We now approach the end of our journey through the effectiveness of film trilogies. If we are to truly understand how trilogies help and hinder the overarching narrative of a film series, we must now ask ourselves: can going beyond a trilogy work in some series' favor? Would it be better to just focus on making one or two really strong films rather than ruin their accomplishments with a third? Or are some stories just naturally fit for trilogies, meaning going beyond three installments will spell their doom? This is what I intend to find out.
When Quentin Tarantino was making Kill Bill, he decided to take what was originally one film and split it in two. After watching them back to back, I can see where he's coming from. Tarantino's films are very dialogue-driven, and Kill Bill Vol. 1 breaks from this formula by having the action drive the plot. However, when Vol. 2 arrived Tarantino reverted to his original M.O. Volumes 1 and 2 do form one story that has a single narrative thread and a logical conclusion, but they are two entirely different films, thus the split was justified. There have been rumors about a Volume 3, but Tarantino says it's unlikely. I"m glad he thinks so. Volume 2 wrapped up the films perfectly. There is no reason to tarnish two perfectly good films that already have a conclusion just for the sake of reaching a trilogy. Kill Bill is one of the very few series where two films is all it takes to make a great story. A trilogy is not always necessary.
While this may be true, there are times when a perfectly good trilogy is ruined because the filmmakers decided, for whatever reason, that a fourth film was needed. Take Indiana Jones for instance. The first three films formed a loose trilogy of standalone stories, but with Last Crusade Indy is revealed to have formed his adventurous persona to distance himself from his father. Last Crusade gives the loose trilogy a sense of closure by having Indy reconcile with his father. When Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was made, we have an older Indy reunite with Marion and learn of his illegitimate son. What's the point of giving Indy a family when his reconciliation with Marion and his father came in Raiders and Crusade? Kingdom gives Indy nothing to further his character more than we already saw in the first three, so it feels like a useless epilogue rather than an integral part of the franchise.
And then we get to the enigma that is Pirates of the Caribbean. What was originally a well-made standalone film was expanded into a trilogy, with two films interconnected to build off the narrative and character threads of the first film. 2 and 3 have their problems, mainly that 2 has a lack of plot and 3 too much of it, but ultimately both films expand on the story of the first and form an effective trilogy. With the fourth film, the series reverted to the standalone roots of the first one, undoing the ambitious storyline about the extinction of piracy from the last films. The Fountain of Youth thread may have been resolved from 3, but other than that there was no reason to make another movie. Disney couldn't decide whether they wanted an epic interlocking franchise or a series of standalone films, and with Pirates 4 this really shows.
I should thank Hollywood, then, for deciding to craft a film series out of Harry Potter. Anyone who's read the books knows that by story's end, Harry Potter is largely a coming-of-age tale, with the story morphing from an innocent children's fantasy to a dark war story about love and loss. The films emphasize this change in tone perfectly. Having multiple directors helped to ease the transition from light-hearted kids movies to adult fantasy fare. All the principal actors return, and it's rewarding to see Harry, Ron and Hermione literally grow up right in front of us. Rowling planned the series to have seven parts, and the filmmakers did well to realize each installment was necessary to make the story and character arcs work. Harry Potter works exactly because it's a longer narrative that culminates in an enormous climax with a huge payoff. Harry's maturation could not be presented effectively if condensed into a trilogy.
But if we're talking long-running series, we can't leave out Bond. This is a franchise that has literally been around for 50 years. Agent 007 is a secret agent who goes out saving the world from megalomanical villains. The character doesn't really change, and he and his world are so malleable you can make films about him until the end of time. The three most recent films (Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall) form a loose story arc about how Bond goes from rookie 00 agent to the suave spy we all love. But even if the most recent films form a trilogy, they set up for further adventures because the very nature of Bond allows the films to work as ongoing, standalone stories. Bond will always return, and it's completely unfair to force him into a trilogy when an ongoing series fits the character better.
While Bond may show off how a series can go on without being forced into the trilogy format, it's not really fair to use it as a perfect example because, with the rare exception of the Daniel Craig films, all the movies are standalone features that don't carry any story arcs through from their predecessors. The Marvel Cinematic Universe works differently, with part of the Avengers charm being that it references story arcs from the previous Iron Man, Thor, Cap and Hulk films. You can watch the solo films to understand the characters, then when the threat gets big enough they team up for an epic crossover spectacle. Stark, Thor and Rogers will all probably get solo trilogies, but their adventures will continue in other films, ensuring their story arcs can survive beyond trilogies. The Marvel comics universe is ever expanding, and with the films now emulating the style of the source, they have a hit franchise that can continue for years without trilogies that, unlike Bond, maintains an ongoing continuity.
There are countless other franchises I can use to further my point that extending a franchise can either help or hinder it. Franchises like Planet of the Apes, Jurassic Park, Alien, Terminator, Die Hard, Rocky, Rambo, Shrek, Jaws, Ice Age, and the first Superman and Batman series would have benefited from either being standalone films or limiting themselves to two or three films tops. Horror movies like Nightmare On Elm Street, Halloween, Friday the 13th, Hellraiser, Resident Evil, Saw, and Paranormal Activity would have been better as standalone films, as their abysmal sequels will tell you.
Star Wars, Star Trek, and LOTR, on the other hand, have unique worlds that make them ripe for further adventures. Star Trek, however, works because there are multiple shows and crews to base adventures on, so it emulates the style of the Bond films. Star Wars and LOTR are different in that further films are structured into trilogies. so the franchise can be seen as a series of trilogies in a sense. There's no question that the Star Wars prequels are inferior to the originals, and while the first Hobbit was great it's still up in the air whether the story deserves the trilogy format. But if you stop looking at Star Wars and LOTR as a series of trilogies and see them as larger sagas, the further films do help expand the narrative and make the universe feel larger and more lived in. Both franchises, in a way, benefit from going beyond the single trilogy format, even though there are many that disagree with this.
At the end of the day, we can't change the fact that Hollywood loves a good trilogy. Sometimes they succeed, most times they fail. Even when they do succeed, they often become so popular that they get even more films, which undo the magic the films had as a trilogy. But ultimately, the deciding factor is the story. If you intend to build a franchise, you have to ask yourself whether the world and the characters deserve to be expanded. And if they do, how big should you go?
It's great to dream big, but sometimes too much ambition will lead to failure. If the world and the characters have the potential to reach a trilogy or even go beyond one, go for it, but only if you can execute it with care and passion. Hopefully future filmmakers will look at film series as stories rather than paychecks, but for many the lure of the trilogy is just too strong. As long as a trilogy is made to naturally extend the story rather than create a moneymaking franchise, we'll have cinematic stories we can treasure for years to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment