The Superhero Movie equivalent to "odd-numbered Star Trek movies"

[Atlatl Jones]

I've been thinking about recent superhero movie trilogies, and noticed that they all seem to fall into a predictable pattern.

Movie #1: Good
Movie #2: Possibly even better than #1.
Movie #3: Sucks wet farts out of dead pigeons.

This definitely fits the Spider Man trilogy, and definitely fits the X-Men trilogy. It even fits the old Superman trilogy. As for the new Batman movies, it fits movies #1 and 2 so far, but I hope to god that it won't fit #3.

(Hmmm... now that I think about it, this pattern also fits the original Star Wars trilogy)

 

[Relique du Madde]

Um sorry to correct you but...

Superman: 5 movies (including Return)
Star Trek (original cast): 6 Movies.
Star Trek (TNG cast): 4 movies.
Batman (60s): 1 movie.
Batman (90s): 4 movies.
Batman Animated: 4 movies.

 

[Villano]

I remember reading about the "third film in a superhero series will suck" rule. At first glance, there does seem to be something to it:

Batman Forever
Superman 3
Spider-Man 3
X-Men: The Last Stand
Blade: Trinity

OTOH, there are plenty of superhero movies that suck right out of the gate (such as Catwoman, Ghost Rider, and Elektra) or drop into the toilet with the first sequel (The Return of Swamp Thing, Crow 2, etc).

I really hope the rule isn't true since it means that Fantastic Four 3 will be even worse that the second one!

 

[Arnwyn]

Um sorry to correct you but...

Superman: 5 movies (including Return)
Star Trek (original cast): 6 Movies.
Star Trek (TNG cast): 4 movies.
Batman (60s): 1 movie.
Batman (90s): 4 movies.
Batman Animated: 4 movies.

"Correct" him? No, his theory is still reasonable... and he didn't even mention the old Batman movies! (Though there could be some arguement that #2 was only mediocre.)

Why is Star Trek in your list...? (Actually, your list isn't even relevant to the OP.)

 

[Mallus]

Movie #1: Good
Movie #2: Possibly even better than #1.
Movie #3: Sucks wet farts out of dead pigeons.

I'm with you Atlatl... except for the Spiderman III part. I liked that one, a lot!

 

[Mistwell]

Hmmm.

Batman 3 and Superman 3 both were big drops from the prior two movies.

Same with Spiderman 3 and X-men 3.

I expect Batman 3 (the revamped movies with Bale at Batman) will be good. I hope that breaks the pattern.

 

[Relique du Madde]

"Correct" him? No, his theory is still reasonable... and he didn't even mention the old Batman movies! (Though there could be some arguement that #2 was only mediocre.)

Why is Star Trek in your list...? (Actually, your list isn't even relevant to the OP.)

Star Trek was on the list because of the Thread's title and therefore you should be able to apply the same theory to that film series. Also, it also illistrates a point. If the second movie is suposed to be better then the first and the third movie is worse over all, then what happens when you extend the theory to include movies with more than 2 sequals?

Also, what happens to a movie series when you change the main cast (Batman), writers, directors, and producers? How does that effect the theory?


For instance with batman:
60s movie - Meh. Silly. Same actors from TV show.
Batman - Good. New everything.
Batman Returns. - Alright not as good as Previous Movie. Same batman and Alfred. No robin.
Batman Forever - .A little cheesy. New Batman. Same Alfred. Introduces Robin
Batman and Robin. - Utter Crap. New Batman, same robin, Alfred (new character name. Now with Batgirl.

Batman Begins. New Everything. No Robin. Commissar Gordan becomes an important character. Lucius Fox becomes an important character.
The Dark Knight. Same Batman, Alred, Gordan, Lucious, Scarecrow returns as lackey. No Robin.

The Batman animated series movies is interesting since they used the same actors as the actual cartoon even though the art style changed between some of these movies.

 

[drothgery]

Star Trek was on the list because of the Thread title and the premise with Movies getting worse as they progress through sequels. I personally like some of the later movies in those respected series more than the originals.

But the thing is that the theory on Star Trek movies is that only the even-numbered films are good (II, IV, VI, First Contact... I never saw Nemesis or Insurrection, and don't even remember which one came first), which is pretty much true, and the original poster was wondering if superhero movies also had a pattern, albeit a different one (good, better, teh suck).

 

[Arnwyn]

Star Trek was on the list because of the Thread's title and therefore you should be able to apply the same theory to that film series.

But he was just talking about the existence of a pattern, and used the commonly-known "Star Trek pattern" as an example. That's it.

Also, it also illistrates a point. If the second movie is suposed to be better then the first and the third movie is worse over all, then what happens when you extend the theory to include movies with more than 2 sequals?

You don't. The specific pattern the OP pointed out was pretty clear. Anything beyond the 3rd movie doesn't have a pattern, yet.

Also, what happens to a movie series when you change the main cast (Batman), writers, directors, and producers? How does that effect the theory?

I think the continuity of a given series is also pretty clear.

As I noted - nothing to correct from the OP.

 

[Pants]

But the thing is that the theory on Star Trek movies is that only the odd-numbered films are good (II, IV, VI, First Contact... I never saw Nemesis or Insurrection, and don't even remember which one came first), which is pretty much true, and the original poster was wondering if superhero movies also had a pattern, albeit a different one (good, better, teh suck).

Minor correction.

'Even-numbered' not 'odd-numbered.'