# Which film trilogy has the (relative) worst part 3? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [May 1, 2008, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-film-trilogy-has-the-relative-worst-part-3/447573 "2008-05-01T05:56:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Intravenus\_De\_Milo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Intravenus\_De\_Milo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intravenus_De_Milo)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2008, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-film-trilogy-has-the-relative-worst-part-3/447573/1 "2008-05-01T05:56:25Z")
Inspired by the Star Wars prequel badness thread, I was thinking about the film industry’s fondness for trilogies. While some film series are planned to be trilogies from the start ( **Lord of the Rings** , etc.), a great deal are not, and in many cases, the part 3 winds up being perhaps the least well-made or beloved of the set. Why, given this not-so-good track record, do so many parts 3 end up being made? Which ones were the biggest departures from their companion films in terms of crapiness? And, is there a part 3 that actually managed to buck the trend and equal or exceed its predecessors in quality? (I can think of at least one) Let’s consider the following wide-release film trilogies: \*\*- Indiana Jones - Star Wars (original trilogy) - Star Wars (prequel trilogy) - The Godfather - Jurassic Park - The Matrix - Blade - Spider-Man - X-Men - Lord of the Rings - Pirates of the Caribbean - Shrek - Superman (Christopher Reeve trilogy)\*\* Which one had the least necessary, most trilogy-besmirching part 3? Note: I tried to think of all the film series that were comprised of only 3 films as of 2008, so that discounts the **Harry Potters** , the **Aliens** , the **Saws** , and so forth. Also, I am aware that some of the above listed trilogies are due for additions in the near future ( **Shrek** and **Indiana Jones** , for example), but for now they remain sets of 3 films each. Of course, if you can think of a glaring omission to the list, feel free to chime in. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Shine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr_shine/32/464_2.png) [@Mr\_Shine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Shine)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2008, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-film-trilogy-has-the-relative-worst-part-3/447573/2 "2008-05-01T06:07:05Z")
In relative terms, in my opinion Return of the Jedi has got it down cold. In absolute terms, out of your list I’d say JP3 or Blade 3. ETA Superman had 4 films ---
**Author:** ![Intravenus\_De\_Milo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Intravenus\_De\_Milo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intravenus_De_Milo)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2008, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-film-trilogy-has-the-relative-worst-part-3/447573/3 "2008-05-01T06:21:08Z")
> [@Mr Shine](#): > > ETA Superman had 4 films Okay, thanks. I wasn’t alive when the first two came out, and didn’t see the next two, but I keep hearing about how horrendously bad **Superman III** was, so I just assumed that they quit with that one. I guess not. OTOH, **Superman III** was partly the inspiration for the embezzlement scheme in **Office Space** , so I suppose it does have _some_ merit 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![TWDuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@TWDuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TWDuke)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2008, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-film-trilogy-has-the-relative-worst-part-3/447573/4 "2008-05-01T06:29:50Z")
If “least necessary” is a criterion, I don’t see how the third installment of **Star Wars** (either batch) or **Lord of the Rings** since the second installment of each wasn’t really a complete story. I haven’t seen the other third film in the other trilogies listed except **The Godfather** , but I suspect that while it is probably far from the worst film on the list, it could take the prize for a drop-off in quality and actually diminishing the films that preceded it. If the director had gotten his ideal cast together it would have been much a much different film, but sadly we’ll never get to see that one. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2008, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-film-trilogy-has-the-relative-worst-part-3/447573/5 "2008-05-01T06:32:18Z")
My initial response was The Matrix series, because the third one, _Revolutions_ was so excruciatingly bad that i can’t believe it got made. But then i decided that it didn’t really ruin the series because number 2, _Reloaded_, was almost as bad, and number 1 wasn’t that great either. I think i’m going to have to go with a trilogy that’s not on your list, and vote for _Jaws 3-D_. While _Jaws 2_ wasn’t great, it was OK, and _Jaws_ was a classic. The third one, though, was a stinker of mammoth proportions. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2008, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-film-trilogy-has-the-relative-worst-part-3/447573/6 "2008-05-01T06:36:57Z")
[QUOTE=Intravenus De Milo] And, is there a part 3 that actually managed to buck the trend and equal or exceed its predecessors in quality? [/QUOTE] Not sure about exceeding its predecessors, but i really liked _The Bourne Ultimatum_ at least as much as the other two. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2008, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-film-trilogy-has-the-relative-worst-part-3/447573/7 "2008-05-01T06:41:47Z")
One more post, then i’ll stop. 🙂 Another number 3 that was nowhere near as good as the first two was _Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome_. The original _Mad Max_ was a low-budget classic, and _Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior_ was an awesome post-apocalyptic chase film. The third one, with Mel Gibson and Tina Turner sporting matching mullets, was definitely inferior. ---
**Author:** ![WotNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e19b73/32.png) [@WotNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WotNot)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2008, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-film-trilogy-has-the-relative-worst-part-3/447573/8 "2008-05-01T07:34:39Z")
I don’t think any of the suggestions so far show as big a fall in quality as **Robocop III.** ---
