How do we avoid the third act curse?

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Originally Posted by Chris Wallace

We need to get over our fear of four, first of all. I think if we can do that, stop thinking that EVERY 4th installment is going to be a train wreck, we can put an end to all this nonsense. The Batman & Superman franchises were NOT taken too far; they were taken in the wrong direction. And even they could have potentially been redeemed but the studio just gave up on them. Which is something Majik1387 touched on; why do the studios give up when something goes wrong? "Oops-we f***ed up. Back to the drawing board!" I'm sorry, one movie-good or bad-does not a franchise make. There are ways around it. You don't cancel a successful tv show because of a bad episode. Many aren't canceled after a bad season. You don't cancel a successful comic book series after one bad issue or story arc. Why do they apply this mentality to movies?

They apply it simply because studio's nor directors never even have the mentality that these films can last forever. James Bond was lucky that the franchise never wanted to stop nor questioned the success of James Bond.

However, I believe that Marvel (at least Marvel Entertainment) is trying to change it. If the Avengers in a few years is incredibly successful, then we could see the opening of the Marvel film universe.

[Chris Wallace]

If they don't expect it to go on forever, that's fine. But they don't need to shoot themselves in the foot.

[Chris Wallace]

Question: what do you think is the most widely lambasted 3rd film in the genre? I would say Spider-Man 3, simply because it's the only film to maintain the director from the previous 2 & the only one that lead fans to act like they wanted him drawn & quartered. For all its flaws, "Batman Forever" doesn't get nearly as much bashing, although that could be largely due to the 4th installment that we have to compare it to.

[VenomVsSpidey]

easily Spider-Man 3. It's so lambasted, there was a poll taken on Empire magazine, and it listed it as the 50th worst movie ever.

[Chris Wallace]

And where did BF place? Or "Superman III" for that matter?

[Deaths Head II]

I think S3 is the most lambasted at the moment because it was the most recent one. The continuity that Batman Forever is a part of isn't the continuity of the current films, so that also has the advantage of people being able to look back on it in a softer light because now they have an alternative/don't have to deal with the series continuing after that film. People will probably ease up on S3 after the reboot or if Batman 3 turns out to be a big disappointment.

[VenomVsSpidey]

Originally Posted by Chris Wallace

And where did BF place? Or "Superman III" for that matter?

...I can't recall them being on the list...they might've been though. Have to recheck it...

[Chris Wallace]

Originally Posted by Deaths Head II

I think S3 is the most lambasted at the moment because it was the most recent one. The continuity that Batman Forever is a part of isn't the continuity of the current films, so that also has the advantage of people being able to look back on it in a softer light because now they have an alternative/don't have to deal with the series continuing after that film. People will probably ease up on S3 after the reboot or if Batman 3 turns out to be a big disappointment.

I agree with you in one regard & disagree in another. I do think the freshness of it is a factor, but there are others as well. "Blade Trinity" didn't get nearly as much flak when it first came out, nor did "X3". The fans didn't cry foul nearly as bad and the studios didn't just give up altogether. Blade still got a halfway decent TV series & X-Men went into prequels. In the case of Blade, I think it had to do with him not being considered part of the mainstream of comics, & I think a lot of people's "X-pectations" lowered after Singer backed out. Again, with Spider-Man we had the same director who had pleased (most of) us twice before, as well as the most highly anticipated villain of the series. But that villain proved to be a square peg that didn't fit into the round hole, & the compromises made so that he could be shoehorned in were not met with enthusiastic response from fans.

[Chris Wallace]

It's starting to look like one factor that helps prevent some of that studio/bean-counter interference is having a big outside hit in-between installments.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Chris Wallace

It's starting to look like one factor that helps prevent some of that studio/bean-counter interference is having a big outside hit in-between installments.

Like what?

[Travesty]

Originally Posted by Joker

Like what?

I think he's referring to Nolan with movies like Inception and The Prestige.

[Chris Wallace]

You don't think. You know.

[Travesty]

Originally Posted by Chris Wallace

You don't think. You know.

Then what did you mean?

Now I'm confused with your posts.

