Middle Films

[grahamthomson]

Michael Bay, director of last year's billion dollar grossing Transformers film has said in a recent interview that Transformers 2 will not be "some lame sequel" that merely exists to set up the third in a trilogy.

What are your general opinions on "middle films" in trilogies; such as X-Men, The Matrix, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Back to the Future, Scream and such like?

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Jun 4, 2008 18:41:25 GMT @grahamthomson said:

Michael Bay, director of last year's billion dollar grossing Transformers film has said in a recent interview that Transformers 2 will not be "some lame sequel" that merely exists to set up the third in a trilogy.

What are your general opinions on "middle films" in trilogies; such as X-Men, The Matrix, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Back to the Future, Scream and such like?

As far as I'm concerned, films 2 and 3 in the 'Matrix' and 'Back to the Future' series are so much inferior to the originals that I generally ignore their existence. As far as I'm concerned, the stories of 'The Matrix' and BTTF have their definitive endings at the end of the first film.

'The Lord of the Rings' should be considered a special case, because all three films were commissioned and made together, are based on a single book by one author, and had exactly the same cast, crew and production values. It's really just one big eleven-and-a-half-hour film in my mind, with consistent quality throughout.

Hmmm, what else? The second 'X-Men' film was the longest and best of the three, and stands alone, while the third film only works at all if considered a wrap-up/encore to the first two. The exact opposite holds with the original 'Indiana Jones' trilogy, where I consider the second one the poorest and the third the best. 'Scream'? Only seen the first one. The original 'Star Wars'? Depends what day of the week it is. All three are superb in different ways. And all three prequels are dull as ditchwater.

And as for 'Night Watch' / 'Day Watch', the first two in the trilogy form such a perfect two-part story that I have very little wish to see 'Twilight Watch' when it comes out, especially as it's to be in English.

So, is there a pattern? No.

Martin

[The Doctor]

Depends really on what is meant by a 'trilogy'. I think of a trilogy that has a story that takes three films to tell and works as one whole unit/complete story if viewed in one go. I wouldn't think of the first 3 Indiana Jones films as a 'trilogy' as such as it tells 3 different stories that have nothing to do with each other beyond recurring characters and a common genre. I would think of that as 1 film and 2 sequels, if that makes sense. I would say 'Lord of the Rings' is indeed a trilogy rather than 1 film with a full story followed by further adventures.

-Ralph

[Deleted]

The second Back to the Future film was by far the worst of the three but it is still very much watchable. There are some films however that do needlessly make sequels on the sole basis that the first one made millions at the box office. Planet of the Apes is one such film as is Highlander - both churned out poor sequel after poor sequel even though the first film presented the definitive beginning and definitive end of the story.

My definition of a trilogy isn't the same as Ralph's definition of a trilogy as I just tend to think of it as a three film series regardless of whether they are just one story played over three films or not. In terms of middle films I think the best 'middle film' of a trilogy is Aliens. It was better than the first film and way better than the bag of shit third film. Unfortunately now it is no longer the middle film as the series was made into a quadrilogy with the fourth film followed a little later by two crossover films.

[legios]

I'd actually agree with Ralph in that a Trilogy requires a narrative connection between the parts. Otherwise they are just additional stories that share characters. I have never seen the X-Men films as being a trilogy (the second one finishes all the significant narrative arcs that bridge over from the first film, leaving the third one just to be another story with those characters), and never saw the Indiana Jones films as one (just a set of stories that feature some of the same characters), or the "Patlabor" films or, even though they have been marketed as such, the Leone/Eastwood Westerns.

Given that I feel a trilogy requires a unified narrative flow then I tend to feel that the middle part of a trilogy needs to function in the classic "second act of a three act play" fashion. It should be the act where you drop the characters "down the well" as things get as bad as they are going to get. That's one of the reasons I really like "The Empire Strikes Back" - it is a classic example of the second act, and lays the ground for the third act beautifully. (It was also the first one of the original films I actually saw in the Cinema) I think "The Two Towers" works really well as a middle film as well - it feels of a piece with the others and does what it needs to do effectively.

I don't think either of these films qualify as "only existing to set up the third film in the trilogy". They do this certainly, but they maintain a narrative progression of their own and attempt to entertain in their own right. I'm having a hard time thinking of any film that exists simply for the purpose of setting up another film.

I haven't seen the succeeding films to "The Matrix" or "Scream", on account of I didn't enjoy the original films enough. So I can't really comment on them.

Karl

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Jun 5, 2008 19:47:59 GMT legios said:

I'd actually agree with Ralph in that a Trilogy requires a narrative connection between the parts. Otherwise they are just additional stories that share characters.

Hmmm. Looks up 'trilogy' in Collins Concise Dictionary & Thesaurus:

trilogy (trill-a-jee) n, pl -gies a series of three books, plays, etc., which form a related group but are complete works in themselves.

Only a common theme is required to make a trilogy.

From Google we have the following:

• a combination of three elements, such as three concurrent defects or symptoms.
  
  
• A literary composition, usually a novel or a play, written in three parts, each of which is a complete unit in itself.
  
  
• a set of three plays on the same theme or representing one story and performed at one competition; the only surviving trilogy is the Oresteia by Aeschylus.
  
