Around the League 3 - The Threequel Always Sucks

[Finnish Jerk Train]

It once was active this time of year...

This is one of two times in my life I've ever gotten too drunk to remember what happened.

No, seriously. I put away a six pack of high gravity craft beer on a completely empty stomach and all I remember is laying on my stomach and watching this game from under the coffee table while a game of beer pong took place on the table (it must have made sense at the time). I have only the slightest recollection of running around and screaming like a drunken idiot after this goal, but I didn't actually remember doing so until I watched the highlights the next day.

My roommates also said I was deliberately throwing beer on everyone, but I don't remember that any more than I remember being born.

Anyway, I couldn't have picked a crazier hockey memory to forget.

Edit: Also, Toy Story 3 did not suck. Neither did the Bourne Ultimatum. I resemble this thread title.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

Edit: Also, Toy Story 3 did not suck. Neither did the Bourne Ultimatum. I resemble this thread title.

The Godfather 3 negates that argument. As does the third Matrix movie.

 

[Joe McGrath]

Return of the Jedi had Ewoks, Jabba the Hut and the gold bikini so there.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I never understood why people hate on Return of the Jedi.

 

[Joe McGrath]

I never understood why people hate on Return of the Jedi.

Never made sense to me either. It's a damn fine film on its own.

 

[Unsustainable]

Empire Strikes Back was the weak one of the trilogy.

 

[AD Skinner]

Dante and Randall disagree

 

[Blueline Bomber]

Technically speaking, Star Wars isn't a trilogy. Yeah, people like to separate it between 4-6 and 1-3, but if there's 6 movies (about to be 7) in the series, it can't very well be a trilogy, can it?

A year or two from now, Toy Story will also not be a trilogy and also be exempt from the "Threequels Always Suck" rule.

 

[Carolinas Identity*]

Technically speaking, Star Wars isn't a trilogy. Yeah, people like to separate it between 4-6 and 1-3, but if there's 6 movies (about to be 7) in the series, it can't very well be a trilogy, can it?

A year or two from now, Toy Story will also not be a trilogy and also be exempt from the "Threequels Always Suck" rule.

if the four aliens movies are a quadrilogy, then star bores must be a septilogy tbh

 

[BrindAmours Army]

Technically speaking, Star Wars isn't a trilogy. Yeah, people like to separate it between 4-6 and 1-3, but if there's 6 movies (about to be 7) in the series, it can't very well be a trilogy, can it?

A year or two from now, Toy Story will also not be a trilogy and also be exempt from the "Threequels Always Suck" rule.

Eh. Series can be further broken down into arcs. Star Wars is broken down into the Original Trilogy and the Prequel Trilogy.

 

[Oogie Boogie]

A year or two from now, Toy Story will also not be a trilogy .

Don't remind me

Toy Story 3 had a PERFECT ending, doing a 4th is just for ****ing greed now.


Which reminds me. Since The Incredibles is getting a 2nd movie and so is Finding Nemo, who wants to take bets on if one of those if not both of those will end up being a trilogy perhaps.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

Eh. Series can be further broken down into arcs. Star Wars is broken down into the Original Trilogy and the Prequel Trilogy.

Any time a series gets to the 6th, 7th, 8th, etc. installments, they're not really call trilogies anymore. Does anyone break down the Halloween movies into trilogies? Saw? James Bond? Fast and the Furious? I understand why Star Wars fans do it, especially considering how 1-3 are considered "lesser" films, but its not a trilogy.

Don't remind me

Toy Story 3 had a PERFECT ending, doing a 4th is just for ****ing greed now.


Which reminds me. Since The Incredibles is getting a 2nd movie and so is Finding Nemo, who wants to take bets on if one of those if not both of those will end up being a trilogy perhaps.

You know The Incredibles is getting a 3rd movie. There's too many stories that can be done about a superhero family not to have at least 3 films. Finding Nemo might, depending on how they end the upcoming one.

The Rule of Three must apply though: "If you've seen the first two films in a trilogy, you're required to see the third...no matter how bad it may end up being."

The Rule of Three ruined the Starship Troopers franchise for me.

