[If this has been done already, I sincerely apologize; I just have some thoughts and had to share them. I apologize again because I've just realized that this is a really random little essay on a topic most people probably don't care about.]
Trilogies seem to have become rather popular over the past few years, as far as movies and novels are concerned.
Trilogies can be quite interesting when one examines their plot structures. Each part of the trilogy tells a third of the whole story and as such basic plot elements like rising action, climax and resolution must be present across the three movies/novels. However, each of the three parts of the trilogy must also have their own plot elements. Sometimes this can result in a climax within a climax. This usually seems to occur within the second part of the trilogy, and can have the unintentional effect of making the third and final part of the trilogy look bad.
Many trilogies hit their "peak" at the second part of the trilogy, and as a result the final part often looks as though it is the worst part of the trilogy. On one hand, this is a valid opinion because the final portion of any trilogy is supposed to contain the "grand finale" and one should expect such things to improve with time, as the actors/directors/writers gain more experience. However, the last part of any story is supposed to contain a "falling action" and resolution which means that the action and drama are supposed to return to the levels they were at in the first part of the trilogy. This can sometimes mean that even if the third part of a trilogy is actually just as good as the first part, it will be seen as inferior to the first part of the trilogy.
There seem to be two predominant ways to make a trilogy: an episode method and a unified method. The episode method uses the same characters and a common theme or focus, but the main story for each portion of the trilogy is different. An example of this would probably be the Shrek movies. Shrek, Shrek II, and Shrek the Third all had different stories, but in the end they were all centered on the development of Shrek's romance with Fiona. Trilogies which use the episode method also seem more susceptible to the dilemma mentioned in the last paragraph. Again, the Shrek movies can be used as an example of this because the first and second movies received great reviews (I certainly liked them), but the third one seemed to be the worst of the three.
[Note: I am well aware that there will be more Shrek movies, but at this point in time I can still consider them a trilogy.]
The other predominant method I mentioned, the unified method, refers to a trilogy that tells a single, grand story. These kinds of trilogies seem to be more resistant to the "reaching the peak in the second part" syndrome that I mentioned earlier. One shining example would undoubtedly be the original Star Wars trilogy; however even Star Wars was not totally immune to the second-part-peak syndrome. While Return of the Jedi is generally considered a damn good movie (especially by me), The Empire Strikes Back, the second film, is widely viewed as the best of the original trilogy, an opinion I don?t share.
I don?t know why I feel the need to type all of this. I suppose that I just noticed a bad trend in trilogies and wanted to point it out. What?s really frustrating me now is that I can?t seem to think of a trilogy in any medium that doesn?t follow this trend. Oh well.
P.S. Does anyone think I should have put this in the review section? Because this whole little essay looks almost like a review of trilogies in general, but that really wasn?t my purpose in writing this.
Trilogies seem to have become rather popular over the past few years, as far as movies and novels are concerned.
Trilogies can be quite interesting when one examines their plot structures. Each part of the trilogy tells a third of the whole story and as such basic plot elements like rising action, climax and resolution must be present across the three movies/novels. However, each of the three parts of the trilogy must also have their own plot elements. Sometimes this can result in a climax within a climax. This usually seems to occur within the second part of the trilogy, and can have the unintentional effect of making the third and final part of the trilogy look bad.
Many trilogies hit their "peak" at the second part of the trilogy, and as a result the final part often looks as though it is the worst part of the trilogy. On one hand, this is a valid opinion because the final portion of any trilogy is supposed to contain the "grand finale" and one should expect such things to improve with time, as the actors/directors/writers gain more experience. However, the last part of any story is supposed to contain a "falling action" and resolution which means that the action and drama are supposed to return to the levels they were at in the first part of the trilogy. This can sometimes mean that even if the third part of a trilogy is actually just as good as the first part, it will be seen as inferior to the first part of the trilogy.
There seem to be two predominant ways to make a trilogy: an episode method and a unified method. The episode method uses the same characters and a common theme or focus, but the main story for each portion of the trilogy is different. An example of this would probably be the Shrek movies. Shrek, Shrek II, and Shrek the Third all had different stories, but in the end they were all centered on the development of Shrek's romance with Fiona. Trilogies which use the episode method also seem more susceptible to the dilemma mentioned in the last paragraph. Again, the Shrek movies can be used as an example of this because the first and second movies received great reviews (I certainly liked them), but the third one seemed to be the worst of the three.
[Note: I am well aware that there will be more Shrek movies, but at this point in time I can still consider them a trilogy.]
The other predominant method I mentioned, the unified method, refers to a trilogy that tells a single, grand story. These kinds of trilogies seem to be more resistant to the "reaching the peak in the second part" syndrome that I mentioned earlier. One shining example would undoubtedly be the original Star Wars trilogy; however even Star Wars was not totally immune to the second-part-peak syndrome. While Return of the Jedi is generally considered a damn good movie (especially by me), The Empire Strikes Back, the second film, is widely viewed as the best of the original trilogy, an opinion I don?t share.
I don?t know why I feel the need to type all of this. I suppose that I just noticed a bad trend in trilogies and wanted to point it out. What?s really frustrating me now is that I can?t seem to think of a trilogy in any medium that doesn?t follow this trend. Oh well.
P.S. Does anyone think I should have put this in the review section? Because this whole little essay looks almost like a review of trilogies in general, but that really wasn?t my purpose in writing this.
