The Two-Part Trilogy Sucks

[Soviet Heavy]

I am getting sick of this trend. Basically the way it works is like this: Your first film is a risky venture, and it may or may not flop at the box office. It strikes gold, so you decide to make a franchise out of it. That means that you get a sequel guaranteed, and another one soon to follow. The first sequel then leads directly into the second sequel.

This has got to be the most annoying thing in media today for me at least. Instead of getting new adventures for the characters, we are getting one adventure that is broken in half so they can get more cash.

Its all over the place. Here's just a few, not limited to films.

Pirates of the Caribbean 2-3
Halo 2-3
Back to the Future 2-3
Star Wars 5-6
The Matrix
God of War 2-3

When the films are planned out, this way of sequel making can work, and sometimes is necessary. Such examples are the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, where it's pretty much required, and Harry Potter 7, which has some major damage control issues to work out for leaving so much out of the older films.

But how I long for the day when a sequel just meant that we got to see the characters again on a new adventure, like the Indiana Jones films. These can all be watched independently of one another and all of them are enjoyable. Getting a new film in your franchise does not mean that they all have to tie into one another.

 

[XelaisPWN]

Well, not to be one to defend Halo, but the reason Halo 2 led into Halo 3 is because Bungie is run by morons and decided to waste all their development time and costs to make a trailer for E3.

 

[Pinky]

That's an interesting point.... although...
http://redlettermedia.com/

Most of the films reviewed here involve characters setting out in new adventures, and they turned out well.. awful.
I mean, "movie" Picard has to be one of the worst captains ever -sob-

 

[Ima842]

Well they need people to go see, buy the next installment in the series, and good way to do this is by a cliffhanger.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

Well the reason why most films (and games and books and whatever) that eventually spawn sequels are all nice and self-contained when it comes to the storyline is probably because the creators don't know if it's going to be popular enough to continue the story. So they make sure that the people experiencing it manage to at least get the end of one major plot point (destroying the Death Star, getting back to 1985, defeating Barbossa). If the first part does well, then they know that the public will probably be interested in several more. This allows them to create an actual series with an overarching plot-line rather than just several different self contained stories (which works better for TV shows than movies). So the second part isn't going to answer all the questions or wrap up all the plot-lines; that's what the third (or fourth or whatever) one is supposed to do.

Is it too much to ask that people keep enough attention on the films (books/games/shows/whatevers) that they don't get every part of the plot concluded in the second installment rather than waiting a bit for later pieces?

 

[Mr Thin]

Bullshit.

First of all, film sequels that tie into one another are awesome. Continuity like that is really cool, it's one of the great things about sequels.

Second, Pirates of the Caribbean? You included that in this list?

I suppose the second and third films were basically two parts of one big story, but the first film was entirely independent.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Well the reason why most films (and games and books and whatever) that eventually spawn sequels are all nice and self-contained when it comes to the storyline is probably because the creators don't know if it's going to be popular enough to continue the story. So they make sure that the people experiencing it manage to at least get the end of one major plot point (destroying the Death Star, getting back to 1985, defeating Barbossa). If the first part does well, then they know that the public will probably be interested in several more. This allows them to create an actual series with an overarching plot-line rather than just several different self contained stories (which works better for TV shows than movies). So the second part isn't going to answer all the questions or wrap up all the plot-lines; that's what the third (or fourth or whatever) one is supposed to do.

But that is what bugs me. After they know the first was a hit, they make the second movie, and all it is there to do is set up the next movie. So in essence you are paying to watch an extended trailer and then you have to pay again to see the payoff. Its a clever business practice, but it doesn't stop it from pissing me off.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Bullshit.

First of all, film sequels that tie into one another are awesome. Continuity like that is really cool, it's one of the great things about sequels.

Second, Pirates of the Caribbean? You included that in this list?

I suppose the second and third films were basically two parts of one big story, but the first film was entirely independent.

That is what I'm talking about. The first movie was a fun little ride that you could see on its own. You didn't have to sit through two hours of filler to find out that the Kraken was killed offscreen like the second and third atrocities in the series.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

Well the reason why most films (and games and books and whatever) that eventually spawn sequels are all nice and self-contained when it comes to the storyline is probably because the creators don't know if it's going to be popular enough to continue the story. So they make sure that the people experiencing it manage to at least get the end of one major plot point (destroying the Death Star, getting back to 1985, defeating Barbossa). If the first part does well, then they know that the public will probably be interested in several more. This allows them to create an actual series with an overarching plot-line rather than just several different self contained stories (which works better for TV shows than movies). So the second part isn't going to answer all the questions or wrap up all the plot-lines; that's what the third (or fourth or whatever) one is supposed to do.

But that is what bugs me. After they know the first was a hit, they make the second movie, and all it is there to do is set up the next movie. So in essence you are paying to watch an extended trailer and then you have to pay again to see the payoff. Its a clever business practice, but it doesn't stop it from pissing me off.