  
• A method of marketing games, where a third of the game, known as an episode, is distributed as shareware and the other two episodes are registered or purchased directly from the manufacturer.
  
  
• a collection of three plays usually related by theme or characters. Aeschylus's Oresteia is a trilogy dealing with the fall of the house of Atreus. Neil Simon's Brighton Beach trilogy portrays the playwright's early life.
  
  
• In classical Greece, three tragedies written by the same playwright and presented on a single day; they were connected by a story or thematic concerns.
  
  
• a set of three literary or dramatic works related in subject or theme
  
  
• A trilogy is a set of three works of art, usually literature or film, that are connected and can generally be seen as a single work as well as three individual ones.
  
  
• Trilogy is the upcoming album by German artist ATB. It will be released in two versions, a limited and normal version. It will be released on April 27 2007.
  
  
• Trilogy is a software company based in Austin, Texas. Trilogy specializes in software services to Global 1000 companies, especially in the automotive, consumer electronics, and insurance agencies. Trilogy was founded by Stanford dropout Joe Liemandt.
  
  
• "Trilogy" was a three part story on US TV series Quantum Leap.
  
  
• Trilogy is the third album released by guitar virtuoso Yngwie J. Malmsteen issued in 1986 by the label Polydor. This album was produced in honor of the slain Swedish prime minister Olof Palme.
  
  
• Trilogy is the third studio album by British progressive rock band Emerson, Lake & Palmer, originally released in 1972. The interior of the original gatefold sleeve features a photomontage showing multiple images of the band in a forest carpeted with autumn leaves.

[/size]
[/li][/ul]
Martin

[Philip Ayres]

Empire Strikes Back is one of the best film,s ever and definitely the best original SW film.

As for prequels.... I don't share Martin's view. I think AOTC is possibly the weakest of the 3. It only gets going when Mace Windu shows up with the "This party's over" line.

[grahamthomson]

I think Hollywood tend to use the word "trilogy" as a marketing tool rather than anything else.

[jameso]

Like everyone else says, what actually constitues a 'trilogy' is hard to determine, and most film franchises probably wouldn't count as proper trilogies.

I think there are several decent middle films. Empire Strikes Back and Godfather Part 2 are masterpieces. Aliens, Terminator 2, Back to the Future 2 (I don't know why it's been dissed at least twice in this thread, I think it's wonderful), The Two Towers, Austin Powers 2, X-Men 2, Attack of the Clones are all decent. Spider-Man 2 wasn't my thing, but it was very popular.

[Deleted]

There are some movie buffs out there that hate the word 'trilogy' or films that use a number after the title of a film. It just smacks of laziness from people who can't be arsed to think up a new title for the second film etc.

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Jun 7, 2008 16:33:28 GMT @zudobug said:

There are some movie buffs out there that hate the word 'trilogy' or films that use a number after the title of a film. It just smacks of laziness from people who can't be arsed to think up a new title for the second film etc.

I agree. I think that if you're going to call the second film 'II', you should have had the courage to call the first film 'I'.

'Back to the Future Part 2' - yeah, right, who are you trying to kid. If it was a three-part story, you should have called the first one 'Part 1'.

The spoof movie 'Loaded Weapon I' (which had no sequels, I believe), is the only film I know to have that number.

Martin

[Andy Turnbull]

Like Graham says the hollywood marketing boys latched on to trilogy. As if a story getting two sequels made it any better as a result. So few are actual trilogies and just a series of three films, loosely connected.

Andy

[Shockprowl]

Yeah I agree with what alot of you are saying in that 'trilogy' is a phrase that's thrown around by the movie industry. A trilogy in my mind is definately a piece of work in 3 parts, ie Lord of The Rings, Star Wars. They were ment to be told in 3 parts. Indiana Jones, Back to the Future are an original piece, followed by sequels due to the sucess of the original movie. As well I think you've got 'hopefull' trilogies, where they've writen one movie, as a complete movie itself, with just enough left open at the end so they can do 2 more movies if the first is sucessfull. Example are The Matrix and Back to the Future.

It is definately 'The Thing' these days to do 3 films. I'm all for more of a good thing (X-Men, Matrix, Transformers), but don't want sequels for sequels sake. They've got to be good stories. And if it is indeed a trilogy that they're after, film/write it as a trilogy properly, linking all three parts as in Lord of The Rings.

Can I just say for the record that I LOVE Matrix Reloaded and think it's one of the best sequels of all time (within the action genre). As I've said I think The Matrix is one of the 'hopefull trilogies'- they did the first film so it could stand alone, but hoped to be able to do more, expanding the story. I think the 3 films view fairly well as a trilogy. Reloaded completely delivered for me as a sequel and as a part 2 of 3. FANTASTIC fight scenes, bags of plot development, expanssion of the exsisting story, and some answers at the end of the movie to set things up nicely for the conclussion. I can, and do, watch partic the fight in the Castle and on the Freeway again and again!

[Deleted]

Jun 7, 2008 19:05:33 GMT Grand Moff Muffin said:

The spoof movie 'Loaded Weapon I' (which had no sequels, I believe), is the only film I know to have that number.

Loaded Weapon I didn't have any sequels and the 1 was just put onto the end to lampoon the very people who can't be bothered to think up a proper film title. I can still remember the the tagline for that film - 'Loaded Weapon I - see it before we make the sequel'.