For me: Spiderman- 1 and 2 were great, but 3 tried to add to much and Parker going bad was just goofy.

Xmen- I was already upset at how slow and twisted the stories were in the first 2 but the last one was just insulting.

The Matrix: the original premise was about machines vs. humans, yet the final movie made everything into everyone vs. agent smith.

Aliens: it shoulve just stopped after Alien 3; resurection was just silly.


anyone got any to add?

 

Sherik 1 and 2 are Best , but 3 is craping with Charaters of The King Auther Legend and Sherik is a dad.

 

Aside from BTTF, i'm struggling to think of a movie series with more then 2 that hasen't had at least one lemon in it.

 

90s Batman obviously...I can tolerate Returns and Forever is kinda fun, but B&R is nearly unwatchable.

Superman franchise...ugh, should have stopped at II.

Spider-man...the first movie is really the only one can watch. II really really hasn't held up well. Paper thin plot, poorly thought out characters, and silly humor. 3 is worse though.

The Matrix.

Star Wars prequels.

The Saw franchise. Talk about taking a good idea and running it into the ground.

James Bond...I LOVE Bond movies, but there have been some real stinkers through out the years.

 

I second this...100%. 

 

Pirates of the Caribbean.

First one was decent as a stand-alone, then the second one built up some interesting potential that the final entry failed to deliver.

 

The Matrix trilogy.

Star Wars doesn't count since the franchise sucks to begin with.

 

I stand by that Spider-man 3 was the best Spider-man film and 2 was the worst.

 

I think the Matrix trilogy remained a fun watch, despite the two sequels not being able to live up to the first film. I wish more Animatrix-style tie-ins were made.

Seconding the mention of Saw - the first film was great, the second film was the high point, the third got really depressing and everything went fuck-all afterward. Also, I'd like to throw in Bayformers.

 

Matrix and Pirates of the Carribean are my examples of "Should have stopped when it was good"

 

I would love to hear the resoning behind this.

 

Spider-man 2 was boring, had an idiotic villain, tried so hard to be funny and had a shitty message.

Spider-man 3, thought it has man faults, was more exciting, Venom was crazy cool, didn't try to take itself too seriously and had James Franco acting well. I think just about everything that was crap in Spider-man 2 was improved upon in Spider-man 3. Even Sandman had his moments.

Oh, and Saw was always overindulgent crap.


In my opinion.

 

We like what we like, can't ever fault anyone for that. Even though I agree about everything you said about 2, I think 3 just took that crap to the next level. Venom was cool even though he didn't talk as Venom. Neither did Sandman though. Though Franco did a good job given what he had to work with, Harry Osborn was a stupid villain IMO. Everything was just too over-the-top for me. SM3 is probably the one comic book movie that I don't own.

 

Meh. Not a trilogy (yet) but the new Batman film series. I really liked Batman Begins... not a fan of The Dark Knight, though.

Add that to the list of Spider-Man, Superman, 90s Batman, Alien, Matrix,etc.

 

Any Horror movie series. Most start out well and then end up with strange adventures in space. By the time they get past 4 movies most are just violence with a thin plot.

 

I guess I liked it because it was over the top. It felt like a comic book to me; cheesy, goofy fun.

 

There seems to be an unwritten law that third movies have to suck.
Star Trek 3: It created the legend of only even numbered trek films not sucking.
Robocop 3: Good movie, the sequel could be criticized as taking things too dark, but if you didn't mind that it was a good first 2 movies. Yet the third was so bad that it drove Frank Miller away from film for years. Mostly because of the tinkering done with his script, seeing as Robocop 3 was only ever intended to be a smaller part of Robocop 2. It never had the substance to stand on its own.

TMNT3: I watched that whole thing expecting the Shredder to eventually somehow be behind it all and NOTHING.

Batman Forever: The first two movies stayed true to the dark original vision, and after that it did what any DC property is notorious for doing and reverting to goofiness, which never belonged in Batman in the first place. As much of a classic character as he is, Robin just brings suck with him wherever he goes. (With the exception of when he's a stand alone character, as to avoid the torches and pitchforks.)

Spiderman 3: Character overkill. Should have saved Venom for a later movie. The sandman story alone could have been good but it was wasted on an overdose of villains.

Xmen3: This thing plays out like bad fanfiction, right down to the Cyclopse hate.

 

I'm pretty sure it was 5 that established the good/bad-even/odd thing, as when Trek 3 came out there was only 1 "even" movie. And in hindsight, Trek 3 stands head and shoulders above many of the later films, its main weakness being that it is the middle story and ends a bit unresolved.

RC2 was savaged when it was released, and I know few who would consider it a good film.

The first two weren't really all that good either (unless you were under 13).

So far the comic book pattern is:

Part 1 is good.
Part 2 is good, often held up as better than the first (Superman II, Spider-Main 2, X2, Incredible Hulk).
Part 3 is weak, and usually features a hero who goes bad (Superman, Dark Parker, Dark Phoenix).
Part 4 is an absolute embarassment (Superman 4, Batman and Robin).
Part 5 reimagines the franchise (Hulk arguably gets an early jump on this).
Part 6 the actor playing the villain dies and wins an oscar.

The casting of Luthor in Superman: Man of Steel is going to be very interesting.

 

Jurassic Park

As a dinosaur nut I loved the first one and even though it strayed from the book it was still entertaining and held up pretty well

Then the lost world came out....
It wasn't horrible, but I don't think they even glanced at the book before making the film. I understand that books and film often differ to a degree, but this is like having a book detailing the story of Alien and winding up with the film Alien vs Predator. A dumbed down, bastardized version of story with a lot of potential.

As for the third one, all I can say is I really feel sorry for Sam Neil. He must have been in a pretty bad spot to agree to be in this shitfest of a film. They really pushed this velociraptor intellegence stuff waaaaay too far with this. Don't get me wrong, they were most likely skilled hunters like in the first movie (door opening excluded), but the whole using the guy as bait, then just cracking his neck when their plan failed is ridiculous, as was the whole idea that they tracked the humans across the island to get their eggs back, then seemed to negotiate to get them back... in other words, STOP ANTHROPOMORPHISING THE DINOSAURS!!