Is Indiana Jones the only franchise where the 3rd is the best?

Both are shit

Star Wars a shit

Iron Man

>Die Hard 3 is not even a Die Hard film

Explain

Revenge of course. Best one out of the series

When the script was written it was not meant to be a DH film but Lethal Weapon or something entirely else

No shit. Why are you tagging me you faggots?

It was written as an original film, and then in order to ensure financial success they changed the main character to John McClane and made the villain Hans Gruber's brother

Revenge is the best of the prequel trilogy.

No it wasn't. The Phantom Menace was.

But Die Hard 1 went through a similar change in it's conception, is that not Die Hard now? Fucking morons.

test

I'm not the one who said With a Vengeance isn't a Die Hard movie. Why are you calling me a moron, faggot?

Harry Potter movies.

Best ranking.

Even Spielberg hates Temple of Doom.

>HELLRAISER 3
Nigga what the fuck

You're a moron by proxy, niggerfaggot.

Better acting. Better effects. Better shots. It's close with 1, but the acting in 1 is soooo fucking bad.

H3>H1>>>H2

Yet the end result comes closest to the spirit of the original film. And like someone else said, Die Hard was repurposed from another script too.

People latch onto this idea that Die Hard films are supposed to be about being trapped in a confined space. That's bullshit.

Return of the King

nope

>spirit of the original film
Could you be more gay when talking about a fucking Die Hard movie?

This. Die Hard was based on a book that should have made it a prequel to Frank Sinatra's movie "The Detective". They contractually had to offer Sinatra the role of McClane first even though he was in his late 60s or some shit at the time.

Die Hard 2 was based off another unrelated book and I think DH4 was based off of some short story or something.

In fact the only Die Hard written from scratch was Die Hard 5.

So fucking what?

Temple of Doom is the best one though

not an official trilogy

also "for a few dollars more" is my personal favourite of those three films. I think TGTBATU is far too long and overdrawn. There isn't enough detail about the civil war. You could tell Leone wanted to keep that minimal dialogue vibe, but for a wee euro boy who didn;t know much about the conflict between north and south, a lot of the film seems to make very little sense.

In retrospect I might just be talking shit since I haven't seen it in years, but this was my impression when I marathoned all of Sergio Leone's films as a 16 year old.

Harry Potter

This

toy story 3 has the most feels. Universal soldier three basically ignores the second and is the best of the 'aged action icons back in action' fad.

I thought it was pretty good, Jackson and Willis have great chemistry. I prefer 1 and I think the general audiance would believe it to be more iconic but it is arguable.

What about James Bond?

I thought the 4th was better for action at least.

>Even Spielberg hates Temple of Doom.
Who gives a fuck what he thinks?

Crusade is way better, while Raiders is more iconic and has some of the most memorable parts in cinematic history, it has a lot of flaws. It's slow and everything is done better in the third one, from lighting to basic filmmaking techniques and overall how it fits together, we learn more about indy and we see an interesting arc develop in him with his father, Connery is based by the way and the ending is great. It was a great send off to a trilogy which very rarely happens, even if you don't think it's the best of the trilogy you have to admit it's probably the best third film in any series, it does everything it has to to pay homage to what came before and wrap everything up well.

The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly

Red Dragon

...

Return was best battle kino

Towers was best landscape kino

Fellowship was best comfy kino

...

TDKR

Nightmare On Elm Street

Psycho

Bourne Ultimatum