The "Trilogy" Theory

[Kevin McCallister 0]

This is something I've known for a while but I wanted to see what you guys thought.

Every trilogy out there shares a similarity, whether it be Star Wars, Indy, BTTF, the works. And that is simply this - the first and third films are similar, more in tradition of each other, but the second film in the middle always goes off in its own (and usually darker) path. It also has the capacity to surpass the first film (although any sequel does, the second is the biggest of the hit/miss category). We've seen some surpass (Empire, Godfather II, T2) and some not (TOD, although personally I feel TOD is still a great film).

I've never believed in the silly idea that sequels in a series become non-existant if only a trilogy exists. They are SEQUELS through and though, not "part of the trilogy" or "the next chapter" or whatever people have been calling them (I believe this began in Scream 2 when they were trying to come up with a good sequel and someone suggested Empire, which was shot down by someone for that reason).

The examples are clear as day. Look at Star Wars (OT). ANH and RTOJ both have Death Stars, furry creatures are introduced (Jawas and Ewoks), there is a grand attack on the death star in both films, hell, even Han's outfits are the same in each film, whereas in Empire, it was different. There are several more examples that I won't expand on, but now look at Empire. It's darker than the other two, goes off in its own direction, and shares few of the similaities between sequels as opposed to the third film did. There are even parts of JW's score that reflects the original film more.

Now look at Indy. In Raiders and LC, we have no Short Round, Brody and Sallah are active in the films, they each deal with religious quests, and one cannot ignore the similarity between the two desert chases of the films. Things aren't rehashed, but they are done more in the tradition of the first film. Now we have Temple of Doom. Like Empire, it's darker, shares less similarities of the other films, and strikes in a totally new direction. Some think it surpasses Raiders, the vast majority do not. But it is always the most debated about Indy film for this reason. Again, Williams score for Crusade is more in the tradition of Raiders (hell, even the damn Ark theme appears in LC), while Temple is much more dark and at some points, terrifying than the others.

BTTF is yet another example. Parts I and III - each film spends the bulk of its time in the past, Biff tells a McFly to never come back in a diner (whereas in Part II, Griff tells him to STAY in the diner), Doc makes a model to show how they will get home in each one, there is a "quick cover the delorean" part in each film, and the genreal idea of each is how to get back to 1985 whereas in Part II, this is not the case. Part II, is darker and is different and features perhaps a more complex time travel story than the other two. I'm not sure if it surpasses the original, but it's a wonderful film and I still love it to this day.

I used these as examples since they are sort of like the "three big ones." I know of the same examples for the Terminator films, Jurassic Park, and maybe some others I'm not thinking of. I may try to expand on those as well later in the post, but what do you guys think? Does it seem every trilogy is destined to follow this path?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

One word.

LOTR.

Nuff said.

Stefancos-

[scissorhands 16]

The Lord of the Rings is not a trilogy, but just one single long story.

It was divided into 3 books just for marketing purposes.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I'm talking about the films.

Stefancos-

[scissorhands 16]

sure

=it's just the same

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

He, 2 more posts to go for you Peio!

Stefancos- wondering if Peio will write a MY 1000TH POST message.

[Hlao-roo 389]

<I>Home Alone 2: Lost in New York</I> has a much darker and more expansive setting than the first one or the infamous third one. I feel weird reminding Kevin McCallister of that..

Another trilogy I can think of that exemplifies the "full-circle" structure is the Peter Sellers 'Pink Panther' trilogy -- the third film is essentially a retread of the first.

[Guest]

I agree about the trilogies except for LotR and BttF. LotR I disagree with because I just don't care about it. BttF, because I don't think I and III are alike at all. I is more like II. Probably because the last half of I and II are the same movie, with just a different twist. I and III are different because the settings are different, there aren't as many references to I in III (the skate-/hoverboard chase, the all-important Enchantment Under the Sea dance, the storm, the 80s, downtown Hill Valley as it looked in I). You can feel that RotJ and LC are a lot like ANH and Raiders, but I get that feeling in BttFII about I.

[Peio 0]

<I>Home Alone 2: Lost in New York</I> has a much darker and more expansive setting than the first one or the infamous third one.  I feel weird reminding Kevin McCallister of that.

Or the even more infamous fourth film.

But I agree with Alan. HA2 is dark, as is the score. Cool movie.

[Marian Schedenig 8,172]

As Peio indicated, Kevin simply proved that LOTR isn't a trilogy - neither the book nor the movies. I do disagree about BTTF though...to me, the original BTTF is the standalone part, #2 and #3 are similar in that they keep taking situations from the original and putting them into a different context.

Marian - who will make a BTTF night soon.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Is there an echo in here?

Stefancos- who considers LOTR to be a trilogy, but thinks the Indiana Jones films are just 3 films, NOT a trilogy

[Marian Schedenig 8,172]

I'd put it this way:

LOTR is a three-part movie.

Star Wars/ESB/ROTJ were (are?) a trilogy.

The Indy movies form a three-part series but not a trilogy.

