The Two-Part Trilogy Sucks

[Wayward Sean]

I'm surprised by how many people are misinterpreting your argument. I fully agree. The first movie is a great singular story, but the sequel ends with nothing solved and is essentially the first half of a two part movie. Regardless of how good it is (Star Wars 5 is great, Matrix Reloaded is terrible) many modern franchises end their second movie with a lot of loose ends where the main characters seem in a worse position than when they started. The third movie then wraps it all up in a nice little package. I wouldn't say it is always a bad thing, and it certainly isn't true of all franchises. However, for modern franchises, especially big budget ones, that is almost always the case. Franchises like James Bond and Indiana Jones have largely independent stories, and they are apparently a thing of the past. I would like to see more modern franchises start filming movies that can be watched separately but still star the same protagonist. The 1980's action heroes shall rise again!

 

[Wolfenbarg]

Star Wars and Back to the Future don't belong on that list. Star Wars was supposed to be a story with more than one part from the very beginning, it's just that the odds were low that it would actually happen. Back the Future had a sequel lead-in (just like the first), but the stories of the second and third films were completely self contained.

 

[Harkonnen64]

Funny Lord of the Rings should be mentioned. What a lot of people don't know is that Tolkien actually wrote the LotR trilogy as one single story. When his editor saw it, he said there was no way people would buy a single book that big for the price it would need to be, so he proposed that it be broken into three books released over time to allow readers time to absorb the story and get money to buy it in segments.

So the whole fantasy fiction trilogy thing that was started by LotR was just a marketing decision.

 

[Wayward Sean]

Also, I think ending with a cliffhanger is a much better approach to filmmaking. Your story has a definite and satisfying ending, but at the end (like Dexter season 4) or possibly even post-credits (like Dawn of the Dead remake, or 28 Weeks Later) you just leave one loose end. It can even be done by throwing doubt in the resolution (like Shutter Island, or Inception). It gives you an easy starting place if you want a sequel, but you still have your resolved storylines. But leaving a sequel totally open ended (i.e. pirates 2) is essentially a way for studios to take your money and run.

 

[ZeroMachine]

... You're complaining... about Empire Strikes Back... and Return of the Jedi...

Ok, ignoring that lapse of sanity, I'll just say this: I love sequels. I love long, epic stories. And sometimes, you can't do that in one game/movie.

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH SEQUELS OR TRILOGIES OR WHATEVER. If they're done well (i.e. Halo 2/3 and the two Star Wars movies you inexplicably think are considered "bad sequels"), then what the hell is wrong with them? I mean, yeah, if they're done sub par compared to the first (POTC, Matrix, Back to the Future) then there's an issue, but come on, dude... what's wrong with doing that? I don't get it...

EDIT:

Star Wars and Back to the Future don't belong on that list. Star Wars was supposed to be a story with more than one part from the very beginning, it's just that the odds were low that it would actually happen. Back the Future had a sequel lead-in (just like the first), but the stories of the second and third films were completely self contained.

Actually, he didn't expect Star Wars to make it big. He didn't have it planned out at all. He just rolled with it after it did so well.

EDIT:

*sigh*.... seriously, do people just not do research?

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.

Ok... the fact that Halo 2 didn't come out the way it should have is NOT BECAUSE OF BUNGIE. Microsoft wanted them to release it sooner, so they had to cut a shit load of content that they wanted in the game. Do not. Blame. Bungie. Blame Microsoft. Do your fucking research before blasting a company for the wrong reasons.

 

[ManInRed]

Remember the days when game companies wouldn't call a game part 3 until their 6 game of the series?

1) Armor Core
2) Armored Core: Project Phantasma
3) Armored Core: Master of Arena
4) Armored Core 2
5) Armored Core 2: Another Age
6) Armored Core 3

1) Metal Gear
2) Snake's Revenge
3) Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake
4) Metal Gear Solid
5) Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty
6) Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater

1) Street Fighter
2) Street Fighter II
3) Street Fighter Super
4) Street Fighter Alpha
5) Street Fighter Alpha 2
6) Street Fighter III

1) Final Fantasy
2) (Final Fantasy II)
3) (Final Fantasy III)
4) Final Fantasy 2 (Final Fantasy IV)
5) (Final Fantasy V)
6) Final Fantasy 3 (Final Fantasy VI)

Now they seem to do trilogies and then reset the numbers with the 4th game.

 

[WanderingFool]

Like....people don't have money to invest in an unknown trilogy that won't sell. Mothafuckas knew LOTR was the shit when they were making it, plus it was books and dorks read books. Well...dorks also see movies.

You can't just go hire Leo DiCaprio and Shia LeBouf and pay them to film 3 movies. If the first one is a flop, do you know how much money you lost? Probably hundreds of dollars.

Lol... I think DiCaprio is worth a little more than that, but I also think you're being to generous on LeBouf...

Anyways, OT. Trilogies, as far as I know, tend to focus on one particular meta-story, and while some may have different adventures for each part, they still have some connectivity to one another. So really I cant think of to many trilogies that have little or no connection to one another, I can only think of the Indian Jones movies...

 

[sheic99]

snip

Final Fantasy 2, 3 and 5 were never released in the US, which explains the numbering, and Snake's Revenge is non-canon.

 

[DeadProxy]

Its because those hollywood tards wasted all the "originality" on the first movie, and are shitty at coming up completely new and good storylines for loved/hated characters

 

[Nouw]

But...but... Army of Darkness was awesome!

 

[Aurgelmir]

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.

Which is EXACTLY the point OP wants to make.

He is tired of movies where the first movie stands alone very well, but where the following two movies are made into one big story arch.


Although his list isn't all to great, since a lot of his sequel lists are not really that format.

 

[tigermilk]

If its any consolation (and it shouldn't be) cash-in sequels are nothing new in Hollywood. See 'Jaws' (Spielberg 1975) followed by a fuck ton of poor sequels which laid the way for 'Psycho' (Hitchcock 1960) sequels and remakes from the 80's onwards.

No doubt someone will point out there are some good sequels, just a disproportionately large amount of them our poor. Before the phenomenon of sequels Hollywood tended to make films very much in the blueprint of a success (see the rip offs of 'The Sound of Music' and 'Cleopatra' that flopped).

Hollywood is run by shareholders and I imagine the gaming industry is the same (but with more good sequels in my opinion).

 

[moretimethansense]

Remember the days when game companies wouldn't call a game part 3 until their 6 game of the series?
1) Metal Gear
2) Snake's Revenge
3) Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake
4) Metal Gear Solid
5) Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty
6) Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater

Snake's Revenge

No, bad man in red!
That is not a Metal Gear game, sereously.
Hideo Kojima had nothing to do with it, they didn't obtain the right to use the charecter and it in no way ties in the the series proper.

OT: I would say something, but I'd likely get banned again.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

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.

Yeah, Halo 2 was supposed to have a proper ending, and be a lot longer with more content. The matrix is probably the worst offender here, as it actually doesn't resolve any of the plot points, but just cuts off, almost halfway through a scene, with a to be continued... Everyone in the cinema went "What?!" when that happened. There was much repressed anger.

 

[Shilkanni]

Not a bad point, although I thought Back to the Future 2/3 and Star Wars 5/6 were pretty much a success, they had enough of a story for me to feel like it was worth splitting in two.

It's definitely disappointing though when it feels like it was split without having the content to warrant it (Matrix 2/3).

 

[spartandude]

Im sorry, did you just say that Star Wars V The Empire Strikes Back was shit? your entire argument is invalid