Consider the Trilogy Part III: The Franchise Rises

            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. 

           

Consider the Trilogy Part II: The Good Trilogies Strike Back

          As we continue our odyssey into the effectiveness of film trilogies, we must now address what many consider to be impossible: the good trilogies. Rarely, if ever, does Hollywood produce a film trilogy where all three parts are just as good. A consistent trilogy that carries its story and character arcs to a logical conclusion without sacrificing the integrity of the franchise? That's crazy talk. And yet, I can think of five trilogies that actually succeed at this. Let's take a look at them, shall we?

   
          Mr. Zemeckis, I tip my hat to you. Where the Wachowskis failed, you delivered. You took a popular film that originally was designed as a standalone story, and added two more installments that continued the tale without diluting the quality. Sure, I'll be honest when I say that Back to the Future Parts II and III aren't as good as the original, but they're by no means terrible, and manage to build off what was established in the first film without lessening it. So many more themes, layers and character moments are added in Parts II and III that they make the trilogy's overarching story really work.

         We get a wider scope of Hill Valley's history by exploring its origins in the Old West and its progress in 2015. We get a nice cautionary tale about how the power of time travel can be abused, while also explaining the concept of parallel universes without confusion. And what's more, we get a deeper relationship between Marty and Doc, wherein Marty learns to take charge of his own life and be humble while Doc realizes the risks of time travel and falls in love. A perfect standalone film was turned into an epic story through its trilogy expansion, and I think it's a perfect example of how to flesh out a universe originally made for one movie.

         The Dark Knight Trilogy is the most recent example of a great film trilogy, and I'm so glad that it came now to prove not only that amazing film trilogies can be made, but that superheroes can be the subject of them. As I mentioned in Part I, Spider-Man and X-Men could have been great trilogies if they had just stuck with the story arcs they were planning to use. The Dark Knight works because of that. Chris Nolan may have made the plots of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight largely standalone from each other, but with The Dark Knight Rises he successfully wrapped up all the threads from the last two films and brought them to their logical conclusion, while paying tribute to some of the best Batman story arcs of the comics. 

          When Rises ends, the League of Shadows from Begins is destroyed, Harvey Dent's corruption is exposed, Batman becomes the symbol Gotham needs to truly heal, Robin inherits the Batman's legacy, and Bruce finally moves on with his life without the pain of Batman. Bruce grows as a character throughout the trilogy, and by Rises comes to peace with himself while also achieving his mission for Gotham: to make Batman a larger-than-life symbol that would inspire Gotham to do good. Unlike most superheroes, whose status as comic book characters means they keep fighting crime forever, Batman in this trilogy gets an actual ending; one that is emotionally satisfying and makes sense in the context of this universe. The Dark Knight is a trilogy like no other, and its focus on moral and philosophical themes, character development and symbolism set it apart from other superhero franchises. 

            I grew up with Toy Story, and thought the first two films were great when I was a kid, but I never thought Pixar would craft a series of children's films into one of the most poignant trilogies of recent memory. I literally cried when Toy Story 3 ended, because if you go back and watch all three movies in a row, you find that they slowly morph from a story about friendship to one about growing up, accepting change and coping with one's own mortality. 3 deals with this the most, but the seeds of this are actually planted in 2, and while 3 has a large time gap from the first two films, it works in its favor since it allows the film to address those issues from 2 head on. 

           This also allows the kids who grew up with the original films to gain a whole new perspective from the series, since they literally grew up along with the characters. Seeing Woody's love for Andy transform from a need to hang on to him to accepting he needs to let him go was beautiful and painful to watch, and making these plastic toys into fully realized characters who are just as afraid of dying as we are was relatable in ways I can't even begin to fully express. This is by far the best animated trilogy I've encountered, and the fact that 3 came almost ten years after 2 and nearly surpasses its predecessors is an achievement unto itself. 

              There is no denying The Lord of the Rings is a massive achievement. In terms of character and story, LOTR is nearly flawless. Frodo's journey across Middle-Earth to destroy the One Ring is the definition of epic, and his transition from innocent hobbit who rejects his destiny to a traumatized traveler whose addiction to the ring consumes him is pulled off brilliantly by Elijah Wood. Other characters, from Gandalf, Aragorn and Gollum to Sam, Merry and Pippin all grow throughout the trilogy as well, and by the time we get to Return of the King we get several endings that, while long, provide an enormous amount of closure that wraps up the story in heartfelt fashion. 

              The way Peter Jackson executes these characters and the overall story is glorious, and the three films taken together really are just one long film, even though the individual movies also have clearly defined climaxes. Some say LOTR shouldn't really be considered a trilogy because they were all filmed at once, but at the end of the day this story was served the best because it was split into three parts. The trilogy format works so well for a story of this magnitude, and it's clear that to many this is the One Trilogy To Rule Them All. Normally I would agree with that, but there's one trilogy I think actually succeeds it...

             Let me get one thing strait: BTTF, TDK, LOTR, and Toy Story are all amazing stories that truly benefit from the trilogy format, but honestly I think the reason Hollywood is so obsessed with the format to begin with is because Star Wars perfected it. Yes, Return of the Jedi is clearly the weak link of the three, but it's not a terrible drop down in quality the way the prequels were and still effectively wraps up its story and character arcs in a satisfying way, Ewoks notwithstanding. From a story standpoint, we have Luke's maturation as a Jedi and his rejection of the Dark Side of the Force, Han and Leia's blossoming romance, Darth Vader/Anakin's redemption, and the victory of the Rebel Alliance over the Empire. 

