Pondering the last third of movie trilogies

[juggling man]

Could it be that some part threes suck because the producers/studio know it will sell big because the first two were successful and they want to cram as much spin off products as possible?

I dunno. What do you think?

[Lord Destiny]

Seems to me that that's the nature of a trilogy.

Act One introduces, so everything's new and fascinating.

Act Two complicates, so we get in depth with the characters.

Act Three resolves, so we get more action and less development.



I think it's just natural that the final movie in a trilogy would be less popular in the long run. That is, of course, if the trilogy is one big story.

Some "trilogies" are just three movies based on the same character(s). The original Star Wars trilogy and Lord of the Rings trilogy are one story. The first three Indiana Jones movies were not. Nor were the first three Star Trek films, or Jaws films, etc. In those cases, I think you might be correct.

[g-dawg]

that's why I'm scared for the film after The Dark Knight. :(

[GozertheGozarian]

Evil Dead had nothing to market until the third. Even now it's not much more than a cult following for Bruce Campbell.

[Alan Lynch]

Seems to me that that's the nature of a trilogy.

Act One introduces, so everything's new and fascinating.

Act Two complicates, so we get in depth with the characters.

Act Three resolves, so we get more action and less development.



I think it's just natural that the final movie in a trilogy would be less popular in the long run. That is, of course, if the trilogy is one big story.

Some "trilogies" are just three movies based on the same character(s). The original Star Wars trilogy and Lord of the Rings trilogy are one story. The first three Indiana Jones movies were not. Nor were the first three Star Trek films, or Jaws films, etc. In those cases, I think you might be correct.
I'd go with that. Trilogies which are actually planned as one big arc will have the third part in mind the whole way through. The stand-alone movies are just about making money, presumably.

[Agent Helix]

Back to the Future may be my favorite of all movie trilogies.

[Buzz Dixon]

Yeah, sure, why not.









Seriously, prior to the Bond movies, studios figured out any sequel would do only about 30% of the business of the original, so if one had an insanely popular original film, one simply budgeted the sequel at 30%.

The exception to this would be B-programmers or series films like the Hardy Family, the Three Mesquiteers, etc., where production costs were minimal but the popularity of the performers as those particular characters justified continuing the series (in other words, they were standard budget B-pictures that performed better than typical B-fare).

Even the first Bond sequel, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, had a lower budget than DR. NO (and DR. NO was no big budget extravaganza). The producers wisely selected a story that could be filmed relatively cheaply in Turkey, thus stretching their budget. When RUSSIA went through the roof, they realized they were onto something new and poured a lot more money into GOLDFINGER (and the rest is cinematic history).

The original PLANET OF THE APES movies are a good example of classic Hollywood-style sequels. Watch 'em in release sequence and you can literally see the budget dropping before your eyes, each film having roughly a third or at best half the production budget of the movie preceding it.

While the Bond movies continued to top themselves re budget and revenue, it wasn't until STAR WARS that movie studios began to think in terms of franchises that would run for several films (TV had long been thinking in these terms, of course). Even STAR WARS originally conceived sequel -- SPLINTER IN THE MIND'S EYE -- was written around existing props and costumes and meant to be shot on a much smaller budget than the original STAR WARS (which only cost $10,000,000 in 1970s dollars, a relatively inexpensive shoot for a film of such scale).

The problem with series films is that they work contrary to the instinct of good drama. Every story should always be about the single most important thing that ever happened to the protagonist. Shakespeare's ANTONY & CLEOPATRA is not his sequel to JULIUS CAESAR, it's an entirely separate story with overlapping cast members. JULIUS CAESAR is about Caesar, his assassination, and the immediate aftermath; Cleopatra doesn't make an appearance. ANTONY & CLEOPATRA is about their doomed relationship, Caesar doesn't even appear. However, the various film versions of CLEOPATRA have Caesar and Antony because those stories aren't about them, they're about Cleopatra.

By contrast, series films succeed by giving their audience the same thing they had seen previously -- only slightly different. The Bond films succeeded by having a variety of interesting exotic locations, colorful villains (though there was always a Mastermind, a Chief Henchman, and a Bad Girl), and unusual gadgets. The plots are almost always Mastermind will do Something Terrible unless James Bond stops him (sometimes they use the THUNDERBALL variant: Mastermind threatens to do Something Terrible unless he gets a ransom but James Bond stops him first). I can think of only three films in the Bond series where this isn't the case: FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN (both of which were about specific attempts to target Bond), and FOR YOUR EYES ONLY which at its core was a basic papers-papers-who's-got-the-papers plot (and the best of the Moore Bonds). Even these three Bonds still filled out all the prerequisite requirements re exotic locales, gadgets, villains, girls, etc.

The protagonists in series movies don't tend to have any histories or much of an inner life. To do so would require such films to adhere to the basic properties of drama, and in doing so would by default render all but one of the films in the series as superfluous.

