as I loved McGuire’s Spider-Man 2 when it came out, I find today’s Me liked Far From Home much more.


----------



## Vael (Feb 20, 2021)

Hmmm,

As a kid, I much preferred the battles and adventure energy of ROTJ to ESB. Even now, I think it gets underrated due to the Ewok factor. So, still a solid entry.

Star Trek Beyond is my legit favourite of the Kelvin era Treks. 2009 was all origin story, and Into Darkness is just bad and has not aged well at all (though I found it a fun theatre experience at the time). Star Trek Beyond better managed the ensemble, giving a bit more to the rest of the cast. And we got the most of the crew being the crew, which is the main strength of the Kelvin era. Yes, the stories have been weak, but I do love the cast.

As for the rest of Trek, yeah, I don't hate Star Trek 3 ... but is it 3 or 4, given that 2-4 form a continuous narrative?


----------



## TheSword (Feb 20, 2021)

embee said:


> Definitely agree. It is a fun romp but is highly dated and didn't age well. It only has value at this point as a historical document.



It’s great. By far the funniest of the films. 
Scotty with the computer mouse “how quaint”


----------



## Morrus (Feb 20, 2021)

Deset Gled said:


> I really liked Die Hard 3 (With a Vengence).  Definitely better than 2.  Not sure if it's better than 1, though.



Die Hard is an all-time classic. 3 is a fun flick, but it’s not that.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 20, 2021)

embee said:


> Definitely agree. It is a fun romp but is highly dated and didn't age well. It only has value at this point as a historical document.



How does time travel into the past get dated? The further we get from the 80s, the better the film gets. Back to the Future has the same strength. It can’t date.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 20, 2021)

Bawylie said:


> I agree with all of these. I would add that Spider-Man 2 - Far From Home is the best of the three Spider-Man 2s.



Now that’s comedy.


----------



## Imaculata (Feb 22, 2021)

aco175 said:


> I'll admit that I saw this, but not sure on if there is the best one.  I did hear that this series was being remade as well.
> 
> View attachment 132999




Starship Troopers 3 is one of the worst in the series, though admitedly, only the first movie is any good. However, the 3rd movie is made hilarious by the fact that there's an actress in it who is almost impossible to understand. I suspect her acting or pronounciation were not considered when she was cast.

Anyone who hasn't seen it. I recommend just checking a scene from the movie on youtube that has her in it for a big laugh.


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 22, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Starship Troopers 3 is one of the worst in the series, though admitedly, only the first movie is any good. However, the 3rd movie is made hilarious by the fact that there's an actress in it who is almost impossible to understand. I suspect her acting or pronounciation were not considered when she was cast.
> 
> Anyone who hasn't seen it. I recommend just checking a scene from the movie on youtube that has her in it for a big laugh.



Those just kept getting worse. The digital special effects definitely show the budget, as does the horrible foley (1950s punch sound effects? Really?!) Surprised that every death scene didn't include the Wilhelm Scream.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 22, 2021)

Nobody's mentioned _Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End_ yet and it's one of my all-time favourite movies.

_Return of the King_ is excellent, as is _Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade_.  Someone mentioned _Cars 3_ - another fine choice.  _Thor: Ragnarok_ is good fun but I'll take the first _Thor_ movie every time.


----------



## Ulfgeir (Feb 22, 2021)

Lanefan said:


> Nobody's mentioned _Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End_ yet and it's one of my all-time favourite movies.
> 
> _Return of the King_ is excellent, as is _Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade_.  Someone mentioned _Cars 3_ - another fine choice.  _Thor: Ragnarok_ is good fun but I'll take the first _Thor_ movie every time.



Thor: Ragnarok is fine when they are in Valhalla fighting Hela, but the comedy-stuff with Hulk before that I could have done without.


----------



## AmerginLiath (Feb 22, 2021)

The Scotty bit in STIV I think has to be looked at not simply as a programming language issue (computer programming being so new) but as a question of wrangling with old syntax in language and its presentation. I’m reminded of editing 16-18th century business and property records (complete with the sort of abbreviations common to inked shorthand that we don’t encounter in an age of modern pens, much less typing) for publication or on the side for genealogical research, parsing and structuring meaning within a syntactic formula built for a use in that era’s market program (to coin a term). Heck, consider on a much smaller scale how often here we’re all going back and forth between stat-blocks of different systems (including from over a half-century of versions of D&D) and cross-translating rules and characters. As we begin to transition to an AI-heavy interface in the 21st-century, we’re all reacquainting ourselves with the sort of natural language requests (Boolean if not Aristotlean language) with which we interface with our smart speakers and the like; Scotty and other 23rd-century engineers are always depicted doing the further developed version of that same process, so he’s going to think in terms of global syntax rather than particular language when approaching communicating with machines.

The other thought I have on this discussion is whether “threequel” and third movie are terms that aren’t always necessarily the same. You may well have a series of films with a character or set of characters but not a story which evolves around them (effectively a series of serials, like episodes on the big screen): the Star Trek films are largely like that aside from II-IV, which operate as a trilogy in the series (such that IV is the threequel here, not III). But series like Mad Max and to a degree Indiana Jones are basically “here’s another adventure of...” (Last Crusade has an element of Indy Is Getting Old added to it, but it more series finale of a series of episodes than a true conclusion to one story). The Marvel films are an odd bag where some other films interpose in between the 1-2-3 of series (the classic CA:CW as Avengers 2.5 notion, but even how IM3 is as much a sequel to Avengers as a follow up to previous IM films, and its big conclusion is quickly turned back in the Avengers series).

