Has there ever been a hit movie that led to a sequel that bombed really bad. Then for some reason they made another sequel and that third movie was also a hit.
I ask as I was watching an interview with Olivia Newton-John.
They asked her about Grease III. She seemed a bit taken back. The interviewer said, he knew it was being worked on as a project and would she be in it. She said, If John Travolta would be in it, she would also agree.
Whether this is bunk or not I don’t know but it got me to thinking about the question.
Grease was a big hit, Grease II was a big bomb. So I was thinking, was there ever a movie that was a hit, so they made a sequel to it and it was a big bomb. Then they tried for a third sequel and it was a big hit.
I am not a movie person and I know hit and bombs can be relative terms, but I thought I’d ask
Good question. I can’t really think of any examples either. Best I can do is the third predator movie did a lot better then the second one, though I’m not sure I’d say the second one “bombed”. It made its production budget back anyways
Within the context of the movies in question, until recently Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was the weakest of the first three movies (since overtaken by the 4th last year). It was by far the worst received of the first three movies and was a “flop” given the success of Raiders and The Last Crusade. Still, to be fair, it was a flop that most directors and studios dream of.
Also, taking the OP very loosely, it is an article of faith that the even numbered original series Star Trek movies are excellent and the odd numbered ones are not so good (though 3 was not as bad as 1 and 5).
Last one… Back to the Future 2 was fairly incomprehensible compared to 1 and 3 and is by far the “worst” of the three. Again, though, it’s all relative.
If we turn to the game world, Ultima was a milestone in computer RPGs, and Ultima III expanded on that milestone with a larger game world, multiple playable chracters, and a developing series mythology. Ultima II, on the other hand, was a poorly-rated mishmash involving time travel, altered timelines, vast stretches of gaming area entirely superfluous to the story, and a plot which makes next to no sense even in the context of the series. It’s more or less the black sheep of the series.
I will say that I enjoyed Juraissic Park III more than II, and Batman & Robin (IV) more than Batman Forever (III), but that was because I went into the later movies with lowered expectations due to the prior movies. George Clooney’s Batman disappointed my far less than Val Kilmer’s as I didn’t expect much.
Not quite the same, but everyone seems to agree that every other Star Trek movie with the original cast was better than the intervening ones. the first one was a letdown (despite Wise directing), but II was good. III was disappointing, but IV was great. V, as one reviewer said, guaranteed that we’d never know if DeForrest Kelley could direct, but VI made up for it.
Also, if you count reboots, there have been several movie series that have petered out and then been re-started with a different cast/director/direction. Off the top of my head, there’s Batman Reborn (followed the horrible Batman and Robin) and the Jaden Smith/Jackie Chan Karate Kid reboot.
European Vacation was pretty much a waste of celluloid, and far under-performed the original Vacation at the box office.
Subsequently, *Christmas Vacation *was the best film in the series (IMO), and made more money than either of the first two.
I came to nominate the Ocean’s Eleven films but I see I was beaten to it. They should have called the third movie Ocean’s Thirteen: The Apology. It was pretty good, like Eleven, and waaaay better than Twelve.
I believe Ocean’s Twelve was one of those movies where they bought a script off the rack and then tried to tailor it to fit the existing cast.
The same thing happened with the Die Hard movies. When the first movie was a hit, a bunch of people wrote scripts for movies like it. When the producers decided to make a sequel, they just bought one of these existing scripts and changed the names rather than write a new script based on John McClane from the conception.
The result of this kind of practice is that you end up with a movie that feels generic. It has no real connection with the original work because it hadn’t been created to have a connection. And rather than taking an existing set of characters and building a story around them, you’re taking an existing story and trying to squeeze an existing set of characters into the roles - it’s usually a poor fit.
I think the point is it takes two crap movies in a row to kill a franchise, but only one bad sequel if it’s the first. It took *Superman III *and Superman IV to kill the franchise for nearly 20 years, and *Batman Forever *followed by *Batman and Robin *to put that one down. On the other hand, it only took Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer to nail the Fantastic Four series to the ground.
Can’t speak for the box office gross (I think both performed fine), but, artistically, I’d say you heard wrong. Reloaded was awful, but had some flash and spectacle if you like overblown CGI and the vague fetishwear vibe. Revolutions was incoherent, boring as sin, and spent way, way too much time in the truly awful “real world.”
