The standard movie trilogy formula

[ChuckM 1]

Disclaimer - This whole thread will probably contain spoilers!

It seems there is a standard formula for movie trilogies.

The first film is standalone, but leaving room for sequels.

The second film works by itself, but leaves a bit of a cliffhanger (usually one member of the team in danger) to ensure a good turnout for the already planned third film.

The third film starts by resolving the cliffhanger from the second film, then goes on to complete it's own story and wrap up the series (while still leaving the possibility for future sequels).

For example:

Star Wars Episode IV (or just "Star Wars" if that's what floats your boat) - A self-contained story

Star Wars Episode V - Ends with Han encased in carbonite

Star Wars Episode VI - Luke, Leia, etc all go to rescue Han, then continue the story.

Back to the Future - A self-contained story

Back to the Future Part II - Ends with Doc stuck in 1885

Back to the Future Part III - Marty has to go back to save him, then the rest of the story continues.

Pirates of the Caribbean - A self contained story

PotC2 - Ends with Jack dead

PotC3 - They all go to bring Jack back from the dead, then they finish the story.

What other franchises can you think of that have employed this strategy?

[Ollie 859]

Star Trek, although III also left a cliffhanger.

The first three Godzilla films, somewhat.

[Wojo 2,442]

I think the reason for this is that many movie trilogies originate as "experimental" first movies. What I mean by that is, there may or may not be a framework in place to make sequels, but it depends on how the "first" movie performs at the box office. That's why Back to the Future I, Pirates I, and Star Wars all function as standalone movies. They are enriched by their sequels but they do not require them. If the first movie does well, it gets a sequel or two. When two sequels are planned, they benefit by having the middle chapter end in cliffhanger in order to make the third act a must-see. If you read enough Shakespeare and other classic lit, this is probably the format for a three-act play anyways: Intro, Climax/Cliffhanger, Resolution.

In a sense, the Star Wars story has a much deeper cliffhanger at its heart. Yes, "killing" Han is a nice touch, but the true cliffhanger is Vader's revelation, which totally threw the story on its head. It left audiences wondering if and why Obi-Wan had lied, if Vader was a liar, and what Luke's next move was. The carbonite story was Harrison Ford's way out of the story, but Lucas brought him back anyways.

I am pretty sure the Matrix trilogy employed this trilogy tactic, though I never saw parts 2 and 3 and don't want to.

In books, The Lord of the Rings utilizes this somewhat, too, only in that The Two Towers offered the cliffhanger ending of Shelob "killing" Frodo. But Sam figures it out, and rushes to save Frodo, and To Be Continued rolls across the page to lead into ROTK. Other than that, Fellowship functions as a prolonged introduction, but not a standalone story. And in the movies, the resequencing of events does not lend itself to cliffhangers of any kind.

[Delorean90 32]

Star Trek, although III also left a cliffhanger.

I've always considered the real Star Trek trilogy to be II, III, and IV, if you're going to call anything from the series a trilogy.

[Jeshopk 8]

For anyone watching Ep 1-6 in order, I would say Episode 3 is also a cliffhanger.

[MrScratch 292]

Police Academy beat this formula to death.

[Marian Schedenig 5,520]

In books, The Lord of the Rings utilizes this somewhat, too, only in that The Two Towers offered the cliffhanger ending of Shelob "killing" Frodo. But Sam figures it out, and rushes to save Frodo, and To Be Continued rolls across the page to lead into ROTK. Other than that, Fellowship functions as a prolonged introduction, but not a standalone story.

Not really, since the book was split in three parts by the publisher, after it was already structured. If anything, the original partitioning consists of 6 separate books.

[Taikomochi 783]

Eh, Don't judge Star Wars for using the formula. They basically pioneered it. You can't insult them for being the first.

[ChuckM 1]

Eh, Don't judge Star Wars for using the formula. They basically pioneered it. You can't insult them for being the first.

I do agree that they probably did use it first, although my realization of this formula is not intended in any way to insult any of the movies that use it.

[Williamsfan301 11]

Blade, The Matrix...

[Koray Savas 2,095]

If you read enough Shakespeare and other classic lit, this is probably the format for a three-act play anyways: Intro, Climax/Cliffhanger, Resolution.

This is also the standard three-act film.

[Morlock 9]

Although esteemed film-scholar David Bordwell insists that most films have four acts, not three.

[Koray Savas 2,095]

You could have 5 acts! Intro, rising action, climax, falling action, resolution.

Intro and rising action, as well as falling action and resolution, can easily be combined in a lot of cases.

[Taikomochi 783]

Eh, Don't judge Star Wars for using the formula. They basically pioneered it. You can't insult them for being the first.

I do agree that they probably did use it first, although my realization of this formula is not intended in any way to insult any of the movies that use it.

Well, I somewhat assumed you were considering a lot of people I had heard(not here) were insulting movies like The Dark Knight for fitting into the mold too well.

Although, TDK is more standalone than the usual cliffhanger, so in that respect, I don't feel it fits.

