So I have to ask: is a trilogy the best way to present a franchise? Can a sufficient story and character arc be summed up in three parts, or can an effective arc be accomplished in one or two films? Or can a series stretch beyond a trilogy and emerge better for it? This is a question that cannot be answered in just one article, so I plan on making an entire trilogy out of it. In Part One, we'll discuss how the trilogy mentality in Hollywood dooms otherwise great movies to subpar sequels. This is how creating a trilogy hinders, rather than helps, the development of certain story and character arcs.
It seems film trilogies are kryptonite for every superhero franchise, but two in particular really emphasize how a bad third installment can ruin the good will earned by the first two. The first Spider-Man and X-Men trilogies set up brilliant story arcs with their first two films, with Spidey building toward a conflict with Harry Osborn's Green Goblin and the X-Men heavily teasing the rise of the Dark Phoenix. By part three, the Goblin and Phoenix stories are sidelined in favor of plots about a mutant cure and the Venom symbiote, making both trilogies end in a whimper instead of a bang. Studio interference can be blamed for both films' problems, but if the creators just stuck to the original artistic vision instead of focusing on cheap thrills and fan service, we would have had two perfect comic book trilogies to watch again and again.
The problem isn't so much that the creators came up with a three-film arc; it's that they had no idea how to properly conclude it. Either stick with Goblin and Phoenix and do those arcs justice so the trilogy gets the closure it deserves, or expand your series beyond a trilogy if you want to encompass other arcs like Venom and the mutant cure. There was no way you could stuff all those plot threads in one film and make a coherent story that wraps up a film trilogy. It's a terrible paradox-the studio wants a trilogy of films that get bigger each time, but the bigger the story gets the harder it becomes to wrap up all your plot threads. Either keep the conclusion simple or expand it beyond a three-part story. By trying to go big and provide closure, Spidey and the X-Men doomed themselves to mediocre third installments, undoing the masterful arcs of the previous films and making the trilogy as a whole suffer.
But Spider-Man and the X-Men could work either as trilogies or larger series because, as comic book films, they had fifty years of stories to choose from. When George Lucas was crafting his Star Wars saga, it's apparent he didn't have enough story to craft another trilogy after his masterful first one. It's just plain fact: nothing really happens for the majority of Episodes I and II. It's all just set-up. Episode III is the payoff, sure, but all the events that were alluded to in the originals? That's in III. I and II are basically Darth Vader: The Early Days. It's not necessary to see Anakin as a child or teenager. We don't need to see battles over trade disputes or the awkward and totally staged romance between Anakin and Padme. Everything that is necessary to set up the originals was in III. What Lucas felt needed three films to explain was told better in one. Unfortunately, it's this mentality that has infested Hollywood in recent years, and even in years past.
Francis Ford Coppola made two of the greatest films of all time in The Godfather Parts I and II. Together, they told an epic story about the rise and fall of the Corleone crime family, as power went from Vito to his son Michael who proceeded to destroy his family as he consolidated his power. Then Part III ruined all of that by offering an unnecessary epilogue, one that had an aged Michael trying to legitimize his empire while living with his past sins. What was perfectly fine as a two-film tale was needlessly expanded into a trilogy. And this "trilogy"-itis doesn't stop at Lucas and Coppola, unfortunately.
When the Wachowskis made The Matrix, it was a mind-bending original sci-fi film that delivered on action, story and characterization while even injecting a healthy dose of philosophy into the proceedings. It was a standalone film that gives Neo a complete character arc by the end-he embraces his destiny as The One and plans to show the people the truth about the Matrix. Then came Reloaded and Revolutions, effectively one movie that was split in two to make a trilogy. Reloaded expanded the universe of part one, but Revolutions was just hollow battle scenes and heavy handed philosophy lessons. It's really apparent that the directors had run out of plot by this point, and felt compelled to keep going so they could get that trilogy that audiences and studios seem to love.
And now in December 2012, Peter Jackson makes The Hobbit into not one film, but an entire trilogy of movies. I can't say I blame the guy-he loves to pad his films. But when he made Lord of the Rings, he had three books to work with, so a trilogy for that makes sense. A trilogy for The Hobbit, which is just one short book, doesn't make sense from a story stand point. I've seen "An Unexpected Journey," and even with added elements from the wider Tolkien universe it works. It's just that where the film ends, I find it hard to adapt two more films given that there's only about a hundred more pages of the book to work with. I sincerely hope Jackson succeeds, and I get that by expanding to multiple films you'd be able to increase the drama and characterization, but I still have my doubts. As great of a filmmaker as Jackson is, I fear he may fall into the same trap as Lucas, Coppola and the Wachowskis, and take a story that otherwise could have been told in one or two films and unnecessarily make it into three.
There are many more examples I could list of franchises gone bad because of poor third acts, but I'm glad to say that not all film trilogies get it wrong. In fact, some get it very very right. Next time, I shall take a look at film trilogies that actually benefit from being told in this format, and how these franchises set a shining example for how to take this Hollywood mentality and make something amazing from it.
No comments:
Post a Comment