• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

What was the worst finale to a legendary film trilogy?

Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
19,738
Or perhaps I should ask what trilogy finale film was the most disappointing for you?

Revenge of the Sith? The Godfather Part III? Return of the Jedi? Matrix Revolutions? Spider-Man 3 (Raimiverse)? Rise of Skywalker? Dark Knight Rises? Hangover III? Ghostbusters Afterlife? The Mummy III (Brendan Fraserverse)? Terminator III? Hobbit III? Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome? Any I forgot to mention?

I think for me Godfather III and Spider-Man III were probably the biggest letdowns. Each came after superb films, and on their own merits aren't terrible, but the difference in quality from part 2 to 3 in each of these trilogies was just so glaring and disappointing.

Least disappointing from that list for me would be Revenge of the Sith (the last half finally redeems the prequel trilogy) and Thunderdome (vastly underrated film that built the world further and provided a satisfying resolution to Max's arc, with a glimmer of hope vs the Road Warrior's bleaker ending. It has the best production design of the original MM trilogy, best score, climactic chases setpiece that rivals the Road Warrior's final chase in scope and spectacle, characters I care about--yes, the kids were slightly annoying, yet the idea of a tribe of feral orphans waiting for a fabled messiah is still kind of cool. Just as Road Warrior topped the first film, I think in some ways Thunderdome topped Road Warrior).

A lot of the others on the list don't bother me too much. Rise of Skywalker sucks but then the bar had not been set too high with the preceding 2 entries. Hangover III was a slog but at least it tried to take an original spin instead of being a retread like part II. Dark Knight Rises was alright. Hobbit III is more just an issue of being overextended. The Hobbit could easily be either one 3 hour film or at most two parts.
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Darth Strigidae
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
17,395
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
RISE OF SKYWALKER

It tarnished the whole sequel trilogy in my eyes (to the point that I'd be fine with a retcon) and was so much more disrespectful to Luke Skywalker then the Last Jedi every was. It was just so half-assed and obvious that they rushed it out the door to meet deadlines despite all the pre-production mishaps. But regarding the sequel trilogy, I thought the first movie was decent, the second movie amazing, and the third movie probably made me the angriest out of any single movie in the series;. I'm inclined to call it the worst in the series. I was able to convince myself that the prequels were good. I couldn't do that for that POS. I'll grant that the acting is better than the prequels and almost saves the movie at times, but so much else.... Maybe take time out for a rewrite guys if one of your leads dies? Just a thought.

I think Matrix Revolutions was also pretty disappointing, although perhaps I'll reevaluate it on rewatch. I thinkk Ressurections might actually make it better (not in a "it was so bad" way but by actually doing something with the ending and fleshing it out more). Anyway, I think I like Resurrections better than Revolutions, not sure how it stacks up against Reloaded.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
19,738
Godfather III. If I watch it, it's solely for closure.
I was in the middle of watching the saga when I created this thread. It's why I got the idea. It's such a drag. I think Coppola lost his mojo in middle age (although Dracula was a masterpiece). It worked best as a duology anyway. The ending with Michael slumped over alone is basically saying what the ending of Godfather II already said. Thus making the events and "arc" of his character in 3 superfluous. I did like Connie more in III though. She is a great consigliere.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
19,738
RISE OF SKYWALKER

It tarnished the whole sequel trilogy in my eyes (to the point that I'd be fine with a retcon) and was so much more disrespectful to Luke Skywalker then the Last Jedi every was. It was just so half-assed and obvious that they rushed it out the door to meet deadlines despite all the pre-production mishaps. But regarding the sequel trilogy, I thought the first movie was decent, the second movie amazing, and the third movie probably made me the angriest out of any single movie in the series;. I'm inclined to call it the worst in the series. I was able to convince myself that the prequels were good. I couldn't do that for that POS. I'll grant that the acting is better than the prequels and almost saves the movie at times, but so much else.... Maybe take time out for a rewrite guys if one of your leads dies? Just a thought.

I think Matrix Revolutions was also pretty disappointing, although perhaps I'll reevaluate it on rewatch. I thinkk Ressurections might actually make it better (not in a "it was so bad" way but by actually doing something with the ending and fleshing it out more). Anyway, I think I like Resurrections better than Revolutions, not sure how it stacks up against Reloaded.
I never understood why they shortened the gap between films to 2 years. Sure, 3 is a while to wait, but I don't see how such largescale productions can be effectively planned out and executed in anything less, unless the intent were to shoot them back-to-back with a well oiled machine as Jackson did for the LotR (plus he spent years in preproduction laying the foundation). These SW films were rushed out because greed outweighed desire to create a solid piece of entertainment and art. And agree, Rise is the worst hands down. Yes, it was worse than any prequel to me. I do respect Lucas doing his own thing with those, even if he did it poorly.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
47,417
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Amazing Spider-Man 3 -- oh wait, they never even made the film. :ROFLMAO:

Matrix Revolutions -- more disappointing than anything, it had some good moments/ideas but a lot of pointless junk, and the last two minutes was terrible. Matrix Resurrections is basically a "franchise" film meant to cap the franchise (on purpose) so that the studio cannot force any entries -- and mission accomplished.