[The Joker]

He has a point. I think Nolan is more respected and has more clout in Hollywood than the likes of Sam Raimi.

[Chris Wallace]

Originally Posted by Travesty

Then what did you mean?

Now I'm confused with your posts.

Sorry. THat was a warped, goofy way of telling you that you were right.

[The Joker]

So you were saying that because Nolan has made a string of successful movies, that means studios will lay off him and let him do his own thing?

[MessiahDecoy123]

You never know when the studio is going to interfere. It all depends on who's in charge at the time.

[Travesty]

Originally Posted by Chris Wallace

Sorry. THat was a warped, goofy way of telling you that you were right.

Ha, I got it now. In my head, I read it as I have no idea what I'm talking about. It sounded like this:

-"You don't think! Ya know"

Sorry

[S.A.A.D.]

The truth is that no matter what,someone out there or people out there are going to have an issue with the third act of whatever it is when it comes to movies,one would have to take away those people's will to so they don't feel negative about the third acts. Just a small piece of it if it is necessary.

[Chris Wallace]

Originally Posted by Joker

So you were saying that because Nolan has made a string of successful movies, that means studios will lay off him and let him do his own thing?

I'm saying it's more likely they will. Singer proved that whatever he did to make "X-Men" fly with audiences (admittedly over some dissent) could NOT carry over to Superman. Raimi did come into the Spider-Man project largely untested & unproven. His resume consisted of, what, some low-budget cult horror movies, "Darkman" and a couple of dramas? It probably doesn't help that fans were second-guessing every move he made from day one. And even when the movies made money, we still got a relentless barrage of Power Ranger references, Man-Spider cracks and complaints about Kirsten. It was almost like people were willing to pay money just to trash the film. At least that's how many made it seem. And in-between the Spidey films, he just did more horror flicks, none of which exactly set the world on fire. And apart from him, I have NEVER heard of a studio pressuring a director to throw in a character that he didn't want to use. So either noone else has had it happen to them or it was kept under wraps. Nolan, on the other hand, has the general perception of being able to piss platinum-with Batman fans and the GA alike-and odds are, more than likely, WB will leave him alone & let him do his own thing. They have no reason not to.

[Chris Wallace]

Originally Posted by S.A.A.D

The truth is that no matter what,someone out there or people out there are going to have an issue with the third act of whatever it is when it comes to movies,one would have to take away those people's will to so they don't feel negative about the third acts. Just a small piece of it if it is necessary.

But we're not talking about a small piece of anything. This is about an OVERWHELMINGLY negative response across the board. This is about 3rd acts that, universally, have either flopped or gotten such horrendous word of mouth that people THINK they flopped. If fans weren't running around acting like they wanted to lynch Raimi, tar & feather Ratner and egg anyone who said they liked 3rd acts, this thread wouldn't exist.

[Chris Wallace]

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

You never know when the studio is going to interfere. It all depends on who's in charge at the time.

Sadly, this is true.

[Construct]

I don't think there is a "curse" on third entries in comic-book-based film series. I know that I’m getting into semantics, but there being a "curse" takes power out of the creative team's hands, and I think the creative team is ultimately responsible for what is created. However, I do think that there are problems inherent in third entries that are exclusive to comic-book-based films, the same of which that are inherent in life. So, I think the question becomes, "How do we solve the third act problem?"

As you mature through life, you gain knowledge of yourself and your environment, and from that, you learn how to use it for your own benefit: your survival. If that knowledge is true and eliminates problems now and into the future, it can bring you closer to what I believe is the ultimate goal of life: peace for yourself and harmonious coexistence with your environment. As larger problems are reduced, smaller problems emerge (or perspective changes that allows you to break large problems up into smaller problems). With each (smaller) problem that is solved, your reach to change yourself and influence/change the world around you is expanded. As a result, the scale of your impact is broadened as the scope on your behavior is narrowed. When that scope is narrowed, you see things not in terms of absolutes (i.e. "black-and-white" good and evil), but of smaller, finer details that are a matter of nuance and subtlety (i.e. "shades of gray" partial right-and-wrong). As you focus on finding that ultimate truth, you may be met with increased opposition since you may be uncovering things that are meant to be private. From that, there should be an internal and external expectation of greater responsibility of the power derived from knowledge, to avoid harm upon others or yourself from its possible misuse.

