What Makes A Good Trilogy?
And why do so many fail?
Trilogies are important. Some of the finest works of fiction are contained inside literary or cinematic three-quels. Just like the three-act structure of a play, book or movie, a trilogy represents three parts to a story as a whole. A beginning, a middle, and of course, an end. A trilogy, properly told, can enhance a story and give it more depth than just a standalone work.
The question is, when it comes to writing a story, can lightning strike twice? Or thrice? That is what makes trilogies tricky. Just because one story is successful, either critically or financially, does that mean it needs more added to it?
Take The Matrix for example. The first installment in the Matrix trilogy is everything that a good movie should be. It told a new and exciting story in a visually arresting manner that has never been equally replicated, even in all the years since its release.
It also presented to us new and engaging characters that were fun to watch and interesting to learn about. It boasted an unusually deep screenplay that was not only entertaining, but made a whole generation of movie goers question their own form of existence.
So why is it that the Matrix isn’t held up in as high regard as it once was?
Quite simply it is because the sequels ruined it. Don’t get me wrong, the Matrix is still highly respected in many circles and is still prevalent in modern popular culture, but did the two sequels, Reloaded and Revolutions dim its initial impact because they didn’t live up to the quality of the original?
Let me put it this way, when I watch the Matrix, I have to play a mental game with myself and try to force my mind to forget everything I know about the sequels while I watch the Matrix because I don’t want my viewing of one of the greatest movies ever made marred by its inferior sequels. If I take the Matrix as a standalone movie, it’s terrific, but when I look at the trilogy as a whole, all it gets is a shrug.
Another somewhat-failed trilogy is Pirates of the Caribbean. Before it came out, Pirates was something of a joke among those privy to its existence. How could the powers that be in Hollywood stoop so low to make a movie out of an amusement park ride? The idea seemed ridiculous. And yet, when Pirates first came out, it made us all wonder why pirate movies had died in the first place.
Since it was such a success, it was expected that sequels would come, and come they did. While they arguably weren’t as disappointing as Reloaded or Revolutions, they certainly weren’t able to capture the magic of the original film that spawned them.
The question is why? Why did the sequels in these particular trilogies fail? Was it because the quality of writing declined? Was it the director’s fault? Was it because of studio hampering? All of these are strong possibilities for film failures.
But those reasons aren’t why these trilogies failed. Here’s one big reason: vision. Unlike the Marvel Cinematic Universe that has been built piece by piece from a laser focused source, these trilogies didn’t know what they were and didn’t know what they needed to be.
A big part of this is how they were made. Both of the sequels to the Matrix and Pirates were filmed back to back and then released in intervals. This caused a jarring effect that made the sequels seem disconnected from the original source.
Take the cliffhanger in Dead Man’s Chest. It led directly into the third movie, At World’s End, but this prevented Dead Man’s Chest from ending in a satisfying way, stripping it of its own unique character. At World’s End felt like a sequel to Dead Man’s Chest, because they were so closely linked, but did Dead Man’s Chest feel like a sequel to Pirates? Not really, because they didn’t have much to do with each other, other than the characters.
The over-arcing storyline of Chest and End simply didn’t match the original movie that got everybody on board in the first place. The Matrix trilogy suffered from the same effect.
This isn’t to say that movies can’t be filmed back to back. Take the terrific Lord of the Rings trilogy. All three films were produced back to back. New Line Cinema gambled on all three movies at once, which was admittedly a risky move from a financial position. But if they had made Fellowship of the Ring, and then decided to make the sequels only if it had a satisfying box office performance, do you think the sequels would have turned out as good? It’s possible, but I think the trilogy would have been marred because it wouldn’t have come from a unified vision, it would have been based solely on profits. And the risk paid off because the Lord of the Rings went on to become one of the most profitable movie series of all time.
There is also a second way to make a trilogy, and that is to take your time between sequels. When the Bourne Identity came out, it changed the spy-movie genre. Everyone was clambering for more Jason Bourne. They could have taken the Matrix route and made the two sequels back to back and see if throwing them at the wall would stick, but they didn’t. They made Supremacy, which was a solid sequel in its own right, and then later on they followed up with the awesome Ultimatum which ended the trilogy on an extremely high note. (For the sake of my sanity, I’m not going to bring up Legacy or Jason Bourne because it’s just too painful for me.)
The Bourne Trilogy is what a film trilogy should be. Each film is connected to all the others while also being separate enough that they can be viewed and enjoyed individually.
This is where the Pirates of the Caribbean and the Matrix trilogies failed. You can watch Supremacy and feel fulfilled because it tells the story it sets out to and doesn’t require watching Bourne or Ultimatum for it to make sense.
This strategy also worked with the Dark Knight Trilogy. Under the guidance of Christopher Nolan, Batman was reinserted into popular culture which took a serious look at the Caped Crusader. Instead of the silly over-simplified Burton or Schumacher versions, Batman Begins kicked off the Dark Knight Trilogy with a somber and thoughtful version of the Dark Knight that wasn’t content to just be a marketing campaign, but actually went out of its way to tell a compelling story.
Batman Begins, which is my personal favorite of The Dark Knight series, was followed up by The Dark Knight which took superhero movies to a whole new stratospheric level. Not only was Heath Ledger nominated for an Oscar posthumously, it is also held up as as the perfect example of a superhero movie that is quite simply more than just a superhero movie.
While the third entry, The Dark Knight Rises, didn’t match Begins or Knight in terms of quality storytelling, it was just good enough that it didn’t come anywhere close to destroying the trilogy. As a whole, the The Dark Knight Trilogy tells the story of Bruce Wayne in a fulfilling and competent manner, finally giving us the Batman that we deserve. Or need… You know what I mean.
To form a successful trilogy, each entry in the series needs to feel distinct, yet connected to its siblings. Making sequels without the forethought as to how they connect to the original story that spawned them is how you bring down a trilogy. You either need to be like Lord of the Rings and have a clear vision from the beginning and execute that vision accordingly, or you need to take your time and shape the identity of each movie as its own cinematic masterpiece that can stand apart from the other entries in the series.
If you enjoy movies and liked this post, please click that little heart below!
