Trilogies: Really necessary? Only 3?

POSTED BY: Fastmover
UPDATED: Sunday, June 17, 2007 05:12
VIEWED: 5892
PAGE 1 of 3

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

FASTMOVER

Monday, May 28, 2007 8:23 AM

I just watched POTC: At World's End today, and I must say, it was a really good movie. However, I did have a few gripes about it. The plot that is developed throughout the entire series is very interesting and intriguing, however it is also very complex. When you right and work with something like this, it's not always possible to design it to be divided cleanly and evenly into 3. The movie did feel a bit crammed in and lengthy.

What kind of bugged me a little was that the plot was a little too dense for me, and I think this was the result of trying to do too much in one film to tie up all the ends while including the needed grand finale. Now, if they had been able to make a 4th movie, I think they could have spread things out a bit more comfortably. I'm just wondering, in cases like this, I understand 3 is tradition, but must it be 3? Why not go on to a 4th film if the story could use it? There's a 4th Indiana Jones film coming out next year, plus Lord of the Rings will include 4 films once The Hobbit is released. Also, if the other 2 Riddick films are made, then there will be 4 in that series including Pitch Black.

On the flipside, however, I noticed there is supposed to be a second Inside Man film. You may remember the first as being the big heist film of last year that starred Denzel Washington, Clive Owen, an Jodie Foster. In this case, I really felt that they completely tied up all the loose ends, and provided a great sense of closure in that one film. I can't really think of much else they can do, but I know there are possibilities.

So do they really have to make sequels every time a movie does well, and are they always obliged to make 3 these days?

EVILDINOSAUR

Monday, May 28, 2007 12:42 PM

Are you sure they aren't making a 4th pirates movie? I'd heard there were talks of it, and the ending of 3 definitely left it with somewhere to go.

"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."

SPEAKFIRE

Monday, May 28, 2007 12:49 PM

The reason for making sequels is pretty obvious, if one movie does well, why not use the same chemistry of characters and make a sequel that can make the same amount of money and be equally successful, if not more? If you think about it, this is done far far more when writing books, in all fiction genres. In general though, the more 'sequels' to movies that are made (especially past the Trilogy), the less popular they are. As far as I know there's only been a couple truly successful movie series that are more than a trilogy. One is Star Wars, and the other is Harry Potter (where the cast was signed on to 7 movies to start off with, so they all knew what they were getting into).

It's probably for a variety of reasons. Few directors, writers, producers, and most importantly, actors and actresses, want to keep doing hte same thing over and over. And the more movies you make, the more difficult it is to come up with creative and interesting stories to go in the movies.

Regarding the Lord of the Rings movies, the Hobbit is not a sequel in the truest sense of the words. It was actually written years before The Lord of the Rings, so the LOTR movies are actually a 'sequel' to the Hobbit.

NBZ

Monday, May 28, 2007 12:55 PM

Pirates is not a true "trilogy".

The first part was a complete story in and of itself. When then that did remarkably well, they decided to add to it.

The second two films have very little to do with the first.

If they make a fourth (which they probably will) I hope they return more like the first one. "At Worlds End" was very enjoyable - a lot better than Dead man's chest, but IMO not a touch on the original.

PHOENIXROSE

Monday, May 28, 2007 1:26 PM

Yeah, it wasn't meant to be a trilogy. I still haven't seen the new one, but I plan to, even though the story took a completely different turn than what I expected from the ending of the first one.
I heard they were considering making upwards of seven Pirates movies. I'm betting they'll keep cranking them out as long as box office is high.
However, I do have to say that, in general, movie franchises do not remain good after three movies. A lot of them have had direct-to-video fourth movies or something like that. It nearly always starts being bad, forced, overdone, under-funded, etc etc etc. Not that this has to be the rule, but it sure does seem to be.

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
A troll's hair is still pointy, even when it's wearing a hat.

CYBERSNARK

Monday, May 28, 2007 2:16 PM

There's also the trend in film-making (whether movies or TV) to break stories down into three "acts." To this mindset, a trilogy just makes instinctual sense.

(And I would argue that Pirates III could've been improved by moving a good hunk of the plotlines into Pirates II and eliminating the cartoony and out-of-character sequences.)

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

LWAVES

Monday, May 28, 2007 3:27 PM

I liked POTC3 too. Expected more humour (although what was there was good) and some of it seemed a little forced.

Select to view spoiler:

I also thought they ignored the bit where Chow Yun Fat hinted at Elizabeth Swann being Calypso. It never came into play later at all except for a couple of worried glances.

Overall great action, great set pieces. Although as stated it was a bit much for one film. But no where near as bad as Spidey 3.

To me the 'tradition' of making a trilogy is a more recent development.
For example:
The first Matrix did very well. The makers said that they always planned it as a trilogy (yeah right) and then they bolluxed the next two up.
Spider-Man was 'supposed' to have been set out as a trilogy from the start, but only Harry's arc really continues and you can't count Peter Parker as all the films are about him.
X-Men was the same. First one hit big so they say they are doing a trilogy, and they know they have interest for two more films. After that.....

I don't think film series based on books can count as 'planned trilogys', they just go as far as they can with the source material. The makers of LOTR went with three films coz of three books. JK Rowling said there would be seven Potter books so it stands that there will be seven films.

Film makers will always go as far as they can.
That's why we have Rocky 6, Rambo 4, Die Hard 4, Indy 4, Beverly Hills Cop 4 either out or on the way. They are just trying to recapture past glory and make more money (yes, even Indy 4).
I really wish they'd leave them alone after this amount of time, and I'm a big Indy fan and don't want to see it ruined.

Quote:
As far as I know there's only been a couple truly successful movie series that are more than a trilogy. One is Star Wars, and the other is Harry Potter

You could add the Bond and Star Trek movies to the list as well. Although they are stanalone movies and not 'true sequels'.
Going on that idea then Star Wars is made up of two trilogys. The first dealing with Anakins story, the second with Luke. Therefore they haven't been successful beyond the three film marker. (Being a bit picky there).

At least nobody has made 'ET 2: Armed And Dangerous' or 'ET 3: Back With A Vengeance' or 'Titanic: The Poseidon Adventure 3' or 'More Usual Suspects' or 'The Usual Suspects Again".
Well, not yet......

"If I hear voices and someone is really there, does that mean I'm going REALLY crazy?"

CYBERSNARK

Monday, May 28, 2007 3:37 PM

Actually, there is a sequel to E.T., but it's only in book form. E.T., Book of the Green Planet was available in the late 80s, though even then, I never saw it outside of Universal Studios Florida's gift shop. Really good book, though.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

PHOENIXROSE

Monday, May 28, 2007 3:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lwaves:
Quote:
As far as I know there's only been a couple truly successful movie series that are more than a trilogy. One is Star Wars, and the other is Harry Potter

Going on that idea then Star Wars is made up of two trilogys. The first dealing with Anakins story, the second with Luke. Therefore they haven't been successful beyond the three film marker. (Being a bit picky there).

Don't forget that for the most part the prequel trilogy sucked hard bits of moldy green cheese.
I'm also of the opinion that the Harry Potter movies could have been better right from the start, and stopped seeing any after the second one, but that's just me.

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
A troll's hair is still pointy, even when it's wearing a hat.

CHRISISALL

Monday, May 28, 2007 4:58 PM

At least Robocop 3 was good.

Murphyisall

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE