Always trilogies!!

[EZM22]

I've already posted this rant on another movie board, but I'm curious to get people's opinions on it...

I've never understood what is Hollywood's fascination with trilogies. Say you've got a huge blockbuster coming out, and even before it opens the makers are already talking about all the plans they've envisioned for three movies. This annoys me because sometimes, there's enough material for more than three films, yet the makers never take advantage of it.

Take the X-Men for example. The first two movies were pretty good, and while the third one wasn't a complete dud, it was the worst of the trio. Why? Because since they just had to wrap everything up neatly in three movies, this one rushed through its plot and subplots (the whole Dark Phoenix thing is a whole movie by itself), killed off two important characters in the blink of an eye, and tried to cram every single mutant character in worthless throwaway cameos. Now they're talking about rebooting the franchise. Why? When there's so much stories left to tell.

Same thing with Spider-Man. The third one sucked. Again, because it tried cramming too much into one film. Venom was turned from a hulking monster to a wimpy Spidey clone who only showed up for 10 minutes, when he could be the villain in one movie all by himself. But since they just had to do only three films, they had to shoehorn him in there somehow.

Look at Harry Potter. Six films in total, each has been better than the last, each one has taken its time in telling a good story without feeling the need to make a trilogy and rushing through every detail just to meet the "trilogy" demand. Why other films series like X-Men or Spider-Man can't do this, I don't know. They have plenty of material. And if a repetitive slasher series like Friday the 13th can make over 10 movies just from slaughtering teens, I don't see why these franchises can't last for longer.

I sincerely hope this doesn't happen with Batman and Iron Man, although it seems the latter will have four villains... alarm bells are ringing.

[APzombie]

the lack successful trilogies doesn't discount the narrative structure of a beginning, a middle and an end.

[bigred760]

I've already posted this rant on another movie board, but I'm curious to get people's opinions on it...

I've never understood what is Hollywood's fascination with trilogies. Say you've got a huge blockbuster coming out, and even before it opens the makers are already talking about all the plans they've envisioned for three movies. This annoys me because sometimes, there's enough material for more than three films, yet the makers never take advantage of it.

Take the X-Men for example. The first two movies were pretty good, and while the third one wasn't a complete dud, it was the worst of the trio. Why? Because since they just had to wrap everything up neatly in three movies, this one rushed through its plot and subplots (the whole Dark Phoenix thing is a whole movie by itself), killed off two important characters in the blink of an eye, and tried to cram every single mutant character in worthless throwaway cameos. Now they're talking about rebooting the franchise. Why? When there's so much stories left to tell.

Well, the 3rd X-Men had to deal with a new director, the rising stars of the cast, and continuing the story that the previous two had set up. Singer had intended to return to direct the 3rd, but Fox wanted to get the 3rd one out ASAP.

Same thing with Spider-Man. The third one sucked. Again, because it tried cramming too much into one film. Venom was turned from a hulking monster to a wimpy Spidey clone who only showed up for 10 minutes, when he could be the villain in one movie all by himself. But since they just had to do only three films, they had to shoehorn him in there somehow.

I don't think Raimi expected to make a trilogy (and now a quadrilogy), but the movies were so successful and that they kept churning them out. He didn't want to make a bad movie, it just turned out that way.


Look at Harry Potter. Six films in total, each has been better than the last, each one has taken its time in telling a good story without feeling the need to make a trilogy and rushing through every detail just to meet the "trilogy" demand. Why other films series like X-Men or Spider-Man can't do this, I don't know. They have plenty of material. And if a repetitive slasher series like Friday the 13th can make over 10 movies just from slaughtering teens, I don't see why these franchises can't last for longer.

It's a tad unfair comparing the Harry Potter franchise to comic book movies. The Harry Potter movies are adaptations of each book in a 7-book series (and the 7th book will be two movies apparently); the super hero movies are not adapting individual books or comic books; they're taking years of stories and characters and trying to decide what to keep and to what to throw it when they make movies about the stories and characters.


Trilogies have worked: the Bourne franchise, LOTR, Star Wars, Indiana Jones (it was the fourth that brought that one down).


The Iron Man franchise has two more movies to go before they hit the trilogy mark.

[Reigh Kaufman]

Trilogies do not bother me as much as prequels.

When there is no more arc in a trilogy, and the cash-cow runs dry, looking at the origins is the logical move until a sufficient amount of time has unfolded for a remake/re-imagining, et cetera...

It has almost never worked.

Trilogies, however, are okay by me if they progress the story.

The only truly successful trilogy in the last few years, for me at least, is Bourne - which was a surprise, 'cos I don't usually like the genre. The rest all fall, to some degree, in the "final" chapter".

It is the unsatisfactory conclusions that give birth to origin stories.

[God of War]

Bourne trilogy soon to become Bourne quadrilogy.

When Friday 13th part 3 was released, I thought that was it. Another trilogy. Boy was I wrong. Then when Friday 13th the final chapter came out. How many did we have after that? lol

Even games are having trilogies. The God of War main series is due for part 3 this year. Even though technically, we had two other games from this franchise. The PSP installment and the phone game. Once again, a major trilogy. Trilogies are just popular I think. The Aussie movie, Gabriel was written to accomodate two more films. But I think they got canned.