With those smaller problems that complicate life, there is also a greater expectation on behalf of those that will be affected by their solutions (or lack thereof) to solve those problems more accurately and efficiently than in the past, because the perception is that "the smaller the problem is, the easier the solution should be". This is not always the case, however, because the solver is likely dealing with a number of smaller problems that each require an attention to detail and a calm, rational approach to solve them, which may be more difficult than one might think to attain. If those problems are small enough, the potential solver is likely offered two options: be complacent and avoid solving the problems since they're so small, or challenge one's self to solve them. If art is to be a reflection or interpretation of life, and films (of this ilk in particular) are the grandest artistic expressions in terms of scale, then a film series such as Sony's Spider-Man or Fox's X-Men should follow suit in trying to eliminate problems both in terms of the characters' journey and the creative process itself.

With each sequel in these series, there's a greater expectation that each would be bigger and better than the previous entry, and given that their third films act as third acts, or climaxes that provide resolution to their story arcs, there is greater ground to cover with more details to uncover about the major characters of each series. Throw in the anticipation factor of the fan-favorites in Phoenix in X3 and in Venom in SM3, and the ante is upped even more expectation-wise for the creative teams to deliver. In the following, I'll assess how I think the films turned out:

Spider-Man 3
Main character's largest apparent goal: Balance between being Spider-Man and Peter Parker
Largest problems solved: Gaining the respect and love of NYC as Spider-Man, and the same of Mary Jane as Peter Parker and Spider-Man
Smaller problems to be solved: Assuming greater responsibility in becoming a husband to Mary Jane; managing his friendship to Harry; competing professionally with Eddie Brock, Jr.; and perhaps the most devastating, dealing with knowing that his uncle Ben's true killer is on the loose
My opinion: As with maturing in life and here in film, the scale is broadened (more characters are added, more action scenes are shot), and the scope is narrowed (the major characters are given more development through examining the nuances of each relationship), which results in less simple "black-and-white" heroism and villainy and more complex "shades of gray" partially right/wrong motivations. To deal with the stress associated with trying to handle the issues of their closest relationships, every major character acts in a vengeful manner until an understanding is reached amongst them, so a lesson is learned and a balance is struck for Peter and the other major characters. Though not without losses (the deaths of Harry and Eddie), from them, Peter, Mary Jane, and Flint seemingly realize how serious the effects of miscommunication and a lack of empathy can be, and act to rid themselves of those issues as a solution.

However, there is the issue of tone cohesion, which is expected since in Spider-Man stories, there is a unique blend of comedy, drama, romance, and action, and as the story is expected to get "darker" or more serious, some things may feel out-of-place (i.e. the humor, especially with the jazz club scene). As I think the film is mostly substantively sound, I don't think the creative team grew totally complacent, I just think that some things could've used finer tuning (i.e. a few line deliveries) and the symbiote’s attraction to Peter could've been explained better. At first, I didn't understand why Venom was so different from his previous depictions, but after watching it again, I saw that Venom played the same role that Harry played in the first two acts: a colleague out to settle a score against the personae of Peter Parker and Spider-Man with a newfound strength and knowledge of his weaknesses, which brings the series full circle in that Harry and Venom act in the same fashion as Norman in the first film; I enjoyed it more after realizing that. If a resolution to Sandman's family issues was shot, then I would welcome that into a newer edit, which would probably improve the quality of the film.

