Third time's not the charm: A writer unravels why the third installments of film trilogies often fail to deliver

LOS ANGELES -- As the third and supposedly last chapter in the "X-Men" films hits theaters this week, many a fanboy is struggling to temper excitement and anticipation with dread over that ubiquitous trilogy killer: The Ewok Syndrome.

A perfectly good film, packed with action, interesting characters, maybe even breakthrough special effects, becomes a hit. The sequel follows, upping the ante as the plot thickens, action is amped up and characters get meatier.

You think, a ride this good can only get better. Then the third installment arrives and you cringe as you wonder why there are midgets in teddy bear costumes cavorting around, draining the cool quotient from your favorite galactic space opera right before your eyes.

Ewoks aren't the only ill-advised augmentation that can derail a trilogy. The addition of a nipple on a rubber Batman suit, a vampire Pomeranian, or Richard Pryor as bumbling comic relief opposite the Man of Steel, can be equally 'meh'-inducing.

Such is the sad life cycle of most of the film series that have gone on to become trilogies or beyond. They start off strong, peak and then fail to stick the landing.

Here's a few hits that missed:

-- "Return of the Jedi." This finale to the original "Star Wars" trilogy followed two strong films that left movie audiences eager for a satisfying finish as the rebels led by Luke Skywalker defeated the Empire once and for all.

Fans got some of that, along with an unwelcome side order of Ewoks, psycho puppets and a Han Solo all but stripped of his scoundrelness. To make matters worse, the Special Edition released years later added a puppet musical interlude and an awkward scene showing Boba Fett macking on some alien ladies.

-- "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King." The first "Lord of the Rings" film was long, but engaging, particularly with its cliffhanger, downbeat ending. The second felt longer, but the build-up to the epic battle sequences and the depiction of Gollum, neither of which had been shown in the previous film, made it worthwhile.

The third film, however, somehow managed to feel longer than the first two combined, without really upping the dazzle factor or intensity. Filmmakers also added what seemed like an extra 20 minutes of false endings punctuated by a Hobbit lovefest that should ensure repeated reruns on Lifetime.

-- "Jaws 3-D." You probably saw the Steven Spielberg classic and its decent sequel prior to seeing the 3-D follow-up. It sucked. 'Nuff said.

Other examples abound: "Alien 3." "The Matrix: Revolutions." "Superman III." "The Godfather: Part III." "Revenge of the Nerds III: The Next Generation." "Blade Trinity." "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock."

There are exceptions. Some say the third Bond movie, "Goldfinger," is among the best of the bunch. The Harry Potter films have all grown more rich and intense as the characters have grown up.

---

DISSECTING THE DISSAPOINTMENTS:

But why do so many of the other third acts in a series fall short?

One often-cited source of sequel angst among fans is when a movie series' tone changes, often as filmmakers try forcing comedy or lightheartedness into the mix.

"Suddenly (in) the third, they always seem to have more hijinx, more goofiness going on," suggests Juan Montoya, a 32-year-old Los Angeles resident who readily admits his fan-boy status.

Of particular annoyance to Montoya is "Back to the Future Part III."

"You had the first two movies where you keep replaying the same day, they do great things with the time and everything and then suddenly -- BOOM -- they're in the Old West and they have to tie the DeLorean to a train and crazy hijinx ensue," said Montoya. "They shoot people and their hats go flying off their heads ... a lot of double-takes and zoinks. You start to feel like, 'Oh my God, what happened to the fun this used to be?"'

Sometimes film sequels fail because of overheated fan expectations. How do you improve on the first two "Godfather" films? Or "The Matrix" and its uneven but visually satisfying sequel?

The third entries in those series seemed almost set up to buckle under the weight of fan anticipation.

Other third installments are green-lit on the success of their predecessors and what happens to the characters onscreen seems contrived at best.

Take "Blade: Trinity." The first two films remained largely true to the comic's bleak tone, depicting the reluctant vampire hybrid (Wesley Snipes) and his war against the undead. By the time we catch up with Blade in "Trinity," we've seen more than our share of vampires, so the filmmakers toss in Ryan Reynolds to crack wise and, at one point, have him duke it out with a vampire Pomeranian and two other bloodsucking canines.

Often a change in a film series' writers or director can result in less-than-thrilling sequels.

"Batman Forever" followed two widely appreciated Tim Burton takes on the Dark Knight. In the third movie, the series underwent a major makeover with the addition of Val Kilmer as Batman, and the debut of his sidekick, Robin.

So far so good, but new director Joel Schumacher emphasized art direction instead of characters, amping up the neon and glow-stick effects, slapping rubber cod pieces and nipples on the heroes' suits, and practically bathed the entire set in disco lights.

It might seem superficial, but messing with Batman's color scheme is no small trespass, said Ryan Pratt, 27, after a recent shopping spree at the Golden Apple comics store in Hollywood.

"There was all these bright vibrant colors," said Pratt. "That's not Batman's world. Batman is supposed to be the Dark Knight. It's supposed to be a grave, gray, grim atmosphere which you had in the first two films and began to visually vanish in the third one."

---

REVIEWING X-MEN:

So what of "X-Men: The Last Stand?"

It follows "X-Men: United," which is probably the best overall comic book film adaptation. That movie, directed by Bryan Singer, balanced a wide cast of characters while also advancing the story right at the cusp of one of the books' most revered story arcs: The Dark Phoenix Saga.

While taking liberties on the source material, the first two X-Men movies succeeded where many others, except for the "Spider-Man" movies and last year's "Batman Begins," failed.

The latest chapter, with Brett Ratner in the director's chair, isn't bad, but it isn't great either. In some parts it hits a level of intensity the previous films only hinted at.

But it also suffers, perhaps inevitably, from that malaise that burdens many a final chapter. It has to wrap loose ends, while trying to up the action, while trying not to repeat previously trod ground.

The film has been receiving mixed reviews, and it's likely fans won't agree on whether it ultimately delivers on the promise of the first two excellent films.

For those who deem it unworthy, they'll have no shortage of excuses to cite: New director. High expectations. And the historical weight of many a second sequel that proved, more often than not, the third time's a dud.