Has anyone noticed that often trilogies are not in fact trilogies but two movies cleverly disguised as three? I have noticed a trend in Hollywood that I would call a "testing the water" philosophy. With a good many movies, Hollywood will release the first movie to test the water and see if people actually like the film. I submit Star Wars as the peoples exhibit "A" as my first example. George Lucas released Star Wars: A New Hope (Episode 4 of a series of 6) on May 25th, 1977. While the original concept underwent many revisions, A New Hope, was always the first movie of what would be a three part trilogy. However, as time progressed, Lucas realized that the tale of Star Wars could not be contained in three movies but as many as nine (divided into three trilogies). Near the end of the revisions of A New Hope, Lucas made subtle changes to make the movie a self-contained film in case audiences did not like it.
On May 21st, 1980 Lucas released Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (Episode 5) which ends in a cliffhanger with Han Solo trapped in frozen Carbonite and leaving audiences with the sentence, "Luke...I am your father." Fans around the world would have to wait until May 25th, 1983 to find out what happens to the hero's they grew to love but this in itself is my point. The first movie of this "trilogy" is a self contained film and the second and third movies are actually one longer movie cut in half making the series a "two-logy".
I offer you the peoples exhibit "B", the Matrix trilogy. The Matrix was released on March 31st, 1999 by the Wachowski brothers and was a critical success. In fact, it was the success of the first film that lead to the drafting and eventual production of the second and third films in the series. The Matrix: Reloaded and The Matrix: Revolutions were shot at the same time but released May 15th and November 5th, 2003 respectively. You could very well watch The Matrix and be perfectly happy that humanity will rebel and stop the evil machines, or you can then watch The Matrix: Reloaded and be forced to then watch Revolutions in order to discover what happens to the characters and the history of humanity and the machines. You are left to wonder how did Neo stop the machines with only his thoughts, what is Agent Smiths plans (now inside the mind of the character Bane) and will Morpheus get a new ship since the Nabuchadnezzar was destroyed.
The Back to the Future trilogy shall be entered as peoples exhibit "C". The first movie ends with Marty returning to the future and Doc Brown using the note he left to prevent his eventual murder. Left alone, this would be a great stand alone movie. Back to the Future 2 and 3 however cannot be watch alone but must come as a set. In fact, they were filmed together and clips from the third film can be seen at the end of the second movie. Part II ends with Doc Brown missing in the old west and Marty approaching the younger Doc Brown for help. Part III details Marty's journey to the old west despite the older Brown's express instructions not to come and their eventual return to the future. A trilogy (or at least a three part film) that is really two main movies.
The Pirate of the Caribbean can be weakly thought of in the same vain. Peoples exhibit "D" shows the first film, The Curse of the Black Pearl, as ending with Captain Jack sailing off in search of some treasure with the East India Trading Company in close pursuit. This could be considered a cliffhanger, but in typical Disney fashion this is also a happy way to end a movie. However, the sequels are in fact continuations of the same movie. Dead Man's Chest and At World's End detail the entire journey from the discovery of the heart of Davey Jones and the apparent death of Captain Jack to the rescue of Jake from Davey Jones locker and the downfall of the greedy East India Trading Company. Two, maybe three films, but you get the idea.
I leave you with a few trilogies that do break this rule but with some rationale. The Lord of the Rings is in fact one long-as movie broken into three parts (roughly equal to the same volumes of J.R.R. Tolkien's novel). This breaks the trend as it was never intended to "test the waters". Hollywood knew there would be an audience and so released in pieces so that each was a "viewable" 3 hours. Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill is also an example of a movie that is far too long if seen together so was released in three "volumes". My final example of a rule breaker is movies that are basically just multiple stories of the same character. Superman and Spider-man are such examples. These movies based on comic books can tap large databases of story ideas that they know fans will go see and so do not have to "test the waters" either.
Conclusion
Does one really need to make three movies to have a trilogy? or can you simple cut a longer idea into two pictures (both of whom can then no longer be truly enjoyed on their own) can call that a trilogy. I do not presume to be able to make that decision but I submit to you the evidence and will let you decide for yourselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment