We are amped about it. We are mad about it. But we gladly pay to see the third installments of our favorite movies. What beholds the consistent fan is the enjoyment of the plot, the familiarity of the cast, and the storyline which hopefully keeps getting better. The problem is, even though third sequels are okay, there are also negatives. So here we’ll focus on the beauty of the sequels as well as the ugly.
Pro: Some sequels are just there to follow along a prewritten format and to keep a movie to its normal 2-3 hour length. The perfect example is the hit series Twilight, based off of Stephenie Meyer’s books. The story itself is four books long, and how can a movie cram all of that in? It just cannot happen, so as fans gear up each year, they are full expectation to see how much closer the film is to the book or video game they love so much. Fans also want to see how much a character/cast has grown.*
Con: The negative point here is that a sequel is fine if it is good, but a third sequel may play for an audience that has grown out of it, or what usually happens is the original cast is booted for someone new and this may drive people crazy.
Pro: Third installments introduce new characters usually. This doesn’t just go for movies, but books, and video games as well. Third installments have the ability to introduce new and better characters with different personalities, strengths and powers.
Con: The focus can be taken off the main characters and this may be harmful to the storyline. In real life people do change and develop new habits, yet when it overshadows the main character it can go bad. Take the X-Men series for example. Part one was okay, part two was great, and then the third sequel put more focus on Jean Grey and the Phoenix while Xavier gets killed off. X-Men Origins soon followed with Wolverine as the main focus since it is his story.
Pro: For the directors, writers, and producers of a third sequel, the fan base is sure to be there. There are probably no worries over whether or not they’ll make money because fans will pay regardless.
Con: Remember the Matrix? That movie was 1999’s sci fi movie of the year. Part one introduced us to a world of Jujitsu and philosophy and showed off Keanu Reeve’s long legs while kicking tail. The problem is that after a while boredom sets in. The second installment to the Matrix was okay but it repeated the same philosophical principles as part one and part three was a thrown together disaster. It got old real fast and seemed too hurried. Yet the movie is still enjoyable to fans of the Matrix.
Another example of a movie which generates a fan base but couldn’t live up to the promise third time in a row is the humorous classic Tremors. The movie was a about slithering slugs in the desert which detects movement and swallows up people and machines which vibrate the Earth. The second part was okay, but the third sequel was just not all that excellent and had a faulty storyline. neither part two or three made it to the big screen either.
Pro: Sometimes a deeper story needs to be told fully in the third installment.
Con: Flowers in the Attic(as a novel) was the beginning of a series by V.C. Andrews. The ending to the series was called Olivia. Yes, Olivia was the final installment to the series to explain how the evil grandmother became that way. Although Olivia is not a third installment (more like the fourth or fifth), it threw people off balance when they realized it was not a continuation but reverted back in history to explain how the evil grandmother became such a horrible person.
Third sequels are not bad, one must realize that with a goo fan base and filming based off books, third installments have a fighting chance of being popular.
*At the time of this writing, directors are working on Twilight: Breaking Dawn, which is art four to the series.