Enough, Already with the Trilogies
Recently, I was reading a story about Robert Rodriguez's eternally in-development sequel to Sin City when I was reminded of something: despite the fact that it's taken him forever to even mount a first sequel, he's already planning for the third installment.
It was then that I had a thought. Nay, a rant. Here, then, is an open letter to all the genre filmmakers of the world:
Enough, already with the trilogies.
I'm not against sequels as a rule, I just don't think there always has to be an obligatory third installment. Rarely does the third part ever match the heights already set by the first two, and often, it can drag down the reputation of an otherwise sterling series. The list of disappointing third-parters goes on and on: The Godfather Part III, Spider-Man 3, The Matrix Revolutions, Scream 3, Superman III, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines...I could stop now, but that would show a restraint that's atypical in this trilogy-hungry climate.
Is it the fault of Star Wars? That iconic series was perhaps the most influential template for trilogies, despite the fact that -- you guessed it -- the third installment of the original series is widely considered the weakest. Now, every studio cultivating a franchise sticks a two-sequel clause into its actors' contracts, and directors are less and less willing to give up the reins until they've reached that magic number. Everyone expects Chris Nolan back for the next Batman sequel (it's practically mandatory) and I've got no doubt that the rebooted Star Trek will spawn a fleet of sequels, just as I have a strong hunch that JJ Abrams will let one of his proteges take over the series after he helms the third film.
Would any filmmaker ever be brave enough to craft a series that consists of only two parts? While the idea of a trilogy surely satisfies that screenwriting urge for three-act structure, there's something elegant and bold about crafting a pair of filmic bookends, and it lets the second film stand on its own as an intriguing response to the first film (instead of as a waystation to the rest of the franchise). I'm thinking of what Richard Linklater achieved with Before Sunrise and Before Sunset, or even what Francis Ford Coppola managed with his Godfather series before he went a third time to that well. Sure, the occasional two-film series exists, but most modern examples are merely intended trilogies cut short by box-office dropoffs.
I used to give a great example of a two-film set that worked perfectly on its own: Toy Story and Toy Story 2. The first film was a giddy, nostalgic trip through childhood, while the latter was a surprisingly mature exploration of its end. Taken together they were the perfect pair, each informing the other and leading a big idea to its logical conclusion.
Toy Story 3 is currently set for release in 2010.
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
The problem with the third movie in a series is that a least ONE main character has to die and/or be seen at the end smiling and waving at other characters during a sunset/moonlight scene. (possibly as a ghost)
Kill Bill instantly came to mind when thinking of something that didn't follow the standard trilogy formula and was more satisfying for doing so.
I appreciated the film's structure, story, and aesthetic and the shortened release time between the first volume and it's sequel kept the anticipation for answers and closure from cooling off.
Then after consulting with Wikipedia on the subject I found Tarantino wants to create not only an additional two sequels, but two anime prequels as well. So much for leaving well enough alone.
@Inhaler, Kill Bill is one movie released in two parts. When I watch it I play one disc after the other. Volume 2 isn't a sequel.
Robert Rodriguez is obsessed with trilogies, everything he makes has to be one. Examples: Spy Kids, El Mariachi, From Dusk Till Dawn (which he produced) and now Sin City. They could make seven Sin City's and I'd be fine with that, they're adaptations of the graphic novels and not entirely original works. The Godfather III was also written by the author of the book, so I suppose that was his vision. Plus the book has those events. Lord of the Rings was based on three books, as are the Harry Potter and Twilight movies.
I think if a movie is a classic, like Shawshank Redemption or Forrest Gump, then a sequel is ridiculous. Well made second efforts like "The Dark Knight" are warranted. I think it's all about who's at the helm, if they want to do it for artistry and money rather then the latter, and for good cinema. I can appreciate how Christopher Nolan is taking his time drawing up plans for a third Batman. It shows he knows what he's doing and won't rush out a by the numbers product.
It also shows he knows he's got some time up his sleeve; from a marketing point of view, The Dark Knight had a fair suck of the sauce bottle, and there's no way a general audience is ready for that kind (or level) of hype to be regenerated. Indeed, the campaign was so effective in getting everyone frothed up and eager to see the film that - in retrospect - everyone might get a little embarrassed about how excited they got (the Titanic effect). The studio'll have to wait a little for that to dissipate if they want the new film to be welcomed with enthusiasm; sure, memories are short in Hollywood, but OMG IT'S LIKE THE GREATEST FILM EVER!!!!1! will probably take some living down.
On the other hand, if they could start principal photography next week I'm sure they'd be happy. If there's one thing Hollywood studios are expert at showing restraint in, it'd be restraint.