The classic threequel formula is the Standalone + Expanded Two-parter that the Star Wars trilogy created. There’s always the question of how the second film raises the stakes versus overturns what the first presented (I’ve always personally viewed the Matrix trilogy as being uneven in that the revelations of 2 and 3 take away from what‘s good about 1 without making something better, while I remain torn about the expanding of the John Wick mythology in 2 and 3 compared to symmetry of character and story in 1). I personally find it hard to find many good threequels of this sort (BTTF comes to mind perhaps) simply because it’s a particular structure (and a closed one at that) that requires a specific — often Campbellian of a sort — style of storytelling (BTTF wasn’t written to be mythic like SW, but it’s time-travel core lent an element of leaving and returning home; there’s a surprising amount of Hero‘s Journey in that series). That doesn’t mean third films, as creators become more comfortable with characters can’t be great: I’ll always love Last Crusade, for example. It’s just that I’m not sure the two terms are exactly synonymous here.


----------



## Imaculata (Feb 22, 2021)

AmerginLiath said:


> (I’ve always personally viewed the Matrix trilogy as being uneven in that the revelations of 2 and 3 take away from what‘s good about 1 without making something better, while I remain torn about the expanding of the John Wick mythology in 2 and 3 compared to symmetry of character and story in 1).




I agree in regards to the Matrix (still have to watch the John Wick sequels). The Matrix was intended as a movie with an open ending. To then add two more movies that continue the story, kind of defeats the purpose of having that open ending; the audience is supposed to use their imagination in regards to what happens next. 

Further more, the Matrix sequels are bloated with pseudo-filosphical ramblings that ultimately go nowhere. It is as if the creators try to pull a veil over our eyes, to hide how ultimately empty the movies are. That is not to say that there isn't stuff to like in the Matrix sequels. There are some fantastic set pieces and impressive special effects. But it doesn't seem like there is anywhere for the story to go, nor any suspense when the main character has basically ascended to a god. For me the first movie will always be great, regardless of how I feel about the sequels. But I do share your feelings that the first movie is some what damaged by the sequels.

Future audience will simply view the Matrix trilogy as one story spread across 3 movies, rather than 2 stories pasted together. Arguably, the same could be said about Star Wars. But in my view, Star Wars was filmed as an episodic style film, where there could be further adventures further down the line, and the story wasn't finished. The Matrix in contrast, clearly has an ending, if an open one.


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 22, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> I agree in regards to the Matrix (still have to watch the John Wick sequels). The Matrix was intended as a movie with an open ending. To then add two more movies that continue the story, kind of defeats the purpose of having that open ending; the audience is supposed to use their imagination in regards to what happens next.
> 
> Further more, the Matrix sequels are bloated with pseudo-filosphical ramblings that ultimately go nowhere. It is as if the creators try to pull a veil over our eyes, to hide how ultimately empty the movies are. That is not to say that there isn't stuff to like in the Matrix sequels. There are some fantastic set pieces and impressive special effects. But it doesn't seem like there is anywhere for the story to go, nor any suspense when the main character has basically ascended to a god. For me the first movie will always be great, regardless of how I feel about the sequels. But I do share your feelings that the first movie is some what damaged by the sequels.
> 
> Future audience will simply view the Matrix trilogy as one story spread across 3 movies, rather than 2 stories pasted together. Arguably, the same could be said about Star Wars. But in my view, Star Wars was filmed as an episodic style film, where there could be further adventures further down the line, and the story wasn't finished. The Matrix in contrast, clearly has an ending, if an open one.



A nearly perfect movie, with a premise essentially ruined by the sequels. The number of parodies of the scene with The Architect, using absolutely impenetrable technobabble, is truly staggering.


----------



## Imaculata (Feb 22, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> A nearly perfect movie, with a premise essentially ruined by the sequels. The number of parodies of the scene with The Architect, using absolutely impenetrable technobabble, is truly staggering.




That was indeed the scene I was referring to. A whole lot of empty babbling, showing that the writers had really written themselves into a corner.

But like I said, there are also things to like in the sequels. Some really iconic action scenes. The fact that they built their own freeway to film that amazing chase in Reloaded. The Burly Brawl scene, though the CGI hasn't aged well. But it is all too gratuitous. The original knew to use its gravity defying action scenes sparingly, and for specific emotional beats in the story, and to not stretch the action into the completely rediculous. Some restraint was shown, where as the sequels are the exact opposite of restraint. It kinda makes the action scenes in the original less special in that way.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 22, 2021)

Ulfgeir said:


> Thor: Ragnarok is fine when they are in Valhalla fighting Hela, but the comedy-stuff with Hulk before that I could have done without.



I love Thor: Ragnarok, but I do think the middle Thor-Hulk portion goes on for a scene too long.  

Speaking of MCU threequels and comedy, I think Iron Man 3 and Infinity War are very underrated as to how funny they are.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 22, 2021)

Ulfgeir said:


> Wasn't IV the one where they went back in time to collect a whale? Personally I thought that was the weakest of the old movies.



It doesn't feel very Star Trek-y, but as a comedic sci-fi movie, I think it's excellent.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Feb 22, 2021)

Exorcist 3, yes! The hallway scissors jump scare scene is so good. I don't know anyone that hasn't screamed at that part the first time they've watched it.



Professor Murder said:


> Not naming ones already stated that I agree with. Just looking to offer new input.
> Rocky 3. Exorcist 3.


----------