I think you're taking this way too cynically. Some creators are continuing the series to get more profit. It's their job, they want to get paid and all that jazz. But some creators aren't looking solely for profit. They have this interesting story they want to share with people but they don't know if it will be that well-received. So they make sure that the first part has a decent "conclusion" that doesn't wrap up everything but still can give a good "end" so that people can walk away feeling a bit satisfied, but still willing to experience more. Once they see that people are willing to continue with the story and will be able to do so (because they'll get the funds they need to continue working on their given piece) they can take their time about finishing the story. They can extend the over-arching plot through multiple installments and fit in more content and flesh out the setting in characters, rather than being forced to cram it all into one piece. Do you get annoyed with books when they don't finish the story in one chapter but rather "drag it out" over multiple ones, only finishing the main plot at the end?

And I'd have to say that I wouldn't like movie "series" that are totally separate from each other. It works fine for TV shows, but I don't want to go The Movie 3 when it has nothing to do with the plot of either The Movie 1 or The Movie 2: Electric Boogaloo.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Back to the Future 2-3

The Matrix

The first Matrix was a fine stand alone movie (And most people choose to forget the second two, and it has nothing to do with being a two parter), and Back to the Future doesn't qualify, as both movies were filmed at the same time, and they were actually two completely different movies (Having a 2 minute intro to the third movie does not make the movies 'two parts.').

 

[Mr Thin]

That is what I'm talking about. The first movie was a fun little ride that you could see on its own. You didn't have to sit through two hours of filler to find out that the Kraken was killed offscreen like the second and third atrocities in the series.

Well, I wouldn't say atrocities. I'm one of those people who think all three films were fantastic. Same goes for all three Matrix films.

Maybe I'm just easy to please.

I'm also a bit surprised that you included Back to the Future in your list of examples; all three of those are very different.

Though I would agree with you that the Indiana Jones films were more watchable by themselves then most film series are, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

Frankly, I can't imagine why you would want to watch - for example - only the second film in a series, and not the first, third and/or fourth.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Frankly, I can't imagine why you would want to watch - for example - only the second film in a series, and not the first, third and/or fourth.

Terminator 3.

No one wants to watch that.

 

[Bobbity]

Some of the sequels you mentioned, such as The Empire Strikes Back, are actually very good, and enjoyable films. Besides, the Star Wars and Halo works were never intended to be singular. I agree with you about Pirates though; the trilogy was fun, but the second and third films were totally unnecessary.

 

[Extra-Ordinary]

Whatever, man I still like "Star Wars," "Back To The Future," "Halo," and "God Of War." But I see what your saying. At first it seemed cool, cliffhanger endings that made me pumped for the next installment. Then it got even cooler with beginings that were the last things ending, like "God Of War." I don't care either way. But in your case, don't lose hope! the "Resistance" franchise looks pretty coherent. There's a change of protaganist between the second and third games. I know changing cast changes in games isn't uncommon, but you're playing as totally different person.

 

[Dimitriov]

You included 'the empire strikes back' on that list? Yeah it's a cliffhanger ending, but it is generally lauded as the best of the start wars films. For your point to stand up, it would have to be a bad thing. But a lot of the films on that list were great. If they take two films to tell the seconds part of the story then that's fantastic, much better than cramming too much into one film and just ruining it.

 

[lord.jeff]

Bullshit.

First of all, film sequels that tie into one another are awesome. Continuity like that is really cool, it's one of the great things about sequels.

Second, Pirates of the Caribbean? You included that in this list?

I suppose the second and third films were basically two parts of one big story, but the first film was entirely independent.

That is what I'm talking about. The first movie was a fun little ride that you could see on its own. You didn't have to sit through two hours of filler to find out that the Kraken was killed offscreen like the second and third atrocities in the series.

I was going to point out that you mentioned only 2 and 3 of the Pirates movies, but I can still point out that Back to the Future 2 was a complete movie, they just added a cliff hanger at the end. I do hate this when movies or games do this, the Legacy Of Kain series did this over five games and it pissed me off to no end.

 

[ManInRed]

Back to the Future, Star Wars, and The Matrix were always intended to be trilogy stories. Technically Star Wars is a 9 part story and only 6 films been show so far, heh. Pirates of the Caribbean and God of War were meant to be stand alone pieces, but were followed but two parters when the first was such a huge success. God of War had the unfortunate lost of its main directory twice. Halo always intended sequels, and who knows how many --it already past 3.

Trilogies are popular, because the 3 Act structure is very common in story telling, making it easy to split it into three parts. Sometimes stories are over ambition and need to get split apart. Superman and Kill Bill Part were originally intended to be one movie, but got split when they released it would be too long. The worse case is when a multiple part story is design, but never finished, like Xenogears.

Squeals for games is a necessary evil, as games get more expensive, they get shorter, and complex stories need to be divided in multiple games to get finish properly. I think the lack of originality out there would remain even if sequels did not exist, and having long arcing plots and characters that develop or explore a single universe further offers some fun continuity in exchange for the sameness we probably get from the market either way.

I don't think you should just throw a cliff hanger to a story, in case you might get a sequel. I think if you assume players who play 2 and 3 of your trilogy have played 1, then you should be more encourage to alter the game play and use the popularity of the series to take some risks. And all games in a series should still stand on their own, get players to want to go back and play old games. But for that to happen the industry would have to put more value in older games than the first 2 weeks of a game's life.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

Well, not to be one to defend Halo, but the reason Halo 2 led into Halo 3 is because Bungie is run by morons and decided to waste all their development time and costs to make a trailer for E3.

Um...Wait, what? They ended a game with a cliff-hanger so they're idiots? What, are cliff hangers inherently bad now?