How do we avoid the third act curse?

[Chris Wallace]

Ah. Ok. But I think I covered that by suggesting that it IS avoidable.

[Construct]

Originally Posted by Chris Wallace

Ah. Ok. But I think I covered that by suggesting that it IS avoidable.

Ok. My apologies.

In that case, in order to answer the thread title, I thought a more specific question was appropriate to be asked. We're good.

[Chris Wallace]

Ironically, you said that to call it a curse takes the power out of the filmmakers' hands, which is actually part of the problem.

[Construct]

Originally Posted by Chris Wallace

Ironically, you said that to call it a curse takes the power out of the filmmakers' hands, which is actually part of the problem.

What I meant by that was that a 3rd entry would inevitably end up being panned, no matter the effort put forth by the creative team, so they're powerless and it would be pointless to embark on making a 3rd film. I don't agree with that because it implies that it is impossible to solve 3rd entry problems.

What I think you're referring to is studio tampering in the 3rd entry, am I right?

If so, I think that could come with the territory, especially with blockbuster series. I think that the story problems that will likely arise in 3rd entries could create a level of friction between the creative team and the studio about what is best for the film. If that's the case, then I think the 2nd paragraph in the "In the future..." section of my first post could be applied as a solution.

Also, did you have any specific examples to elaborate that point?

[Chris Wallace]

[Chris Wallace]

Batman evaded it. Iron Man may be the next hero to successfully do so.

[Soapy]

I wouldn't say it completely avoided it.

[James]

And I'd disagree completely


(with Mr. Wallace, regarding Batman)

[eddy]

Hopefully Ironman 3 avoids it since they already had a less than great second film. The Fast films had a resurgence after a 4th film and alot of films are going into 4th and 5th entries so its no longer about trilogies in the blockbuster world.

[titansupes]

Batman certainly avoided it. While not as universally loved as The Dark Knight, it IS well loved, critically acclaimed and made a billion dollars.

As Eddy says, being that Iron Man already had a pretty bad second film (which is kind of unusual these days) hopefully the third will restore the series. It looks great so far.

[gwynplaine]

Baby Cart successfully avoided the 3rd act curse.

[kedrell]

IM3 could be the first in the superhero genre that I've seen. But given that the whole idea of the MCU is to throw off the tired old trilogy formula and just have a bunch of James Bond-ish ongoing franchises that exist in the same universe I think it's pointless to apply the trilogy mindset to something like what Marvel Studios is doing.

[kedrell]

Originally Posted by James

And I'd disagree completely


(with Mr. Wallace, regarding Batman)

As would I.

[spider-neil]

I thought the opening post was literrally about the 3rd act rather than the 3rd movie. I think you can count on one hand superhero movies that close with a truly satisfying 3rd act.

For instance I was completely checked out of the movie for the 3rd act of Batman Begins even though act 1 and 2 are fanastic. Same for IM.

[kedrell]

Hmm, I actually really like the 3rd acts of both of those films. Now Spider-man 1 & 2 and X-Men 1 & 2 I had problems with in the final acts. Of course I thought none of those films were especially good to begin with. Adequate is about the best I'd give'em.

[metaphysician]

Originally Posted by titansupes

Batman certainly avoided it. While not as universally loved as The Dark Knight, it IS well loved, critically acclaimed and made a billion dollars.

As Eddy says, being that Iron Man already had a pretty bad second film (which is kind of unusual these days) hopefully the third will restore the series. It looks great so far.

The badness of IM2 is vastly exaggerated. Yes, it wasn't as good as the first movie, but it still did decently in both critical response and moneymaking. If it were the third movie in a trilogy, it'd be considered an *aversion* of the curse trope.

[Chris Wallace]

Originally Posted by James

And I'd disagree completely


(with Mr. Wallace, regarding Batman)

I'm not saying it was flawless. It had massive plotholes, very little adherance to the source material and a completely implausible ending which we were told to expect 15 minutes into the movie. And yet it is still in my opinion the best 3rd act the genre has seen to date.

[Chris Wallace]

Originally Posted by metaphysician

The badness of IM2 is vastly exaggerated. Yes, it wasn't as good as the first movie, but it still did decently in both critical response and moneymaking. If it were the third movie in a trilogy, it'd be considered an *aversion* of the curse trope.

I disagree here. Iron Man 2 actually committed some common 3rd act mistakes, with the overloaded plot, unnecessary villain alliances and seeming to be more interested in a down-the-road spin-off than in its own plot. The only thing it DIDN'T have was the gratuitous death of a major character. It is my hope that with those mistakes out of the way, the 3rd will shine brighter than either of its predecessors.

[kedrell]

Originally Posted by Chris Wallace

I disagree here. Iron Man 2 actually committed some common 3rd act mistakes, with the overloaded plot, unnecessary villain alliances and seeming to be more interested in a down-the-road spin-off than in its own plot. The only thing it DIDN'T have was the gratuitous death of a major character. It is my hope that with those mistakes out of the way, the 3rd will shine brighter than either of its predecessors.

How was the villain alliance unnecessary? It seemed to flow pretty organically to me. I'd say it would have been better served as a film to put all the War machine stuff off for another film and use that time to better explore the villains(especially Whiplash) but the way they went hardly caused the film to implode. Rather it just ended up with good when we could have had great.

And by gratuitous death of a major character I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you are referring to Stane in the first film? Well in the comics they only fought once as well and then Stane died so I can't fault them for sticking to the source material(though it would have been nice to see a defeated Stane kill himself rather than be captured and sent to prison as it happened in the comics,but it was still basically the same thing).

[Chris Wallace]

Not so much unnecessary as ill-conceived. Hammer had no reason to think Ivan could be trusted. And what I meant by the "gratuitous death" remark was that this so often happens in 3rd acts-going back to the first sentence of my post.

[Hamill-Joker]

Obviously there are legitimate criticisms of The Dark Knight Rises, but no more than many other good movies. I have always seen the criticisms of the film as being overblown. The fact is that the movie was both a critical and financial success.

For me the best comparison for The Dark Knight Rises is Return of the Jedi.

Both films are coming off an excellent predecessor film in which is is nearly impossible to live up its expectations. And while they have their flaws, they are on par with or better than the first movie in the trilogy.

[Chris Wallace]

I don't think most NolanBatfans would take kindly to you likening their beloved finale to a film that had Ewoks. :P

[gwynplaine]

We avoid the 3rd act curse, by not making a third film. Quit while you're ahead.
Problem solved.

[Chris Wallace]

THat's the chicken way out. THe idea is to make GOOD 3rd acts where so many have failed.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Chris Wallace

Batman evaded it. Iron Man may be the next hero to successfully do so.

Indeed Batman avoided the "curse".

And some can deny this, but let's look at the more critical acclaim TDKR has received than negative responses. There's your proof that it indeed avoided the "curse".