As William Goldman (he of BUTCH CASSIDY & THE SUNDANCE KID, THE PRINCESS BRIDE, ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN, etc.) once observed: Sequels are for whores.

(Listening, George?)

[PKIronMan]

LoTR: RoTK wasn't a weak third play. It may be one of the exceptions but it's a darn good one.

[Zoomzip]

Evil Dead had nothing to market until the third. Even now it's not much more than a cult following for Bruce Campbell.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Sean Walsh]

Another factor is that most trilogies are not planned trilogies. Stuff like STAR WARS (I think - you can never tell with George) and LOTR were planned from the start to be grand stories with a beginning, a middle and an end. Stuff like AUSTIN POWERS and many others are just series of 3 movies, with a grand backstory created in the midst of its popularity to give it the sense of being some big great story.


The original PLANET OF THE APES movies are a good example of classic Hollywood-style sequels. Watch 'em in release sequence and you can literally see the budget dropping before your eyes, each film having roughly a third or at best half the production budget of the movie preceding it.

Exactly the example I thought of when you mentioned the dwindling budgets. Heck, in the 2nd film you could see the detriments of having a smaller budgets: at least half the apes' faces (the background characters in crowd scenes, not the main speaking characters) were just half-assed masks.

Watching the BEHIND THE PLANET OF THE APES documentary was kinda depressing as it went on, because the directors of the latter movies would talk about how they could only do so much with their smaller-than-the-last budgets. Fewer costumes, limited set shots....as I recall, they even had to edit and loop the end of CONQUEST (Caesar's speech) because they didn't have time/resources to shoot it all while originally filming.

[juggling man]

Yeah, sure, why not.









Seriously, prior to the Bond movies, studios figured out any sequel would do only about 30% of the business of the original, so if one had an insanely popular original film, one simply budgeted the sequel at 30%.

The exception to this would be B-programmers or series films like the Hardy Family, the Three Mesquiteers, etc., where production costs were minimal but the popularity of the performers as those particular characters justified continuing the series (in other words, they were standard budget B-pictures that performed better than typical B-fare).

Even the first Bond sequel, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, had a lower budget than DR. NO (and DR. NO was no big budget extravaganza). The producers wisely selected a story that could be filmed relatively cheaply in Turkey, thus stretching their budget. When RUSSIA went through the roof, they realized they were onto something new and poured a lot more money into GOLDFINGER (and the rest is cinematic history).

The original PLANET OF THE APES movies are a good example of classic Hollywood-style sequels. Watch 'em in release sequence and you can literally see the budget dropping before your eyes, each film having roughly a third or at best half the production budget of the movie preceding it.

While the Bond movies continued to top themselves re budget and revenue, it wasn't until STAR WARS that movie studios began to think in terms of franchises that would run for several films (TV had long been thinking in these terms, of course). Even STAR WARS originally conceived sequel -- SPLINTER IN THE MIND'S EYE -- was written around existing props and costumes and meant to be shot on a much smaller budget than the original STAR WARS (which only cost $10,000,000 in 1970s dollars, a relatively inexpensive shoot for a film of such scale).

The problem with series films is that they work contrary to the instinct of good drama. Every story should always be about the single most important thing that ever happened to the protagonist. Shakespeare's ANTONY & CLEOPATRA is not his sequel to JULIUS CAESAR, it's an entirely separate story with overlapping cast members. JULIUS CAESAR is about Caesar, his assassination, and the immediate aftermath; Cleopatra doesn't make an appearance. ANTONY & CLEOPATRA is about their doomed relationship, Caesar doesn't even appear. However, the various film versions of CLEOPATRA have Caesar and Antony because those stories aren't about them, they're about Cleopatra.

By contrast, series films succeed by giving their audience the same thing they had seen previously -- only slightly different. The Bond films succeeded by having a variety of interesting exotic locations, colorful villains (though there was always a Mastermind, a Chief Henchman, and a Bad Girl), and unusual gadgets. The plots are almost always Mastermind will do Something Terrible unless James Bond stops him (sometimes they use the THUNDERBALL variant: Mastermind threatens to do Something Terrible unless he gets a ransom but James Bond stops him first). I can think of only three films in the Bond series where this isn't the case: FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN (both of which were about specific attempts to target Bond), and FOR YOUR EYES ONLY which at its core was a basic papers-papers-who's-got-the-papers plot (and the best of the Moore Bonds). Even these three Bonds still filled out all the prerequisite requirements re exotic locales, gadgets, villains, girls, etc.

The protagonists in series movies don't tend to have any histories or much of an inner life. To do so would require such films to adhere to the basic properties of drama, and in doing so would by default render all but one of the films in the series as superfluous.

As William Goldman (he of BUTCH CASSIDY & THE SUNDANCE KID, THE PRINCESS BRIDE, ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN, etc.) once observed: Sequels are for whores.

(Listening, George?)

Very enlightening comment. Thanks!