             But on another level, the Star Wars trilogy kind of lays the groundwork for what a perfect trilogy should be. Part I: introduce your main character and the universe he inhabits, as well as the central threat. Part II: the threat becomes ever greater, the story darkens, and the heroes experience a major loss or defeat. Part III: the threat is defeated, often in epic fashion involving a large climax, and the hero's personal journey comes full circle. Yes, this is basically script writing 101, not to mention Joseph Campbell's Hero's Journey archetype, but the fact that Lucas managed to take the basic storytelling formula and expand it into a three-part saga was huge. Episodes IV-VI are not just the original Star Wars trilogy; it's the original Hollywood trilogy, and no amount of prequels, sequels, special editions or spinoffs will dilute the magic that these films have as a standalone story. 

            We have now seen how Hollywood can take the trilogy model and use it for better and for worse. But this also begs the crucial question-if you feel a franchise is the best way to tell a story on film, does that franchise always need to have three parts? Next time we will examine franchises that decided, for whatever reason, that three parts weren't needed (or weren't enough) to tell their stories. 

Consider the Trilogy Part I: The Three Movie Curse

        There's an old saying that good things come in threes. Sadly, this is only sometimes the case when it comes to movies. Trilogies are becoming more and more common in Hollywood. Franchises are nothing new, and neither are trilogies, but why do franchises almost always come in the form of trilogies?  When a big budget event film makes bank, what do studio execs say? Make it a trilogy.

        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.

     

     

The Dark Blogger Returns

Well, it only took me four long months, but I am finally ready to return to the world of online blogging. Between college homework, writing for the school paper, living in a fraternity and trying to balance a relationship, it seems there was no time to actually blog about anything. It's a pity really, considering so much has happened in the past semester. Where do we begin?

I've seen several movies over the past few months. Ted, Premium Rush, Lawless, Dredd, Looper, Hotel Transylvania, Life of Pi, Cloud Atlas, Wreck-It Ralph, Skyfall, and most recently The Hobbit all came under my unique brand of analysis and criticism, even if I haven't had time to actually blog about it. It was a mixed bag of movies, but there were some gems among them, and I look forward to giving full-hearted reviews in my upcoming analysis of 2012 in film.

In terms of nerd news, there has certainly been a lot. We now have trailers for next year's brand of films, ranging from Lone Ranger, A Good Day to Die Hard, Star Trek into Darkness, Iron Man 3, Oblivion, Pacific Rim, Monsters University, GI Joe: Retaliation and Man of Steel, all of which I am looking forward to. And that's not even counting Wolverine, Thor: The Dark World, Kick-Ass 2, Hobbit Part 2, and Hunger Games: Catching Fire, which have yet to premiere trailers even though I'm pumped for them anyway.

We have spoilers regarding several prominent superhero films. Iron Man will face Ben Kingsley's Mandarin, Thor will fight Christopher Eccleston's Malekith the Accursed, Captain America will fight Crossbones and Winter Soldier, while Guardians of the Galaxy will most likely take on Thanos, not to mention we still have an Ant-Man movie and Avengers sequel coming 2015. Wolverine will be set post-X3 and set up for Days of Future Past, which will try to make sense of the films' continuity by merging the old trilogy with First Class. And then there's the Amazing Spider-Man sequel, which has casted Harry Osborn, Mary Jane and Electro as the primary villain. All good news, but what of DC?

Batman's gone and Superman's coming. Man of Steel looks incredible, but amid all this comes news we may get a Justice League film come 2015. Man of Steel will obviously connect into it, but will that film do anything to set it up? More importantly, will JL reboot Batman and Green Lantern, or will we see Joseph-Gordon Levitt's John Blake and Ryan Reynold's Hal Jordan fighting alongside Henry Cavill, as some rumors say? Not to mention the other rumors of Darkseid being the villain and his plan being to transport Apokalips to Earth Space. But while we can speculate all we want, there's another 2015 film I'd much rather discuss.

Disney buying Lucasfilm came as a shock to many, myself included. As a lifelong Star Wars fan, this news would have upset me a few years ago. But then Disney made Avengers after acquiring Marvel, and to hear that they're behind the wheel and Lucas is out fills me with relief. The very idea of a new Star Wars trilogy, with Episode VII coming 2015, is mindblowing. What will it be about? Will it adapt the Expanded Universe or do a new story? Will Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Billy Dee Williams and Carrie Fisher be in it? This news has made me excited to be a Star Wars fan again, and I can't wait to see how this new trilogy develops.

I know I haven't covered everything. I've barely caught up on TV, so unfortunately I can't say anything about the new Green Arrow TV show or the latter half of Walking Dead's third season (first few episodes were phenomenal though). I did manage to see the first half of Doctor Who's new season, and it was very sad to see the Ponds leave. There is so much more to do, and so many more nerdy things to cover. Now that Winter Break is here, expect more posts within the coming weeks, while I try to balance blogging with the other aspects of my life. But for now, I am back, and the blogger in me is ready to be unleashed once again.