[Reigh Kaufman]

Bourne...

I knew a fourth was on the way. I also believe it will not be successful - or at least as successful as the trilogy, simply because a new arc is unneccessary.

Mark my words, a few years down the line we will all be watching an origin story of Jason Bourne leading up to the events of part one.

A franchise never dies - it hibernates long enough for nostalgia to take the bad taste from your mouth.

[Jig Saw 123]

Trilogies make sense to me in the sense that they provide an origin/beginning, middle/climax. and end/conclusion. The best to have shown this was Lord of the Rings, even though it was based on books there was plenty of information to make dozens of sequels, but its story was told. The reason a lot of people stop at trilogies is because they don't want a series to go any further because than it just becomes repetitive and annoying. Perfect example in this case is Saw. A good idea that was taking too far. And these days trilogies are becoming obsolete and becoming a quadrilogy (Die Hard, Indiana Jones, Alien).

[Abbie Normal]

I've never understood what is Hollywood's fascination with trilogies. Say you've got a huge blockbuster coming out, and even before it opens the makers are already talking about all the plans they've envisioned for three movies. This annoys me because sometimes, there's enough material for more than three films, yet the makers never take advantage of it.

Because the powers that be in Hollywood are stupid. There is no other way of putting it. You are 100% right about the material.


Same thing with Spider-Man. The third one sucked. Again, because it tried cramming too much into one film. Venom was turned from a hulking monster to a wimpy Spidey clone who only showed up for 10 minutes, when he could be the villain in one movie all by himself. But since they just had to do only three films, they had to shoehorn him in there somehow.

According to the director, he was forced to present us Venom this way by the studio people. So who killed the Spiderman series? Sony did. Nice job.


Look at Harry Potter. Six films in total, each has been better than the last, each one has taken its time in telling a good story without feeling the need to make a trilogy and rushing through every detail just to meet the "trilogy" demand. Why other films series like X-Men or Spider-Man can't do this, I don't know. They have plenty of material. And if a repetitive slasher series like Friday the 13th can make over 10 movies just from slaughtering teens, I don't see why these franchises can't last for longer.

You are aware that Harry Potter is a series of 7 books right? As a HP fan, I thought the 5th movie sucked ass. The 4th was OK. The first three were awesome. I am happy to see the studio wised up (although too late) and breaking part 7 into two movies. They should have done this with parts 5,6 and 7. Not to mention part 1 and 2 came out before 6 and 7 were written. This part of your evidence does not support your rant.


I sincerely hope this doesn't happen with Batman and Iron Man, although it seems the latter will have four villains... alarm bells are ringing.

I wish studios would make one movie at a time and not try to make any certain amount of sequels. Just make as many as the material will support and the fan will see. Good rant.

[mutant_gorilla]

I think trilogies work when they are good enough to stand on their own without the predecessors. The first film could stand without a 2nd or 3rd, and the 2nd film could live without a 3rd. I think the Pirates franchise is a pretty good example of a weak 2nd film and an even weaker 3rd film to pick up the slack the 2nd one made.

I don't enjoy the trilogies that leave the 2nd film relying on the 3rd to end the story. It's different for films like LOTR where it was already have the story established in three separate chapters, but for films...I think there has to be a demand for it. If the first movie stood strong on it's own and there is room to expand the story do it. Don't do it for the sake of the audience. I think it needs to be a full deal. The crew/writers/directors/producers need to want it just as much.

Which is why an I AM LEGEND prequel is the stupidest idea ever.

[Natty]

I was about to post that Hollywood probably choose to go for trilogies because they assume that three films can be made in a franchise (earning them a load more money then the one or two) whereas if they make more, they will make money but get extremely bad reviews and perhaps ruin a couple of careers (a la the first Batman Franchise). It just seems that films get weak after the first two so there's no need for more than three.

However I see your point in that there was no need to have this messy wrap-up of storylines like we had in the X-Men, Spiderman (and Pirates?) trilogies and I totally agree with you on the Harry Potter pictures in that they take their time and are getting better and better.

But lets hope this changes, I'm pretty sure Spiderman 4 will be great and I can't imagine the third Batman flick being bad, especially if Nolan eventually decides to do it.

As for Bourne and Pirates, they probably should leave that at three.

[sirdizzy]

People seem to forget the Bourne series was also based on a trilogy of books. So for it to be a trilogy is a logical situation because there was three books as well. Once Robert Ludlum died the book publishers decided to go crazy and have actually had four sequels to his original trilogy written by a completely different author.

I am more offended by the books then by a fourth movie because I really don't think they should say hey Robert Ludlum is dead now we can milk this franchise to death.

Do you think when Lucas dies someone is going to jump in and say hey now we can make Episodes 7, 8 and 9.


Good Trilogies
Star Wars (the originals)
Lord of the Rings (granted that was also based on a trilogy of books)
Bourne Series (another based on three books)
Indiana Jones (ruined by a fourth movie, god 20 years and the best you could come up with was Russians and Aliens)
Evil Dead (although the second movie is almost like a remake of the first one)
The Godfather (say what you want about the third film but I liked it)
Terminator (I get a feeling that it will soon be joining Indy in why the fuck did you make a fourth movie category)
Back to the Future (one of the best and most complete trilogies to date)
Spiderman (I didn't hate the third installment even though it was the weakest of the series)
X-men (again not hating on the third installment even though it was the weakest)
Scream (underrated trilogy)
Austin Powers (not the best trilogy ever but still pretty good)



Trilogies I would leave out and who shouldn't have been trilogies because they seemed like a standalone movie that they decided to cash in on by making three movies or bad trilogies
The Matrix
Pirates of the Caribbean
The Mummy series (the third movie as one of the worst movies ever, people who complain about Spidey 3 and X3 just need to look at the Mummy 3 to see a truly horrible third installment)
Rush Hour (the third again being absolutely horrible)
Ocean series (first was awesome, second was bad, third redeemed it a little but still was only ok)
Shrek (uber popular leading to a horrendous third installment)
Blade (got worse and worse and worse)
Resident Evil (each movie was worse than the one before it)
Fast and the Furious series (not sure if you count this as three or four but none of the sequels were half as good as the original)
Desperado series (should have stayed at two, El Mariachi and Desperado)
Mission Impossible (the sequels were only cash grabs)

[razgriz21]

I too am annoyed by trilogies.

I mean, we don't need three movies per installment.

[EZM22]

Totally forgot about the Mummy movies, though I don't consider the third one part of a trilogy since it has NOTHING to do with the other films, save for the title and Brendan Fraser. The very definition of cash-grab. Once you see a yeti kicking a field goal, you know it's over.

I had forgotten how many trilogies sucked balls... El Mariachi and Blade are good examples. I enjoyed the third Resident Evil as mindless fun, but by that point it had nothing to do with the games.

[CyclicNightmare]

Movies and movie franchises can be good and bad. Whether they're in threes or not.

[project 86]

There are some films that would better greatly for more than trilogies example X Men.FOX had a good x men a great x men 2 but when the third film came around to get to in there minds it was the last one.Why? i have no clue x men has so many characters and stories it can tell it is not even funny.

[Ratlehed]

I dont like trilogies anymore either. They used to get made because there was a stroy there and the first 2 where slightly successful. Now they get made if the first film does well. It seems like they always have 20 unfinshed plot points they at the end of part 2 they all have to get crammed into part 3.

Revenge of the Sith, POTC: Worlds End, Spidey 3, and X3 all had enough material shoe horned into them to make 2 seperate films.

It seems that the majority off bad part 3's have been made within the last 7 years.

[Bahs]

when making a trilogy just for the sake of it (for the sake of money of course) thats when it really bothers me. this is especially true of the dreaded third installment:
Mummy
Terminator (wasent THAT bad but still...)
Spiderman
X-men

i could go on forever.

but trilogies that seem like one LONG movie in seperate acts are much better:

Star Wars
LOTR
Matrix ( yes i did enjoy all three )
Oceans was not that bad either


when was the last time there was a successful blockbuster with a sequel, and THERE WAS NOT a third one made?

[syxxpac]

As a fan of serialized stories, I'm a supporter of trilogies on a very cautious basis, considering how most third entries in such endeavours turn out. The format, when done right, can help an epic tale to breathe and spread its story out more comfortably this side of successful serialized TV shows such as Lost, and it CAN be for the better of a product. If something is adequately planned beforehand and the story warrants three instalments to complement its scale, I don't see how that CAN'T lead to more satisfying character arcs and storylines that you often can't delve into adequately in one movie without making it longer than it otherwise should be. The big two, Star Wars and LOTR, are obvious showcases to haul out to prove the point. Planning - and/or a kickass pre-existing source - goes a long way.

However, there is something to be said about the idea behind this rant concerning the OVERuse of trilogies for films that were never really designed for a clear-cut beginning, middle and end, and in the case of X-Men for example, I couldn't agree more.

[RustyRazor]

I used to say, all the time - "Do we need a third friggin' movie?! Was a second one neccessary?!!"

And then I started writing and it occured to me that when the story is being told, it may take more than one movie to do so.

SURE some movie sequels are created to make more money:

Robocop II - Strike While The Robo Is Hot
Robocop III - We Got Nancy Allen Back...That Should Count For Something
Crank II - Yeah, He Survived That Fall...MY BALLS He Survived That Fall

And of course:

TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF MICHAEL BAY ON EVERYONE THAT MADE FUN OF HIM WHEN HE TOLD THEM HE WANTED TO MAKE ACTION MOVIES FOR A LIVING

But there are movies like the Matrix Trilogy (which didn't end well, I know) or the Back To The Future trilogy which have a story that needs to be continued.

It really depends on the movie and I think we can all see when it's just a quest to make more money and cheapen the original movie.