so why is hard to make a good movie triology

[bob]

with The Dark Knight Rises coming out next year I got to thinking why is it so difficult to make a triology of movies that are good

all of the followoing are considerd to be the only good trilogies by most:  original Star Wars triolgy, The Man With No Name triology, ...and LOTR

and it's also possible I may have forget a few but even if I did the lack of good movie trilogies is something of a mystery

[The Burgomaster]

I think it's because the original idea is good, but then when they need to write a sequel . . . and then another sequel . . . they run out of great ideas and end up copying the first movie.  (Hey, if it worked once, let's recycle it two more times!)

[daveblackeye15]

The 90s Gamera trilogy is excellent have to add that in, especially since the final film is the best.

[indianasmith]

For modern slapstick, the AMERICAN PIE trilogy was hard to beat.  The last one, AN AMERICAN WEDDING, had me laughing so hard that popcorn came out my nose!

And, although I know I am in a minority here, I LOVED all three Spiderman movies!

[bob]

I forgot the Toy Story movies

For modern slapstick, the AMERICAN PIE trilogy was hard to beat.  The last one, AN AMERICAN WEDDING, had me laughing so hard that popcorn came out my nose!

well then....you have just talked me into checking out American Wedding, I loved the previous 2 and was just too busy with college to see it in theaters

[A_Dubya]

Indiana Jones and Back To The Future got it right, I believe, and I enjoyed all of the Beverly Hills Cop films too. Still, I agree there are a lot of bad trilogies in film. The Godfather 3 and Alien 3 seem to be the most glaring example of this, although I didn't TOTALLY hate the latter (nothing beats Siguorney Weaver in the tiny panties from part 1, though).

Seems like in most cases, the third time is NOT the charm for them, But some are weird, like with Spider-Man and Die Hard, where I really like parts 1 & 3, but detest part 2 with a passion.

[Leah]

Could be just out of random, as in Pirates of the Caribbean, the first one was a huge hit that a sequel just had to be made.

[Vik]

I don't think it's so hard to do, I think the sequels often suck because people are lazy. Once you have a succesful original you don't need to make the sequel good in order to make a lot of money off of it, people will see it either way.

[Ted C]

Making a trilogy is always going to be difficult when it wasn't planned from the start. Jackson knew that he was making a trilogy out of LOTR. Lucas at least had some idea where he wanted to go with sequels to Star Wars, even if he hadn't fleshed them out because he didn't know if the first would be a success.

On the other hand, The Matrix was a stand-alone movie that wrapped up nicely. It wasn't written with a sequel in mind, so the writers had to struggle to find a way to spin the original ending into a sequel hook. The result was -- to me at least -- a boring repetition of things we'd already seen in the original, with a lot of extra philosophical bulls**t thrown in. The story became less about the people fighting the machines and more about the machines squabbling among themselves, turning them from a monolithic enemy into a bunch of feuding crime bosses. Rubbish.

Spiderman 1 and 2 fit together pretty well, but 3 was subjected to executive meddling that turned it into a train wreck. X-Men had a similar problem: the first two were good, but they lost Bryan Singer as director for the third, and his understanding of the characters and themes was what made the first two good movies.

[ulthar]

An more general question might be "why is hard to make a good move?"  The track record on 'good' FIRST movies is not that great overall...

I'm not sure why so many movies are even turned into trilogies, or even just two part sequels.  Big box office does not mean good story, or a story that needs to be continued.

Well, I think part of it is...Part 1 is "art" for the people who make it...then, the bean counters want $$, so cash in on the 'brand.'  Art and creativity gets lost in the goal simply to churn out a 'product.'

LOTR is really an exception here...as that was trilogy from the start, and longer arc source material to boot.  TOY STORY is an excpetion, also, but then, Pixar is exceptional.  They have the writing to back up the claim "sequel."

[Allhallowsday]

For modern slapstick, the AMERICAN PIE trilogy was hard to beat.  The last one, AN AMERICAN WEDDING, had me laughing so hard that popcorn came out my nose!

I bet that was sexy. 

And, although I know I am in a minority here, I LOVED all three Spiderman movies!

You're also in a minority here loving them LOTR movies.

[indianasmith]

I don't think I am in a minority in that last category - just that the LOTR haters on this board are very vocal!

Nora Lim, Asfaloth!!!!!

[bob]

Indiana Jones and Back To The Future got it right

I haven't seen Back To the Future 2 and 3 since I was a kid so I can't comment on them, but The Temple of Doom is largely ruined for me by Short Round who is just below Jar Jar Binks on my annoyance meter

and yes, I included LOTR in the original post to make indy happy

[Allhallowsday]

Indiana Jones and Back To The Future got it right

I haven't seen Back To the Future 2 and 3 since I was a kid so I can't comment on them, but The Temple of Doom is largely ruined for me by Short Round who is just below Jar Jar Binks on my annoyance meter

and yes, I included LOTR in the original post to make indy happy

I loved that first LOTR movie (what's it? Fellowship of the Ring?)  The second one had moments but was kind of silly and disappointing and long.  That third one?  Who?  What were...wars?  Snooze...

I don't know why they deleted this scene: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaqC5FnvAEc&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLA0C1EDF40F922119

[indianasmith]

OK, that was pretty funny!   Yodelling Istari . . . . Tolkien never thought of that!