X-Men: The Last Stand
Main characters' largest apparent goal: Peaceful coexistence between mutants and humans
Largest problems solved: Greater tolerance of mutants, as evidenced by the United States' institution of a new cabinet department, Mutant Affairs, with the less human-looking Hank "Beast" McCoy as secretary
Smaller problems to be solved: Individual decisions on whether or not to take a new cure to suppress the X-gene, or more specifically, contemplation on individual power discipline, which becomes a "quality of life" issue that Magneto and many others that he rallies are willing to fight for, and in turn, Logan and the X-Men become willing to stop
My opinion: The scale is broadened (more characters are added, more action scenes are shot), and the scope is narrowed (there is a glimpse into the experience of most major mutant characters and their relationships with their abilities and how they view the cure), which results in less simple "black-and-white" heroism and villainy and more complex "shades of gray" partially right/wrong motivations. What each side comes to understand is that all mutations are not created equal and that some mutants pose a danger to themselves and the world around them, and as such, individual choice to take the cure or to learn to control themselves is necessary to promote more diplomatic relations amongst humans and mutants. This is true except for Jean, who Logan kills (?...he stabs Mystique in a similar fashion in X1) to stop her destruction.

The film has substance as the theme of control is maintained and resolved, but it's done in a way that could've used more exposition; there's a bit too much that's left open to interpretation, Jean's arc especially (more emotion is desired from her character post-Xavier's death). That's almost to be expected though, because of the greater number of characters and action scenes and dealing with individual mutant philosophies on the cure or power control (i.e. Jean/Phoenix vs. Xavier, Rogue, Magneto vs. X-Men), all in an ensemble film. I don't think that the creative team was totally complacent, as there was an attempt to solve these smaller issues of individual mutant perspectives in a situation where many are in survival mode as a result (gives credence to the number of characters and the way that some of the "good guys" act/react), but the fact that there was more of a rush to get the film out (at a 90 minute running time) may've hindered the creative process where certain plot points could've been more fleshed out beyond near-minimum efficiency. I also believe that there are actually a number of deleted scenes that, if added, would improve the quality of the film (namely Xavier and Jean’s psychic battle, an extended pre-battle team dialogue, Jean’s connection to a scared girl on the bridge before the battle).

In the future...

To avoid the pitfalls that third entries may offer, I think that creative teams should know how to incorporate newer characters purposefully while balancing the focus on the main character(s) from previous films, or else they may end up with SM3 Sandman situation or an X3 Jean/Phoenix situation where neither character is as fleshed out as they probably should've been. I suppose that this may be through increasing the running time or finding more efficient methods of telling a story (I think X3 tried to employ the latter), and if the latter is used, avoiding leaving too much open to interpretation.

Due to dealing in more complexity, there probably needs to be a more thorough review of the creative process than with previous films. Studios need to realize that doing things like rushing out a sequel before it's at its best is a short-sighted way of looking at things. The first week may have record numbers, but bad word-of-mouth may spread about it to the level that the audience loses confidence in the studio's ability to create a film worth watching. As a result, the creative team's reputation may become tarnished then and into the future, which could have a profound negative effect on future box-office grosses and sales/rentals.

For the fans, I think that a calm, empathetic, rational, and supportive approach to anticipating and analyzing these films would provide an environment where the creative teams behind them don't have to be as tense or paranoid about messing up minor details as I think they could be. I think that would take some of the perceived stress off of our reactions to what they do, and do the same for their creative process. In addition, it should increase our ability to understand why things happen in these films that don't necessarily fit our vision of how they should be. (I know that many of us feel connected to these characters, but I don't think adapting them is worth getting stressed out over or really anything for that matter, as it's unhealthy.) And once that perceived stress is removed, the creative team can devote more of their energy toward creating the best experience for everyone. This still keeps them accountable, because the fans would still play an active role in communicating their thoughts, but with a more optimistic outlook that can encourage and inspire these creative teams to make their best work.

With this being one of the premier forums for this type of discourse online, I presume, I think that our statements can affect change. With the proper approach to formulating these statements, we can increase our reach. It's up to us to decide if we're going to be content in what we do, or if we'll work to improve how we communicate our ideas and improve our understanding into the creative production of these third entries and beyond.

[Chris Wallace]

I never meant that there was a literal curse, but rather a consistent pattern.

[Construct]

Originally Posted by Chris Wallace

I never meant that there was a literal curse, but rather a consistent pattern.

That's what I thought you meant, but I just wanted to clear the air on that minor issue.