Waiting for a good one to be made.
Seriously though what the hell is their problem when it comes to the third instalment in comic book movies?
Seems like the first movie sometimes suffers due to them testing the waters, fitting an origin story in the mix, the second movie is often the best, they know what work and what doesn't, and then once the third one comes out... What is that goes wrong?
They often seem to get the impression the audience needs to have multiple villains and additional supporting characters, not leaving any time whatsoever for development of any of the newly introduced people and delivering a weak story.
Much to early to tell if we will even get trilogies out of Marvel Studios, but so far they've got two out of two hits, they won't fall into the X-Men trap once they get the Avengers movie as anyone important will be known so they can jump right into the team dynamics.
I trust in Marvel, lets hope that they'll be the ones to deliver consistent franchises.
Dammit. I wrote a long post talking about this and the stupid server just went down and I lost it.
To shorten it. I think you have to consider this by creativity. Many bad third installments are made simply for financial reason where the heart had left already. This can include movies where the original minds are doing it just to pick up paycheck, even if they are burnt on the material--like The Godfather Part III, Pirates 3: At World's End, Rocky III, etc. This also can mean, however, that the original talent knew they were burnt on the material and the artists step back before the source becomes stale for them. This leads to producers trying to milk the series for all its worth to make a third installment with a filmmaker (usually a director), who does not mind playing second string fill-in to another artist. This usually leads to a lower quality of writing, directing, etc. and workmanlike third installments made to please their bosses which include dull movies like X3, Superman III, Batman Forever, etc.
But the reason the original talent may leave, is because movies do not really work as serials (good ones anyway). They need to introduce new ideas or themes to existing material to keep it fresh. Otherwise sequels are just remaking the previous installments, which is what the longer-running Hollywood franchises do, including the beloved James Bond.
But to seriously do this it must go that the first film is the introductory film. It needs to prove why it was worth making and viewing and why audiences should like it (or at least be willing to pay for it multiple times). The second movie is the creative team (writers, director, DOP, etc.) trying to take their original ideas and concepts on the material and doing that without the mistakes of the first. It is usually an attempt to make a more pure vision. It is the second try at it, if you will.
Come the third installment, the creative team may be burned. The material has lost its freshness. This leads to them not trying maybe original ideas to surpass the second, which was the peak of their ideas on the subject, but to continue it or one-up that installment. This leads to the "kitchen sink" mentality that has hampered many a third installment including SM3 and ROTJ (two movies I like, btw. ROTJ is much better, but still not nearly as good as its first two installments in its franchise).
If the directors think they are ending their contemplations on the characters, material, themes, etc. then they will try and use everything they didn't in the first two. That also means producers trying to milk it will push for everything that could mean audiences will pay more money to see it being in there, even if it is superfolous or hurts the film. It just is hard to keep that energy and originality going for three films, as movies are not that kind of medium. You are trying to say the best you can in one motion picture, not two (which is kind of the re-do) and even less so three, even if you had plans for the third (which SM3 and ROTJ did, for example).
That is why when a creative team or artist can maintain that passion for three films, which is rare, they must be commended. This includes Return of the King, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, The Last Crusade, etc. It is this problem that leads to why most threequels are inferior to at least one of the previous movies if not both. It is also this "law of diminishing returns" that makes it harder to find a "great fourth, fifth, or so on installment."
It is also why Jon Favreau sounds pumped for Iron Man 2 and weary of making an Iron Man 3.
