The last movie of a superhero franchise.

[TMC]

http://officialfan.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&action=display&thread=424803

Is it always common that the last movie of a superhero franchise turns
out to be really bad and ruins the series? Here are some examples:
-Spider-Man 3 (Never watched it, but some have told me that I am doing
myself a favor)
-Superman IV: The Quest For Peace
-Batman & Robin
-Blade: Trinity
-X-Men 3: The Last Stand (Still haven't watched it)

I guess that explains why Spider-Man was rebooted. I don't think The
Dark Knight Rises will suffer this fate and I am sure that it will be
good. I have read that Superman III was a factor in the Superman
movies' quality dying down but others have said it wasn't too bad,
though the first two were good.

Of course, some say that Superman was rebooted with Superman Returns,
but it had references to the 70s-80s films with archive footage
featuring Marlon Brando, so I am not sure if it was supposed to be a
sequel or not.

Regarding other movies I mentioned, well I would only watch the first
two Blade movies and first two Spider-Man movies. I have seen bits and
pieces of Blade Trinity, but I don't remember a lot of it outside of
Triple H's performance.

« Reply #1 Yesterday at 1:08pm »
Well, there's often a reason they stop making or reboot the franchise
after those movies. If they were still great and the public was still
excited, they'd make more.

The first movie usually has the origin story and the hero taking on
their most iconic villain
The second usually has an A-list villain or two and adapts one of the
better done comic stories
After that, they begin reaching lower, don't have a good idea for how
to continue the story, or just get in over their head with what they
want to do versus what they can.

There are some exceptions. Iron Man 2 was pretty much Avengers 0.5,
and they didn't get an iconic villain (granted, Iron Man runs out of
iconic villains quickly). X-Men had the same villains throughout the
main series, except added Stryker to two. Venom is still pretty
iconic, but was the victim of being forced onto Raimi.

But for the most part, it does hold true. They usually just run out of
steam, and the movies start to show it.

« Reply #4 Yesterday at 5:52pm »
Spider-Man 3 to me really seems like a jumbling of too many people
having input. Sandman and even New Goblin were fine, but Venom should
have been saved for either a sequel or he should've been the main
villain. Just my thought.

« Reply #5 Yesterday at 5:56pm »
I have no real issues with Spider-Man 3, but X3 is just a mess. A
storyline that is iconic, that was set up and made me so excited at
the end of 2, and then was mangled by an idiot and some studio execs.

Urgh.

« Reply #6 Yesterday at 5:57pm »
I seem to be one of the very few people that doesn't like the Spider-
Man movies at all. And X-Men, while good at the time, have been
surpassed in every way by almost every other Marvel franchise, but
I'll at least give them credit for getting the ball rolling, but at
the same time...I can't watch those movies anymore. So both Spider-Man
3 and X-Men 3 weren't exactly bad, but the bar has been placed so high
by so many others that it seems pointless to continue to make them.

« Reply #7 Yesterday at 6:01pm »
The problem with Spider-Man 3 was that there were three movies being
told at the same time - the movie that Sam Raimi wanted to tell (the
Sandman part), the movie that everybody else wanted to tell (the Venom
part) and the movie that needed to be told (Harry Osbourne becomes the
Green Goblin part). They all got mashed together and we got something
mediocre as a result.

Then again, I was never a huge fan of Spider-Man 2 either.

« Reply #8 Yesterday at 6:50pm »
I like Superman IV just fine, I'm fascinated by the concept of Cannon
making a Superman film and find it charming as hell even if everything
doesn't exactly work in it as intended. Superman III, though, is
abominable imo.

Reply #10 Yesterday at 9:29pm »
X-3 was the only one I really liked. Superman 3 and 4 are so
underrated, but I believe the Smallville finale was batter than 3, 4,
and returns. Spider-man 3 was atrocious. And as stupid as Batman and
Robin was I like it a lot. I'm a huge mark for Blade, both comics and
films. Loved every bit of Trinity.

« Reply #12 Yesterday at 10:14pm »
As was mentioned, by definition it would seem to, otherwise they'd
continue to make movies.

As you said though, hopefully Dark Knight Rises will buck that trend;
if for no other reason as unlike the others it's meant to end that
franchise.

Spidey 3 wasn't a good flick really, it was two or three half baked
flicks in one. Had any of the three or so plotlines been fully
realized in say two separate movies, they both could if been really
good. As it stands there are enjoyable things about the movie, it's
just frustrating because of what could of been.

Reply #13 Yesterday at 10:42pm »
Often times it's the studios simply milking the series for all it's
worth. Spider-Man 3 was a bloated mess with way too much going on at
once. Venom should have been saved for it's own movie. X-Men 3 had
about 200 characters in it. Batman Forever and Batman & Robin also had
way too much stuff going into it. The films can quickly become a mess.

« Reply #14 Yesterday at 10:51pm »
Okay, being that I mentioned Blade Trinity, did that movie suck mostly
because Blade was seen as a supporting character compared to Jessica
Biel's character and Ryan Reynolds' character? I have not watched it
in its entirety though it had decent action. Of course, it had a
subplot involving the one vampire that Blade could never kill. Plus, I
read about a fight scene and Jessica Biel's character actually
listening to music with headphones on while fighting, which to me
sounds a little stupid.

« Reply #15 Today at 12:42am »
Trinity was a decent movie (sans some of the special effects), but
Blade was an after thought in it.

« Reply #16 Today at 12:45am »
I haven't seen Blade: Trinity in awhile, but I remember it being
really fun. Blade 2 was more the boring one for me.

« Reply #19 Today at 1:07am »

Today at 1:00am, Hit-Monkey wrote:

Today at 12:47am, Tokyo Sandblaster wrote:
Spider-Man 3 wasn't bad enough to cause a reboot.
Emo Peter was goofy, but it wasn't on the level as the Bat Credit
Card.

I agree.

While I thought Spider-Man 3 was a complete mess, a good fourth film
could have easily salvaged the franchise. People weren't sick of Tobey
Maguire or that version of the Spider-Man universe. They just didn't
like Spider-Man 3. Sony should have just given them a chance to redeem
themselves.

Kind of like how the Fast and the Furious franchise seemed to be
running out of steam....and then Fast Five blasted onto the scene.

[Tim Roll-Pickering]

TMC wrote:

> I guess that explains why Spider-Man was rebooted.

ISTR they went ahead with the planning for a Spider-Man 4 but it sank into
development hell or some such. I don't think it was just because not
everyone enjoyed 3 that was the issue.

> I have read that Superman III was a factor in the Superman
> movies' quality dying down but others have said it wasn't too bad,
> though the first two were good.

Superman III is a rather different beast, being heavily comedic. There was
also the awful Supergirl movie set in the same universe that most people
would rather forget.

> Of course, some say that Superman was rebooted with Superman Returns,
> but it had references to the 70s-80s films with archive footage
> featuring Marlon Brando, so I am not sure if it was supposed to be a
> sequel or not.

It's a semi-reboot in that the makers declared III and IV had never
happened, though really it's only Ma Kent being dead in III and alive in
Returns that stands out. There's a minor trend in multiple franchise
relaunches to try to retcon out movies some people hated though in practice
this is usually more about marketing to show the creators "know what they're
doing" than narrative & canon.

--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c

[Super-Menace]

In article <a0ptev...@mid.individual.net>, Tim Roll-Pickering

<T.C.Roll-...@qmul.ac.uk> wrote:

> TMC wrote:
>
> > I guess that explains why Spider-Man was rebooted.
>
> ISTR they went ahead with the planning for a Spider-Man 4 but it sank into
> development hell or some such. I don't think it was just because not
> everyone enjoyed 3 that was the issue.

Spider-Man was rebooted because the project had gotten too expensive.
The moviemakers figure people will come out to see Spidey anyway, so
why should they pay McGuire and the others top dollar when they can get
some kids to do the roles for a lot less?

Batman will be rebooted after the third film, and for the same reason,
no matter how successful the next film is.

Right now, though, I think they're a) kicking themselves for not having
done a JLA teamup movie before now, and b) worrying that the new
Superman film isn't jelling. It's about a year to go to the premiere,
and we haven't heard a hint of buzz about it.

> > I have read that Superman III was a factor in the Superman
> > movies' quality dying down but others have said it wasn't too bad,
> > though the first two were good.
>
> Superman III is a rather different beast, being heavily comedic. There was
> also the awful Supergirl movie set in the same universe that most people
> would rather forget.

Superman III is a Richard Pryor movie with some Superman in it. There
is the core of a good movie in there somewhere, but the producers
bailed on even trying to find it. Instead, we got what we got -- an
unfunny comedy -- and nobody was happy.

> > Of course, some say that Superman was rebooted with Superman Returns,
> > but it had references to the 70s-80s films with archive footage
> > featuring Marlon Brando, so I am not sure if it was supposed to be a
> > sequel or not.
>
> It's a semi-reboot in that the makers declared III and IV had never
> happened, though really it's only Ma Kent being dead in III and alive in
> Returns that stands out. There's a minor trend in multiple franchise
> relaunches to try to retcon out movies some people hated though in practice
> this is usually more about marketing to show the creators "know what they're
> doing" than narrative & canon.

I had some respect for Bryan Singer's notion of a post-II reboot until
I saw him interviewed shortly after the film premiered. He was asked
why Lois didn't remember anything about Clark being Superman or having
sex with him at the Fortress, and instead of explaining things away by
citing that super-kiss at the end of II, Singer instead said, oh, we
just decided to ignore all of that. I mean, wha'?

[Bill Steele]

>> doing" than narrative& canon.

>
> I had some respect for Bryan Singer's notion of a post-II reboot until
> I saw him interviewed shortly after the film premiered. He was asked
> why Lois didn't remember anything about Clark being Superman or having
> sex with him at the Fortress, and instead of explaining things away by
> citing that super-kiss at the end of II, Singer instead said, oh, we
> just decided to ignore all of that. I mean, wha'?

They probably felt entitled to ignore because Superman Returns was
essentially a remake: Supes appears, rescues Lois from an
aviation-related peril, they fly together, Luthor has a plot related to
geography. The only thing missing was Miss Teschmacher, and the only
thing new was the kid.

The success of the Avengers could spark a JLA movie, but first they have
to do Wonder Woman -- and I've yet to hear of anyone so far getting that
remotely right -- and maybe the Flash.