Actually from most of the responses on this thread has lead me to think. Why are trilogies so bad, surely they should get better because they have more money to spend on the new one? So they could have better writers, better voice actors and better animations. I don't understand how the vast majority of films have gotten worse since the first. Oh and I'm sorry if it's been said before but good God the pirates of the Caribbean trilogy took a blow after the third one, I?ve never seen such a badly written film in my life.
Thoughts on trilogies
- Thread starter Beowulf DW
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If we look at Avatar: The Last Airbender as a trilogy of seasons then I'd say it's a pretty good one. The writers/creators knew they were only going to go for three seasons and figured out how to tell the story they wanted within that time frame. While I think it starts to sag a little bit in the early parts of the third season, it picks back up and has a great conclusion.
The original Star Wars trilogy is perhaps my favorite movie trio. While the first one does make for a decent stand alone film, the fact that Vader is obviously not dead at the end leaves room for further developments in the sequels. The Pirates movies did not transition quite as gracefully from a single film into a trilogy and the peak was clearly the first film. Sure, things got fun and pretty amusing in the second, but by the third film I was just trying not to slap my brain out the back of my head.
The original Star Wars trilogy is perhaps my favorite movie trio. While the first one does make for a decent stand alone film, the fact that Vader is obviously not dead at the end leaves room for further developments in the sequels. The Pirates movies did not transition quite as gracefully from a single film into a trilogy and the peak was clearly the first film. Sure, things got fun and pretty amusing in the second, but by the third film I was just trying not to slap my brain out the back of my head.
True, unfortunately.Kukul said:
Although, LotR (novels and movies) had a very bitter-sweet ending.
No need to apologize my good man. This is "Off-topic Discussion" after all; and if you used the search button no one can get mad. Relax, we're all friends here.Beowulf DW said:
Seeing as we're talking about movie trilogies, let's talk about game trilogies. Prime example being the Halo arc (Get it? two circle references! hah!). It seems to me that while the gaming aspect of the trilogy got better and better (Thanks to advances in technology) The story was somewhat bland for all 3. And seeing as Gears of War is also gonna be a trilogy you have to wonder when roid-infested supermarines will stop being popular.
I'm pretty sure the Wachowskis planned it as a trilogy from the beginning. They also stated that they wanted it to cross ALL forms of media so you would get even more story by branching out...hence Enter The Matrix and the Animatrix.rossatdi said:
Agree with you here.
They switched directors and screenwriters for the third. David Hayter and Bryan Singer were doing SO WELL, and then they got dropped.
Um...I dunno. Focus on OB did not break the trilogy. First one was amazing for the humor and adventure, second was a little too dark but set itself up nicely for a conclusion. The third tried to cram too much stuff in...the Calypso sidequest was rather pointless by the end of it, and really only served to set up the battle setpiece at the end.
At World's End does provide many many many good examples of Exalted-level combat, though.
Didn't stop is sucking! I loved some of the Animatrix. Detective's Story and the history ones I thought were fantastic.willard3 said:
I understood Singer wanted to go do Big Blue but Ratner? Who the hell, was smoking what the hell, when that one was called?They switched directors and screenwriters for the third. David Hayter and Bryan Singer were doing SO WELL, and then they got dropped.
Exec 1: "Singer's left to go do Superman."
Exec 2: "Ah, what bugger. Who should we get to tie the epic final chapter together?"
Circus Clown: "Bret Ratner"
Exec 1 & 2: "Obvious, why didn't we think of it! He has experience with bad action comedies, he'll be great."
Come on dude. It is less a case of attention span and more a case of making films manageable. Yes, I like movies to be 1:30 - 2:30 hours. It isn't because of a lack of attention span, it is because by the time I get home from work, eat some food, watch some telly, take the dog for a wander, do some exercise, have a bath, I don't have time to sit through 4 hours of watching imaginary hobbits throw a party. (Thank you Peter Jackson for not DRAGGING THE FUCKING THINGS OUT POINTLESSLY (not)).crepesack said:
Truth is, I didn't use the search button, because in my experience it's not particularly adept at dealing with specific topic searches.PayNSprayBandit said:
But I do appreciate the reassurance.
Indeed, this seems to apply to all trilogies, especially games.Not Good said:
The 2 Golden Sun games were amoung my favorite games of all time, and I know that the developer has expressed resolve to eventually create a third game, making it a trilogy. I must admit that await the third game with equal parts anticipation and dread. I know that most game trilogies get crappy at the third game, but it's been years since the second Golden Sun game, and the developer has claimed that they are taking all this time to ensure that they can get the third right. So, with that in mind, I think they might actually be able to pull it off.
No way. Not if they aren't released in quick succession. Like once every six months, I don't want to have to wait 2 years in between releases.
I like the Indiana Jones trilogy because there was no fourth movie. :] There DEFINITELY was no fourth movie ever made or concieved, by anyone EVER.
/Sobs in a nearby corner
I actually found, though, that the Lord of the Rings movies were the only trilogy I ever liked, and still do. Why? Because they were filmed at the same time, with no concept of 'We'll make another one if this works out well enough'. The Lord of the Rings was great because there was no intention of hacking on some money-maker at the end. These movies were built to tell a story, and I'm sure that if they could have done it in one 3-hour film, they would have. But since all the movies were shot at one time, jumping in between doing scenes, there's still a great feeling that nothing has changed between the cast or the film direction; if you laced all the films together into one long string, you couldn't tell where the ends meet. Though the first Matrix was good, the first Pirates was good, etc., they disintegrated into crud because of their intentions from the start.
/wee rant
/Sobs in a nearby corner
I actually found, though, that the Lord of the Rings movies were the only trilogy I ever liked, and still do. Why? Because they were filmed at the same time, with no concept of 'We'll make another one if this works out well enough'. The Lord of the Rings was great because there was no intention of hacking on some money-maker at the end. These movies were built to tell a story, and I'm sure that if they could have done it in one 3-hour film, they would have. But since all the movies were shot at one time, jumping in between doing scenes, there's still a great feeling that nothing has changed between the cast or the film direction; if you laced all the films together into one long string, you couldn't tell where the ends meet. Though the first Matrix was good, the first Pirates was good, etc., they disintegrated into crud because of their intentions from the start.
/wee rant