Marian -

[Luke Skywalker 1,792]

I'd put it this way:

LOTR is a three-part movie.

The novel IS. Not the movies. You can see it that way, but it is not in the eyes of the producers. Ironically in the new issues of the books (released by the movies) it says 'The all time classic now an epic motion picture trilogy'. AND IN THE INTRODUCTION, TOLKIEN SAYS THAT IT IS A WHOLE NOVEL! ....

Star Wars is a SAGA (as well as a movie released in 1977, now in cluded as part of that saga) <-note for melancolichs

[Marian Schedenig 8,172]

PJ says he treated the movies as one long story. FOTR doesn't have a real ending....TTT doesn't have a real beginning and no real ending either. And I'd say in the books, it's Tolkien's word that counts, not that of some marketing guys who print "trilogy" on it in big letters.

[Hale-Bopp 0]

Indy 1 & 3 share a timeline it seems, while Indy 2 appears as though it could have happened before, after, or in between 1 & 3.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Temple of Doom takes place before Raiders.

Stefancos- who thinks TLC takes place after Raiders

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Hale-Bopp, the events in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom occurs before the events of Raiders and they occur before the events in the Last Crusade.

[Hale-Bopp 0]

gotcha!

[Luke Skywalker 1,792]

Man that is very easy to know. Just read the time setting titles one those movies

If i remember well...

TOD 1935

RAIDERS 1936

TLC 1939

IJIV 19?! 'It should belong to a museum' 'And you should too' LOL

Luke, eager to see that movie

[Lurker 5]

Man that is very easy to know. Just read the time setting titles one those movies

If i remember well...

TOD 1935

RAIDERS 1936

TLC 1939  

IJIV 19?! 'It should belong to a museum' 'And you should too' LOL

Luke, eager to see that movie

Luke, the majority of Last Crusade takes place in 1938, while the prologue occurs in 1912.

Neil

[Luke Skywalker 1,792]

I was close enough...

[FossMan 1]

Okay... it seems as if we are begining to argue about what is a trilogy and what is just a series of three movies. Let me try to define the difference:

Series: Stories made to be independent of each other, complete works in and of themselves without dependency on any of their predeccesors.

Trilogy: One story crafted to be told in three parts, with the second and third parts dependent on the audience being familar with the previous one(s).

Now, aside form definitions, there is also something else that trilogies seem to have over a series of three related stories: the trilogy has a darker middle saga that usually leaves the audience hanging (ESB is a perfect example).

Okay, that being said, here's how I think of some of the stories spoken of on this board:

Star Wars (ANH, ESB, & RotJ) = trilogy

Indianna Jones (RotLA, ToD, LC) = series

Harry Potter = series

LotR = trilogy (although I can accept the purist argument that it is instead all one story)

[Elmo Lewis 6]

Harry Potter is an extremely rare example (one of the reasons why I never liked the books is that they never work as a saga), where some installments are completely removable (CoS) and independent of the whole storyline, and then others, alll of a sudden become a saga where the next one begins where the last one ended (GoF and OoP). The stories themselves suffer from this, too (CoS' lack of a main theme, and then PoA having a strong one).

Kevin, as for your theory, I think it's completely true. I am almost sure it's done to grant the trilogy a sense of meaning, a sense of purpose. Make it seem like the cycle is complete, the circle is closed. We are back home, our journey is completed. Just think how your theory applies to the Prequel trilogy and then you'll know the order in which to watch the whole 6 movies.

-Ross, typing with his face really close to the screen, since his glasses have been smashed.

[Marian Schedenig 8,172]

Hmm, how is CoS independent of the rest of the series?

Marian - wondering.

Lionheart (Jerry Goldsmith)

[Morn 8]

Well obviously, independent is an exaggeration. Series will often use plot features from other 'episodes'.

Morn - Who considered LOTR movies a trilogy, regardless of how connected they are, the novels are a different story, the current prints are a single novel

[Marian Schedenig 8,172]

But the only difference to the many 3-book releases is that the one-book ones leave out Tolkien's short "what happened so far" introductions. Otherwise, I don't see a difference to the movies - which will certainly eventually come out as a box set as well, then being in one "thing" as well.

And as for CoS, I'm not talking about it using a few plot features from the other parts, but about it being an integral part of the entire larger story.

Marian - constantly misunderstood.

Lionheart (Jerry Goldsmith)

[Morn 8]

Movies just don't combine as easily as a novel

And as for CoS, I'm not talking about it using a few plot features from the other parts, but about it being an integral part of the entire larger story.  

The problem would appear to be that it's broken down into episodic sub stories then.....

[Elmo Lewis 6]

Hmm, how is CoS independent of the rest of the series?

Marian - wondering.

CoS doesn't add anything new to the series. It doesn't add anything to the whole 7-book story. You can easily read PS and then PoA, and you'll only miss the introduction to a few new characters, which isn't the case for books 4 and 5, and 5 and 6... Maybe Rowling just wanted to buy herself time to slowly introduce these characters, but it's clear she didn't want to break new ground.