10 Ways to Make 'The Hangover Part III' a Success

2. Bring Doug (Justin Bartha) Into the Mix

First off, if they weren't going to use this guy in any type of extended capacity, then why hire such a legitimate actor in the first place? We're not saying that "National Treasure" or "Failure to Launch" are great films, but Bartha had starring roles in both, as well as the brand new NBC series "The New Normal." At this point, his character could have just as easily been played by a soap opera actor or even Hayden Christiansen. Secondly, Doug is supposed to be the main characters' best friend, yet we know nothing about him beyond that he is married and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) is now his brother-in-law. He's never shown much personality, and becomes less relevant with each passing film. While he was at least the motivation for the group in the first movie, he was reduced to an easy plot device to get the gang from point A to point B in the second. And most importantly, while having a good actor play the role is already a waste, Doug the character is also perfectly useable and arguably desired as a major character. His friends, whom he is at least with at the beginning of each film, continually get into major trouble. How long can you play with fire without getting burned yourself? And what better way to break the mold than to add a fourth member to the storyline.

3. Make Something Bad Happen to Phil (Bradley Cooper)

Honestly, he's the one with an entire family (a wife and two kids that we know of). He literally has the most to lose, which could easily lead to the best comedy, yet he always comes out virtually unscathed (minus bumps and bruises). True, you need a character to keep a level head in crazy situations, but why does it always have to be him? Again, they have a perfectly good fourth buddy who could easily fill this role, seeing as how he is utterly underused anyways. Phil also seems to be the most irresponsible and immature of the three when they are sober, so why would that not translate when he is intoxicated or drugged? Maybe if something drastic happened to him on one of these crazy nights out, he'd be more cautious like Stu in the beginning of the films, forcing the writers to come up with a smarter way to drug them other than Alan every time.

4. Make Mike Tyson Significant in Some Way, or Lose Him

Look, having him in the first movie was brilliant. It was funny, unexpected, and most of all, it had a purpose and moved the story forward. Having him fly out to Bangkok at the end of the second film to sing at Stu's wedding (what?) made absolutely no sense and was a blatant "remember when he was in the first movie?" moment. Tyson is hilarious in his own light, and while he clearly shouldn't play too large of a role in the film due to not being able to understand half of what he says, this doesn't mean he couldn't make another cameo to a funny effect. Perhaps the gang could call on him to kick someone's ass. Whatever the reason, it needs to somehow drive the story; otherwise it's just a pointless celebrity cameo.

5. Same Deal - Either Lose the Surprise Baby/Monkey Aspect or Make it Worthwhile

This concept was very funny in the first film because people didn't yet know how these films worked, and therefore, didn't see it coming. But using the exact same "why is there a [insert unusual person or animal] in our hotel room?" joke again to the same basic effect in the sequel was incredibly lazy. Throwbacks are a fun nod to fans, but duplicating a joke isn't quite the same thing and rarely gets the same response. Honestly, there isn't really much else to do with this joke than to just let it go and think of something different. It's now down to either a mysterious midget or naked person. The director of the films, Todd Phillips, has said of the upcoming sequel "We're going to surprise a lot of people with the final chapter we have planned. It will be a fitting conclusion to our three-part opera of mayhem, despair and bad decisions" (The Insider). Let's hope he is a man of his word.

6. Bring Back the Bad Guy

Make Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong) a threat again. Sometimes it's good to bring characters back to their roots, especially after they completely veered away from them the second time around. Chow is supposed to be an international criminal. In "The Hangover: Part II," however, he was nothing but a walking punch line. Not only that, but much like Mike Tyson in the same film, he did nothing to move the story forward. Seriously. He "died" before he could tell the group about the night before, only to awaken later and get arrested, never to appear again. Even the whole pass codes/undercover cop storyline revolving around his character left the group with no answers. One supposed storyline in "The Hangover: Part III" (according to Galifianakis back in June 2011) revolves around Phil and Stu breaking Alan out of a mental institution. This could easily make Chow more interesting/threatening once again. He was sent to jail in "The Hangover: Part II" and basically set up (accidentally) by the three main characters. Insanity plea, anyone? That could place him in the same mental institution as Alan. Making Chow Alan's unlikely "plus one" was one of the high points of the second film; taking this to the level of bunkmates is the next logical step.

7. Keep It (Somewhat) Grounded in Reality

Yes, this one seems a bit absurd considering the fact that going to see a movie is usually to escape reality for a spell, but all we are saying here is that there is a difference between being outrageous and being unrealistic. Generally speaking, while there was plenty of ridiculousness involved in "The Hangover", most of what happened was plausible. However, there is just no possible way you could bring a tiger up to your room at Caesar's Palace. Absolutely impossible. And while this detail is forgivable for the sake of comedy, when you actually stop and think about it, it is a little much compared to the rest of the situations. And this only paved the way for even more implausible scenes in the sequel, including an unlikely car chase which culminated in an even more unlikely jump over a canal. Todd Phillips has done several other movies including "Road Trip" and "Starsky & Hutch" involving jumping cars, and they always end with the car destroyed, which is what would really happen and was hilarious in both instances. A good dose of reality, even in comedy, can go a long way.

8. An Apology Would be Nice

The three men in these films have been through hell. And each time (so far), one of them has been responsible for it. Alan is a fantastic character. He's a genius in some respects (which unfortunately wasn't touched on much in the second film), but also happens to be a "manchild" due to being spoiled by his parents his whole life. This is all well and good for comedy, because he then does things like drug them all for the sole purpose of having a fun adventure. But even a kid eventually figures out that you have to say sorry, especially when you do something like ruin someone's life. Twice. He does all these things that screw them over, and then it feels like the films still want us to be sympathetic towards him because he just wants quality time with his best friends. Yet, he has never really sincerely apologized for what he's done and seems to just use this as his excuse every time. And more often than not, he makes light of the others' misfortunes (especially Stu's) at inappropriate times. This is fine for the first two films because it establishes who Alan is. But if we are to truly believe there is a bond between these three men and continue to like Alan, then he has to basically grow up by the series' end. If not, Alan will come off mean-spirited and selfish like he did in "The Hangover: Part II", and that shouldn't be. Redemption is needed for us to truly love the character in the end.

9. Instead of Losing One Guy, Have Them All Wake Up in Separate Places

You know, like what normally happens. How often does a group of friends go out for a wild, drunken night on the town and then all wake up in the same place? This is another absurd concept that, while plausible once, makes less sense every time it is repeated, especially after the outlandish situations these guys get into. Having the core group separated the next morning would be just the mix-up this formula needs to keep it fresh, and would allow exploration of the characters individually before inevitably reuniting them. It would also allow them to meet many more new, interesting characters. Which brings us to #10...