Now that’s comedy.
Best Threequel
- Thread starter Morrus
- Start date
Imaculata
Hero
Starship Troopers 3 is one of the worst in the series, though admitedly, only the first movie is any good. However, the 3rd movie is made hilarious by the fact that there's an actress in it who is almost impossible to understand. I suspect her acting or pronounciation were not considered when she was cast.
Anyone who hasn't seen it. I recommend just checking a scene from the movie on youtube that has her in it for a big laugh.
Ryujin
Legend
Those just kept getting worse. The digital special effects definitely show the budget, as does the horrible foley (1950s punch sound effects? Really?!) Surprised that every death scene didn't include the Wilhelm Scream.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Nobody's mentioned Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End yet and it's one of my all-time favourite movies.
Return of the King is excellent, as is Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Someone mentioned Cars 3 - another fine choice. Thor: Ragnarok is good fun but I'll take the first Thor movie every time.
Return of the King is excellent, as is Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Someone mentioned Cars 3 - another fine choice. Thor: Ragnarok is good fun but I'll take the first Thor movie every time.
Ulfgeir
Hero
Thor: Ragnarok is fine when they are in Valhalla fighting Hela, but the comedy-stuff with Hulk before that I could have done without.
AmerginLiath
Adventurer
The Scotty bit in STIV I think has to be looked at not simply as a programming language issue (computer programming being so new) but as a question of wrangling with old syntax in language and its presentation. I’m reminded of editing 16-18th century business and property records (complete with the sort of abbreviations common to inked shorthand that we don’t encounter in an age of modern pens, much less typing) for publication or on the side for genealogical research, parsing and structuring meaning within a syntactic formula built for a use in that era’s market program (to coin a term). Heck, consider on a much smaller scale how often here we’re all going back and forth between stat-blocks of different systems (including from over a half-century of versions of D&D) and cross-translating rules and characters. As we begin to transition to an AI-heavy interface in the 21st-century, we’re all reacquainting ourselves with the sort of natural language requests (Boolean if not Aristotlean language) with which we interface with our smart speakers and the like; Scotty and other 23rd-century engineers are always depicted doing the further developed version of that same process, so he’s going to think in terms of global syntax rather than particular language when approaching communicating with machines.
The other thought I have on this discussion is whether “threequel” and third movie are terms that aren’t always necessarily the same. You may well have a series of films with a character or set of characters but not a story which evolves around them (effectively a series of serials, like episodes on the big screen): the Star Trek films are largely like that aside from II-IV, which operate as a trilogy in the series (such that IV is the threequel here, not III). But series like Mad Max and to a degree Indiana Jones are basically “here’s another adventure of...” (Last Crusade has an element of Indy Is Getting Old added to it, but it more series finale of a series of episodes than a true conclusion to one story). The Marvel films are an odd bag where some other films interpose in between the 1-2-3 of series (the classic CA:CW as Avengers 2.5 notion, but even how IM3 is as much a sequel to Avengers as a follow up to previous IM films, and its big conclusion is quickly turned back in the Avengers series).
The classic threequel formula is the Standalone + Expanded Two-parter that the Star Wars trilogy created. There’s always the question of how the second film raises the stakes versus overturns what the first presented (I’ve always personally viewed the Matrix trilogy as being uneven in that the revelations of 2 and 3 take away from what‘s good about 1 without making something better, while I remain torn about the expanding of the John Wick mythology in 2 and 3 compared to symmetry of character and story in 1). I personally find it hard to find many good threequels of this sort (BTTF comes to mind perhaps) simply because it’s a particular structure (and a closed one at that) that requires a specific — often Campbellian of a sort — style of storytelling (BTTF wasn’t written to be mythic like SW, but it’s time-travel core lent an element of leaving and returning home; there’s a surprising amount of Hero‘s Journey in that series). That doesn’t mean third films, as creators become more comfortable with characters can’t be great: I’ll always love Last Crusade, for example. It’s just that I’m not sure the two terms are exactly synonymous here.