**Author:** ![Staggerlee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/staggerlee/32/3134_2.png) [@Staggerlee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Staggerlee)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2008, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-film-trilogy-has-the-relative-worst-part-3/447573/9 "2008-05-01T09:30:18Z")
[QUOTE=Intravenus De Milo] Okay, thanks. I wasn’t alive when the first two came out, and didn’t see the next two, but I keep hearing about how horrendously bad **Superman III** was, so I just assumed that they quit with that one. I guess not. OTOH, **Superman III** was partly the inspiration for the embezzlement scheme in **Office Space** , so I suppose it does have _some_ merit 🙂 [/QUOTE] Well I for one really like Superman III. The bit where Richard Pryor pulls up in the sports car shortly after his genius embezzlement is fantastic. But the **Terminator** trilogy has easily the most disappointing third part to my mind. I actually felt physically sick as I left the cinema, and that wasn’t the hotdogs. ---
**Author:** ![bubastis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d07c76/32.png) [@bubastis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bubastis)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2008, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-film-trilogy-has-the-relative-worst-part-3/447573/10 "2008-05-01T10:18:00Z")
Best “Part 3”? Back to the Future. Worst? Well, I would say Shrek 3, except Shrek 4 is in production so that doesn’t fit your criteria… Ditto Highlander… I’ll go with Pirates of the Caribbean. ---
**Author:** ![Illuminatiprimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/illuminatiprimus/32/11520_2.png) [@Illuminatiprimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Illuminatiprimus)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2008, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-film-trilogy-has-the-relative-worst-part-3/447573/11 "2008-05-01T11:14:58Z")
[QUOTE=bubastis] I’ll go with Pirates of the Caribbean. [/QUOTE] Me too, although I really should have known better than to go and see it as Pirates 2 made me want to walk out of the cinema. I was hoping in 3 it would all come together and that there would be some kind of point to it all. I was wrong. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2008, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-film-trilogy-has-the-relative-worst-part-3/447573/12 "2008-05-01T11:23:56Z")
That’s what I get for not reading the OP properly! ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2008, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-film-trilogy-has-the-relative-worst-part-3/447573/13 "2008-05-01T11:31:26Z")
[QUOTE=Intravenus De Milo] And, is there a part 3 that actually managed to buck the trend and equal or exceed its predecessors in quality? [/QUOTE] The Good, The Bad & The Ugly. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2008, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-film-trilogy-has-the-relative-worst-part-3/447573/14 "2008-05-01T11:38:19Z")
[QUOTE=Intravenus De Milo] Why, given this not-so-good track record, do so many parts 3 end up being made? [/quote] TO MAKE MORE MONEY. 😃 > [@](#): > > Which ones were the biggest departures from their companion films in terms of crapiness? If you go by that standard I think Godfather III wins hands-down. The movie isn’t quite as awful as some people say it is, but compared to the first two - well, it had a lot farther to fall. The third Matrix and Pirates movies were pure crap, and much worse than the fun originals, but in a relative sense it’s not as bad. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2008, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-film-trilogy-has-the-relative-worst-part-3/447573/15 "2008-05-01T12:04:31Z")
Omen III- The Final Conflict- Damien Thorn is supposed to become a major world ruler at the very least and face Jesus at Armageddon. He gets as far up as the UN Youth Force which he uses on a S&D mission for ReincarnatedBabyJesus & is stabbed with the daggers of Megiddo as a glowing Jesus figure overwhelms the screen. F\* that! ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2008, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-film-trilogy-has-the-relative-worst-part-3/447573/16 "2008-05-01T12:05:41Z")
[QUOTE=Mr Shine] ETA Superman had 4 films [/QUOTE] Next thing, you’ll say that Sean Connery came back to do a sequel to Highlander! Another suggestion- the Karloff Frankenstein series; SON OF is far lesser than FRANKENSTEIN which is far lesser that its immediate sequel BRIDE OF. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2008, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-film-trilogy-has-the-relative-worst-part-3/447573/17 "2008-05-01T13:18:38Z")
I thought Spider-Man 3 was better than Spider-Man 2. I realize that isn’t saying a whole lot because S-M 2 stank on ice. To the list I would add the third part of the Rocky Horror trilogy, which was apparently so bad that despite several scripts was never even made. If one really wanted to stretch the point, one could include Halloween 3: Season of the Witch since there are two separate continuity tracks in the Halloween film series that diverge so widely that from one perspective they could be considered different series. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2008, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-film-trilogy-has-the-relative-worst-part-3/447573/18 "2008-05-01T13:18:47Z")
[QUOTE=Intravenus De Milo] Okay, thanks. I wasn’t alive when the first two came out, and didn’t see the next two, but I keep hearing about how horrendously bad **Superman III** was, so I just assumed that they quit with that one. I guess not. [/QUOTE] No, but Rao knows they **[should](http://www.agonybooth.com/recaps/Superman_IV__The_Quest_for_Peace_1987.aspx) [have](http://www.jabootu.com/s4.htm)**… ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2008, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-film-trilogy-has-the-relative-worst-part-3/447573/19 "2008-05-01T13:24:35Z")
The worst relative to the others, that I’ve seen, is LOTR. FotR is the best movie ever made, and TTT is one of my favorite movies ever, too, but RotK is just a pretty good movie. The differences: – No Scouring – Too much cheesy incorporeal creatures (the ringwraiths aren’t cheesy, and the Dead Swamps was briefer than the stupid green glowing things of the Paths of the Dead.) – Too much focus on non-canonical issues (before, the worst offender was “falling”.) – No Scouring – Too little beautiful scenery, too much Scorched Earth (which also got tedious in the books.) – No Scouring ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2008, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-film-trilogy-has-the-relative-worst-part-3/447573/20 "2008-05-01T13:43:14Z")
[QUOTE=Intravenus De Milo] And, is there a part 3 that actually managed to buck the trend and equal or exceed its predecessors in quality? [/QUOTE] Army of Darkness is (in my opinion) the best of the Evil Dead trilogy. Last Crusade is about even with Raiders of the Lost Ark, but in three weeks from today it won’t count as a trilogy anymore. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-film-trilogy-has-the-relative-worst-part-3/447573.md?page=2)