You are Here » News Chat » Trilogy Buzz
News Chat
September 25, 2003
7

Trilogy Buzz

— Posted by John Campea

News hits that Underworld is now going to be made into a trilogy.

I recall the times when using the word Trilogy meant you were talking about Star Wars. Now the word is the buzz catch phrase for any movie that has 3 (or more) releases. Gone are the days of the sequel. That’s not good enough. Would you like a side order of Trilogy with your big budget movie? Now, just about every blockbuster is a “Trilogy”

It used to be that if a movie was successful and popular enough that they would make a sequel and see what happens from there. Take it one step at a time. Now, a movie does well and they plan 2 more at a time.

I thought Matrix was better left alone, but those in charge didnt feel a sequel would be good enough, so they planned to make it a triology. Indiana Jones is 3 separate movies that tell of 3 separate adventures of our favourite archeologist and although there are 3 of them I don’t really see this as a trilogy. (a 4th is due in 2005) Great movies all, but to me, to deserve the word trilogy, there should be a greater story being told over the span of movies. (Classic) Star Wars, Lord of the Rings and the upcoming final chapter of the Matrix seem to be the only true trilogies that spring to mind. (I am sure there are others that qualify) They span a greater story while featuring parts of that story into marketable “chapters”

Other serials that have achieved 3 movies that carry the trilogy buzz word really don’t qualify for the honours as far as I am concerned. Scream Trilogy? nope. Highlander Trilogy? Don’t even try. Terminator Triology? Sorry.

A movie can be good and have 3 parts, not saying that being a “not trilogy” makes it bad (but Highlander did suck after the first) but to package it as a Trilogy should be an achievement, not just 3 separate movies.
With any luck, Hollywood will stop scamming us with the anticipation of an epic trilogy when they are just farting out money printing sequels.

This post was written by :

who has written 6785 posts on The Movie Blog

visit author's website | Contact the Author

  • D Lap

    I dunno Davey, it’s hard to say…

    It’s like Friday the 13th, same antagonist (in this case, zombies) with the exactly same premise: Stupid losers who should’ve known better stuck in one place. Instead of hugging the dangerous end of Jason’s machete with their guts, they’re praying to the Good Lord that their asses don’t become zombie slurpee.

    Dawn of the Dead and Day of the dead are sort of like that.. they COULD be connected by story, but they aren’t made to be and can be independent of the other flicks. A farm, a mall, a military complex – that’s about as diverse in difference as they go. So I would probably say the “Dead” is more of a series rather than a Trilogy, but for sake of argument, most people will just call it a trilogy because English professors haven’t thought up an english word that means “You think it’s a trilogy, but it actually isn’t” yet.

  • DaveyJ

    Fellas,

    What say ye of Night of The Living Dead? Trilogy or no?

  • http://www.linkmedia.ca Rodney

    Indeed the second Matrix was a visual wonder. And more combat than the first. But it was overkill. I loved the dialogue. It really makes you think about what is going on but it created more questions than answers. That’s fine, but I would like those questions answered in the same film and that is what the third installment promises. On its own I think this movie was a complete waste of time. The 60 mins of combat, 15 mins of dance club raving and pointless sex scene could have been shortened and the 20 mins of dialogue could have been been added to the sequel making it ONE movie. There was little need for them to have two movies, but at the same time I am reserving condemnation of this film until after I see Revolutions, but I still think they could have put this all in one film. At this point it looks more like they stretched out a few things they wanted to say into 2hrs of film just so they could do revolutions without confusing the pigtails off us.

  • http://www.themovieblog.com John

    Once again I must chime in. The 2nd Matrix flick was fantastic. Much better action, and more brain food than the first. Yes, the first one had the mystery element to it (What is the matrix?), but besides that I personally thought the second was better than the first in every other respect. Just my two cents worth.

  • http://www.linkmedia.ca Rodney

    Sorry about that Davey McFly, didn’t mean to step on yer toes. Back to the future does seem to fit the trilogy thing. There are still some great movies that have 3 or more in their franchise, but they dont qualify as a trilogy.
    As for the Matrix, I was happy with the end of the first movie ending with the implication that Neo has become fully in control of the Matrix and becoming untouchable. The sequels imply that he is not as untouchable as they thought which to me shatters the ending I was happy with. Now they have to fix it, but I would have been happy seeing one sequel rather than this waste of a second part just to have a third. A sequel may have been required to some, but to make two movies so you can feature combats that last so long that you dont care who wins just starts to ruin the movie for me. But like it or not, the Matrix story arc is a trilogy, the way it should be.

  • D Lap

    Actually, I think the Matrix NEEDED at least one sequel — the end of the first movie just has Neo Realizing who he is… there’s still an entire war to fight. – And since the world or the Matrix was presented so well, I know many, many people who were dying to see this “new-found-self” put to use by kicking some royal agent butt.

    Granted, it COULD’VE been left where it was – maybe I would’ve been happy with that, but it left far too big a cliff-hanger with the “So how do ya think that war will go down?”

    In a way, the end of the first Matrix was the beginning of the End.

    As far as trilogies go, I believe “chapter” movies are more regarded as a “series” –
    the Tom Clancy “series” for example. I’m sure some people will refer to it as a trilogy, but like you said, I really don’t think that’s right. — I’d even have a hard time placing “Lethal Weapon” as a “trilogy — or quiloigy” Same characters, but different stories each time. – arguable because the following movies do make references to the earlier ones.

    However, Shame on you for talking about a continuing trilogy story and leaving out the best example of “leaving where they left off” in movie trilogies: Back to the Future. Grrrrrr. And you call yourself a sci-fi fan. … Later.

  • http://www.themovieblog.com John

    Hey, don’t forget about the Godfather Trilogy.

Around the Web
"Here's looking at you, kid."

— Humphrey Bogart as Rick Blaine from Casablanca, 1942

    Archives