The other thought I have on this discussion is whether “threequel” and third movie are terms that aren’t always necessarily the same. You may well have a series of films with a character or set of characters but not a story which evolves around them (effectively a series of serials, like episodes on the big screen): the Star Trek films are largely like that aside from II-IV, which operate as a trilogy in the series (such that IV is the threequel here, not III). But series like Mad Max and to a degree Indiana Jones are basically “here’s another adventure of...” (Last Crusade has an element of Indy Is Getting Old added to it, but it more series finale of a series of episodes than a true conclusion to one story). The Marvel films are an odd bag where some other films interpose in between the 1-2-3 of series (the classic CA:CW as Avengers 2.5 notion, but even how IM3 is as much a sequel to Avengers as a follow up to previous IM films, and its big conclusion is quickly turned back in the Avengers series).
The classic threequel formula is the Standalone + Expanded Two-parter that the Star Wars trilogy created. There’s always the question of how the second film raises the stakes versus overturns what the first presented (I’ve always personally viewed the Matrix trilogy as being uneven in that the revelations of 2 and 3 take away from what‘s good about 1 without making something better, while I remain torn about the expanding of the John Wick mythology in 2 and 3 compared to symmetry of character and story in 1). I personally find it hard to find many good threequels of this sort (BTTF comes to mind perhaps) simply because it’s a particular structure (and a closed one at that) that requires a specific — often Campbellian of a sort — style of storytelling (BTTF wasn’t written to be mythic like SW, but it’s time-travel core lent an element of leaving and returning home; there’s a surprising amount of Hero‘s Journey in that series). That doesn’t mean third films, as creators become more comfortable with characters can’t be great: I’ll always love Last Crusade, for example. It’s just that I’m not sure the two terms are exactly synonymous here.
Imaculata
Hero
I agree in regards to the Matrix (still have to watch the John Wick sequels). The Matrix was intended as a movie with an open ending. To then add two more movies that continue the story, kind of defeats the purpose of having that open ending; the audience is supposed to use their imagination in regards to what happens next.
Further more, the Matrix sequels are bloated with pseudo-filosphical ramblings that ultimately go nowhere. It is as if the creators try to pull a veil over our eyes, to hide how ultimately empty the movies are. That is not to say that there isn't stuff to like in the Matrix sequels. There are some fantastic set pieces and impressive special effects. But it doesn't seem like there is anywhere for the story to go, nor any suspense when the main character has basically ascended to a god. For me the first movie will always be great, regardless of how I feel about the sequels. But I do share your feelings that the first movie is some what damaged by the sequels.
Future audience will simply view the Matrix trilogy as one story spread across 3 movies, rather than 2 stories pasted together. Arguably, the same could be said about Star Wars. But in my view, Star Wars was filmed as an episodic style film, where there could be further adventures further down the line, and the story wasn't finished. The Matrix in contrast, clearly has an ending, if an open one.
Ryujin
Legend
A nearly perfect movie, with a premise essentially ruined by the sequels. The number of parodies of the scene with The Architect, using absolutely impenetrable technobabble, is truly staggering.
Imaculata
Hero
That was indeed the scene I was referring to. A whole lot of empty babbling, showing that the writers had really written themselves into a corner.
But like I said, there are also things to like in the sequels. Some really iconic action scenes. The fact that they built their own freeway to film that amazing chase in Reloaded. The Burly Brawl scene, though the CGI hasn't aged well. But it is all too gratuitous. The original knew to use its gravity defying action scenes sparingly, and for specific emotional beats in the story, and to not stretch the action into the completely rediculous. Some restraint was shown, where as the sequels are the exact opposite of restraint. It kinda makes the action scenes in the original less special in that way.
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
I love Thor: Ragnarok, but I do think the middle Thor-Hulk portion goes on for a scene too long.
Speaking of MCU threequels and comedy, I think Iron Man 3 and Infinity War are very underrated as to how funny they are.
Similar Threads
AD6_gamerati_skyscraper
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
April 16 2024 -
May 31 2024 -
June 3 2024 -
June 4 2024 -
June 18 2024 -
July 16 2024 -
September 17 2024 -
October 1 2024 -
November 12 2024 -
February 18 2025
