Third Time's NOT a Charm

Some things are just truism in Hollywood. There will never be a "good" Pauley Shore film, every modern comedy MUST have a classic rock song playing in its trailer montage, children are unfailingly smarter and wiser than their parents.

And the third film in a series, particularly if it contains a "3" in the title, is doomed to mediocrity.

Think about it. From "Jaws 3" to "SpiderMan 3", second sequels in film series have been disappointing filmgoers ever since, well ever since there were "3's" in movie titles. The list of "third child" bombs is long and depressing; "Godfather III", "Halloween 3", the aforementioned "Jaws 3-D", "X-Men 3", "Spiderman 3", "Hellraiser 3", "Shrek 3", "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock". All of these films followed sequels that were critical and box offices successes and though many or most made money, all fell far short of their predecessor's quality. In fact, one of the most successful films ever (box office wise), "Return of the Jedi" can even fall into this category, even though it lacks a "3" in its title. Seen by millions of eager fans, it's widely considered the weakest of the original "Star Wars" trilogy.

Oddly enough, though, this seems to be largely a modern phenomenon. Before the age of "3" in the title, third films in a series weren't automatically bombs. "Son of Frankenstein", the third of the Universal series, really carved out its own special niche in the canon and easily stands upon its own as a moody, atmospheric and lushly produced Gothic horror piece. It may lack the comedic elements and the berserk elements of "Bride of Frankenstein", it's predecessor, or the original premise of the first "Frankenstein" but it still packs a punch. Sergio Leone's "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" is arguably the strongest of the "Man with No Name" trilogy, certainly as good as either of the previous films. Instead of the normal degradation of quality, these films represent a gradual building of excellence, ending with the crescendo of "Good". A whole slew of the classic movie series like Abbott and Costello films, the "Blondie" and "Ma and Pa Kettle" series, the "Tarzan"'s and "Shadow"'s, all had "number threes" that were indistinguishable from the rest of the series; no better or no worse.

It only seems to be when the "3" is added to the title that the curse began. That's probably less a function of the number itself than the fact that it appears in more modern films, within the last 25 years or so. What about second sequels in this time frame is so damning?

Several possibilities come to mind. Many of these series really are totally box office (not narrative) driven. That is, while they may be able to make ONE sequel that is successful and doesn't see a noticeable dip in quality, they really don't have two in them. "Jaws", for instance, is a good example. While the characters and plot of "Jaws" were well crafted and original, all that originality was pretty much used up by the credit roll. Quint was dead, the shark was dead, and the threat was ended. To suppose that ANOTHER huge, quasi mythic shark would plague the SAME community again in three years ("Jaws 2") was stretching credulity quite a bit. And even if we suspend our imagination to allow for that development, we are still left with a stale plot that does little but mimic that of the original. Sequels need to recapture the spirit of the original film but also build on it and explore new avenues of theme and setting and character. While maybe one could be generous and overlook the lack of those in a sequel, you could hardly be so generous with yet ANOTHER sequel with basically the same story five years later, "Jaws 3-D" (which, along with "Friday the 13th Part III, is in a unique subcategory of "second sequels with 3-D as a drawing point). Credulity can be stretched, but only so far.

The exodus of key creative personnel is also often a factor in the failure of second sequels. When Bryan Singer opted to do "Superman Returns" rather than "X3" the third in the "X-Men" series, much of the unique creative vision that hallmarked the first two films was lost. Much of the cast returned, but Singer's brand of storytelling, complete with humor, lightning fast pacing and perfectly interlocking subplots seemed very diminished. Burt Reynolds and Sally Field, the stars of the enormously (but somewhat perplexingly) popular "Smokey and the Bandit"s One and Two, weren't even "Smokey and the Bandit III", save for a brief cameo by Reynolds at the end.

Likewise, a simple change in the director's chair can prove a charm or a burden.With "Return of the Jedi" (a rare modern second sequel with no "3" in the title), the great Irwin Kirshner, director of "Empire Strikes Back", was replaced by Richard Marquand and for whatever reason George Lucas seemed to run out of gas creatively as well. When Leonard Nimoy took the directing helm for "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock" in 1984, he crafted a reasonably effective film but one that was noticeably less compelling than the previous "Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan".

Complicating things even more is the fact that sometimes these third efforts are followed up by a more successful FOURTH film in the series, blunting the argument that by the third film series have run out of steam. "Hellraiser IV", while hardly as effective as the first two films, was definitely a step up over "III". It's become a truism among "Star Trek" fans that the even numbered films are more successful than the odd ones. And sure enough, "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" was indeed a better film that "The Search for Spock" by any reasonable standards. Yet it was followed up by "Star Trek V", a resounding clunker of a movie, which was then followed by "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country", an imperfect but largely well done effort.

And there are those rare instances where the third film (even in a modern series) is actually an improvement over the second one. "A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors" is vastly superior to "A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge". "Halloween III: Season of the Witch" is certainly as strong if not stronger than the wimpy, unimaginative "Halloween II", regardless of its radical change in narrative direction.

But these films were both made at least twenty years ago. The fact remains that it's nearly impossible to name a second sequel made in the past decade that isn't demonstrably weaker than the previous films (and no, "The Return of the King doesn't count because it was adapted from a novel that was originally intended as being just part of larger story, not added on afterwards . Whether due to series being extended beyond their natural creative lifespan, a changing creative crew or the convergence of several otherwise unconnected factors (i.e. "bad luck"), something is up with "number 3"s.

Sequels are great ways for studios to make money by using the name and reputations of the films that preceded them. There's nothing inherently wrong with them; they've been around as long as movies have been. But recently they seem to be just preordained and lazy, the cinematic equivalent of "running out the clock". While no one can really blame studios for cranking them out, at some point audiences may decide to stay home from sequels (of any number) that just lazily go through well established paces rather than expand or take the story in exciting new directions.