 

[What the Faulk]

Any time a series gets to the 6th, 7th, 8th, etc. installments, they're not really call trilogies anymore. Does anyone break down the Halloween movies into trilogies? Saw? James Bond? Fast and the Furious? I understand why Star Wars fans do it, especially considering how 1-3 are considered "lesser" films, but its not a trilogy.

1-3 and 4-6 have a contained story. The other movies you listed do not.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I don't even acknowledge episodes 1-3. AFAIK they're as significant as the ewok movie or that Christmas special with the wookies.

Reserving judgment for the next 3 because it looks like they have actually have done it right this time.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Matrix is a classic case of a movie that should have stopped at 1. The 3rd installment was unwatchable. Diehard should have stopped at 2. IMO, the 2nd was close to as good as the first, and the first was one of my favorites. Terminator 2 was better than terminator 1, but again, should have stopped at 2.

I enjoyed all 3 Lord of the Rings equally, but that one really feels like 1 long, continuous movie. Also, Harry Potter series had some good ones beyond the 2nd so that breaks the mold for me.

 

[Carolinas Identity*]

the three "ginger snaps" movies were an awesome trilogy imo.

 

[What the Faulk]

You take that back.

Die Hard with a Vengeance > Die Hard Airport

 

[cptjeff]

The Godfather 3 negates that argument. As does the third Matrix movie.

There was a third matrix movie? I thought there was just the one, and a few well advertized fanfic knockoffs.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

There was a third matrix movie? I thought there was just the one, and a few well advertized fanfic knockoffs.

Your are lucky not knowing there was more than one.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

You take that back.

Die Hard with a Vengeance > Die Hard Airport

Eeeh! Sorry Hans, wrong guess. Would you like to go for Double Jeopardy where the scores can really change?

 

[What the Faulk]

I protest that Jeremy Irons was the second greatest Die Hard villain ever, Samuel L. Jackson added a more entertaining sidekick, and the whole "Simon Says" thing gave it a new twist. I honestly don't even remember a lot about the second movie.

 

[Joe McGrath]

Why did we start arguing about these things being a trilogy? Isn't the title of the thread "threeqeul" as in any third movie? Or is the made up word automatically synonymous with a trilogy.

As a side note, I just realized synonymous is derived from the word synonym and I'm 30 years old.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

I protest that Jeremy Irons was the second greatest Die Hard villain ever, Samuel L. Jackson added a more entertaining sidekick, and the whole "Simon Says" thing gave it a new twist. I honestly don't even remember a lot about the second movie.

Meh.

2nd movie had congressman Fred "we're on the same God damn grid, we're hot" Thompson, John "Good times" Amos, Dennis "Hill Street Blues/NYPD Blues" Franz,etc...

I'm the same with with the 3rd movie as you are with the 2nd. Didn't even remember the story line until you mentioned it. Also, although all of them are incredibly unbelievable, IMO the 3rd installment pushed it even further and tried to rely on adding stars to overcome a less than stellar plot which was way too predictable. I mean, C'mon, driving through tunnels in a dump truck and able to do a 180 in front of a raging water flow? That's way more unbelievable than holding on to a 747 wing, opening the fuel tank and blowing up the plane providing landing lights for your wife.

 

[Ole Gil]

Matrix is a classic case of a movie that should have stopped at 1. The 3rd installment was unwatchable. Diehard should have stopped at 2. IMO, the 2nd was close to as good as the first, and the first was one of my favorites. Terminator 2 was better than terminator 1, but again, should have stopped at 2.

I enjoyed all 3 Lord of the Rings equally, but that one really feels like 1 long, continuous movie. Also, Harry Potter series had some good ones beyond the 2nd so that breaks the mold for me.

A big problem with the Matrix sequels, was they tried using technology that wasn't ready yet. To a lesser extent, that was a problem Star Wars 1-3 had as well. They just didn't have the technology to pull off a lot of the effects they were looking to pull off, to the point they looked like a bad PS2 video game at times.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

^ Speaking of that, I remember an interview many years ago where George Lucas talked about that. He gave an example and talked about how they had to use Vaseline to smear the film to make it look like Luke's landspeeder was really floating. The smearing of the Vaseline hid the wheels, but actually gave the appearance that there was heat coming from under it.