[ChuckM 1]

I don't really see TDK as having a cliffhanger ending. It left it at a point where a sequel could easily fit in, but it also closes off the story pretty well on its own.

[Josh500 1,602]

Scream (?)

Although I forgot how the 2nd movie ended...

[Koray Savas 2,095]

What about Hannibal Lecter? Although not necessarily a trilogy anymore. But forgetting Manhunter and Hannibal Rising (or whatever it was called), I think it fits.

[Taikomochi 783]

What about Hannibal Lecter? Although not necessarily a trilogy anymore. But forgetting Manhunter and Hannibal Rising (or whatever it was called), I think it fits.

Eh, Manhunter was just another version of Red Dragon so it didn't really have to be discounted.

It was a trilogy presented stangely in the order each film came out, but yeah, it fits.

[Red 73]

I don't really see TDK as having a cliffhanger ending. It left it at a point where a sequel could easily fit in, but it also closes off the story pretty well on its own.

Batman Begins had more of a cliffhanger than TDK.

[Taikomochi 783]

I don't really see TDK as having a cliffhanger ending. It left it at a point where a sequel could easily fit in, but it also closes off the story pretty well on its own.

Batman Begins had more of a cliffhanger than TDK.

It's not really a cliffhanger though. In fact, it doesn't even really lead into another sequel(it did, though with TDK). It's just supposed to be like "oh cool, it's the Joker." End of story. A little tip of the hat. But they did end up expanding on it.

[Koray Savas 2,095]

I don't think there's any kind of cliffhanger at the end of Batman Begins or The Dark Knight.

[Red 73]

I don't really see TDK as having a cliffhanger ending. It left it at a point where a sequel could easily fit in, but it also closes off the story pretty well on its own.

Batman Begins had more of a cliffhanger than TDK.

It's not really a cliffhanger though. In fact, it doesn't even really lead into another sequel(it did, though with TDK). It's just supposed to be like "oh cool, it's the Joker." End of story. A little tip of the hat. But they did end up expanding on it.

It's not overt or conventional, but it's still there. It offers a glimpse into a continuation of the story even though it is a satisfying closure to the film, so it can be self-contained and not rely on a sequel. The ending to the first X-Men movie is kind of similar.

[Mr. Breathmask 480]

In that case, you can argue that Back to the Future ended on a cliffhanger too.

Even though the whole epilogue was written as a joke.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

For anyone watching Ep 1-6 in order, I would say Episode 3 is also a cliffhanger.

why would anyone be so hateful to themselves, hopefully no one is stupid enough to do that.

[ChuckM 1]

Even though the whole epilogue was written as a joke.

You mean the "to be continued" at the end? I had always heard that it was initially made without it, but all releases after the second movie was announced had it added in.

For anyone watching Ep 1-6 in order, I would say Episode 3 is also a cliffhanger.

why would anyone be so hateful to themselves, hopefully no one is stupid enough to do that.

Even though I do like the prequels, I would have to agree with you there. That's just not how the movies are intended to be seen.

It would be kind of like watching Nolan's Memento starting with the last scene, and slowly cuing backwards. Sure, that would put it in chronological order, but it's just not how the story should be told.

[Mr. Breathmask 480]

Even though the whole epilogue was written as a joke.

You mean the "to be continued" at the end? I had always heard that it was initially made without it, but all releases after the second movie was announced had it added in.

No, I mean the whole scene with Doc telling Marty to come with him to the future. The "to be continued" isn't a part of that, as that wasn't originally written (nor included in the theatrical release).

Even though I do like the prequels, I would have to agree with you there. That's just not how the movies are intended to be seen.

Well, it is.

It just doesn't work.

[Wojo 2,442]

If the main story of the movie has not been resolved, you have a cliffhanger. If the plot threads have been wrapped up, you just have an ending. It is not relevant if there is any more story left to be told. They can always find more story to tell. What is at hand is the story presented during that movie.

Neither Batman Begins nor The Dark Knight is a cliffhanger. Both movies end their stories as presented during the movies. Leaving Wayne Manor rebuilt is not a cliffhanger, and neither is Gordon's narration of Batman's self-imposed exile, because the perpetrators have been brought to justice.

Episode III is not a cliffhanger, either. It resolves the events of the prequel trilogy, and sets up the next trilogy. Really, none of the prequels have cliffhanger-type storylines, because cliffhangers don't wait five to twenty years to resolve their stories.

[HPFAN_2 0]

Long gone are the days when a trilogy isn't made haphazardly but is a complete story told in three parts.

[Wojo 2,442]

These are the days when three films in a series are considered to comprise a trilogy.

[Mr. Breathmask 480]

... and every trilogy has a part 4 in development...

[Wojo 2,442]

Why stop at four when you can just make a second trilogy? A better one!

[Taikomochi 783]

Why stop at four when you can just make a second trilogy? A better one!

A better one with more Jar Jar!

[John Crichton 4]

"Whosa, meesa?"

[Unlucky Bastard 7,765]

Eh, Don't judge Star Wars for using the formula. They basically pioneered it. You can't insult them for being the first.

Time-wise, The Omen trilogy had it beaten.