Rise of Skywalker -- no comment. Maybe the worst of the big budget franchise trilogy cappers ever I have ever seen, and it's an embarrassment to Disney.

The Dark Knight Rises -- pretty eh, I've only ever watched it twice because it's such a hot mess.

Justice League (Whedon) -- Very bad.

Allegiant -- Third film in the Divergent series, where Divergent was the best of the three and it only got worse from there. Allegiant was so bad that they never concluded the four-part trilogy (cough), the story never got finished on TV or on screen.

Rise of the Lycans (and what follows) -- Underworld is cool if not as good as it should have been, but it got worse from there. RotL is the third film that was just a prequel whose story we already knew but they decided to tell it formally. The next two films suck in the sense they just ditched all the old storyline for more interchangeable mess. But Kate Beckinsale always looks good in black leather.

Glass -- The "third" part of the Shyamalan Unbreakable/Eastrail 177 trilogy, starting with one of his best films 20 years prior, followed by a return to form (but a bait and switch) with Split which ended as a surprise 'middle film' entry, then capping it with this shitty excuse for a film AND a trilogy ender. It's one of those trilogy enders that heavily ruins both of the prior films. Why didn't he leave well enough alone?

T3 - Rise of the Machines -- Pretty bad film aside from the surprise ending. Of course, then we got some lackluster stuff. Salvation was okay, Genisys was kind of amusing if taking lightly (as a riff/pastiche on all the other films), and Dark Fate was actually fairly decent IF Terminator 2 had not existed.

Alien3 -- the approved Fincher version was average but looks really bad compared to the two stellar films that came before. Then of course we have Alien4 (eh?), the two AVP films (casual fare), and then Scott's overedited and/or derivative but quite beautiful/evocative two entries.

Robocop 3 -- I honestly barely remember this, aside from it being bad.

Human Centipede 3 -- I cannot comment on this, I have only seen the first two films. However, if the pattern holds...
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Darth Strigidae
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
17,395
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I never understood why they shortened the gap between films to 2 years. Sure, 3 is a while to wait, but I don't see how such largescale productions can be effectively planned out and executed in anything less, unless the intent were to shoot them back-to-back with a well oiled machine as Jackson did for the LotR (plus he spent years in preproduction laying the foundation). These SW films were rushed out because greed outweighed desire to create a solid piece of entertainment and art. And agree, Rise is the worst hands down. Yes, it was worse than any prequel to me. I do respect Lucas doing his own thing with those, even if he did it poorly.
I agree. At the very least they should have spent three years on Rise of Skyawlker after the double whammy of Carrie Fisher dying and tossing out Colin Treverrow and his script (which I think I would have rather seen from what I know about it). Maybe release Solo on one of the intervening holiday seasons between instead of that dumb May release date?

I do think Solo is the second worst of the Disney live action things (I'd put Book of Boba Fett above it; it's not just built on a bunch of callbacks and does some cool worldbuilding). There is however, a big difference in quality between Solo and Rise of Skywalker. I walked out of Solo and went, there were some cool parts, but overall it was ok; I don't need to see that again in the theater. It certainly didn't make me angry like Rise of Skywalker and I think I would put it above the prequels.

Aiden Ehrenreich is fine, though. I actually like him in the part. I did like seeing a more idealistic version of the character. It's just that the movie made some of the same mistakes as the Star Wars prequels; it's so callback heavy. I think it might have worked better for me if it was stretched out to a series; almost every important thing in Solo's life before the cantina happens on the same adventure. I don't care for that.

I think what could have been the most interesting aspect of a potential Solo prequel is something they almost skipped over entirely. I would have liked to see more of his time in the Imperial military. I think the movie should have been about that, although I know there's a pretty cool deleted scene. Instead they had to throw in stuff like how he met Lando, got the Falcon, made the kessel run. got his blaster (really?) because those are things we already know so they had to cover them. I think the Solo movie I would make would mostly focus on him in the Imperial military and perhaps culminate in him leaving it because of rescuing/saving Chewbacca. When he gets booted out of the service for doing the right thing would have caused him to develop a cynical attitude and explain his reluctance towards heroics. We don't need to have everything else compressed into the same time frame. The movie should have really just focused on one aspect of his backstory, and maybe leave the rest for something else or perhaps the imagination.
 
Last edited:
Top