Are Trilogies Dead!?

What happened to movie trilogies?

It was always exciting to watch the first movie of a trilogy, seeing the world being built up and what that world presented. As the second movie came along, we saw the world expand and we delved deeper with our character and finally the last movie was the conclusion. However, movies no longer use trilogies to tell their story but instead expand to six or more films.

This isn't a bad idea. In some cases more than three movies is necessary such as Harry Potter and Mission Impossible franchise where a continuous story of that world is intriguing. However, the problem with movies that over gamble and release more than three films is a loss of interest in the main protagonist. In the Bourne franchise, the resolution for the third movie was all we need but with the fourth and fifth it lost its emotional connection we had with Jason Bourne. Resulting in two boring flicks.

The reason movies get boring after the third installment is a trilogy acts as a three act structure. With the first movie represented as the setup, the second film is the confrontation and the last installment is the resolution. An example is the Star Wars trilogy with New Hope acting as the setup by setting the rules and introducing the worlds, Empire Strikes Back is the confrontation (literally) with Luke fighting his demons and against Vader, and finally Return of the Jedi was the resolution and closing the book on that story. Until The Force Awakens (which I like) was released in 2015 which lost the emotional connections and tries too hard to rekindle our attachment. The death of Han was the only emotional connection I had with the characters.

The biggest support for trilogies is the experience. Now, with these universe movies they are also experiences but with trilogies the three films watched back to back is more magical because that time we have with out character means we see their development by the end of the last film. While with a six movie franchise, we see the development early on and then we are left with three other movies with our character already blossomed and not flawed, an example is the Die Hard franchise. John McClane becomes a super hero and doesn't do anything wrong and can survive any explosion. As a result It becomes boring and the stakes are lost.

As I have mentioned, franchises such as Harry Potter work with more than one movie because of how many books there are and the complex stories. Imagine a movie being a fat piece of dough and the first movie kneads it, the second movie proves it and the third movie bakes it. What do you get? A perfectly tasty bread. But then take the dough and stretch it for some reason, holes start to appear. Too much stretching is the fourth, fifth and sixth installment, You don't need to stretch it but you do it anyway. Plot holes become more apparent and the bread becomes a mess. That's what happens when a simple story gets the 10 movie treatment. Simple story is better when told in a simple way. Bread is better when baked in a simple way.

But...

Is it a bad idea for trilogies to die away?

I believe that trilogies dying and making way for more expanded movies can lead to exciting films. We are in a new era of cinema which I call the "universe films". Studios are now beginning their own universes that can expand a film's world. It is an exciting time because this change is still in an early phase and will only grow to become better.

In essence the universe building will make cinema exciting again. With trilogies, once it's done,  it's done. Audiences crave more from films and want stories to continue. Movies that have more than three films can explore more of the world that was established, Mission Impossible has been going on forever and has continually grown stronger and Fast & Furious has upped their game (for better or worse) and deliver movies the fans want. They have both become better with their latest release.

Without the restriction of three movies, studios can build their movies from the ground up and take as much time to tell a story. It's all about creating an excitement with the audience and a studio slate with a movie universe is more exciting than a movie slate with just three films.

Also...

Movie trilogies dying is an evolution in cinema. We now get franchises that could last a hundred years. Is it a good idea? Maybe or maybe not but it's a necessary step in discovering how far we can take this art form.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone (2001) Review

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is directed by Chris Columbus and is based on the first Harry Potter book written by JK Rowling. The film is about a young wizard called Harry Potter, who was spared his life by the one who shall not be named and is sent to the wizard school Hogwarts. From there he learns more about himself and wizardry.

Before watching this film I had previously thought the first Harry Potter film was boring, maybe because I had not seen for a long time, but I was wrong. I thoroughly enjoyed the film, it was a funny and mystical world that I was instantly sucked into. I had never realised how funny the film was, every joke hit and made me laugh, which just gave the film a great quality to it, because if the jokes had missed (and with a film like this, it can be easy to make the joke miss) the film would have become slow, and boring but the funny moments made the film better and adding to the child friendly film. Which this film was. The film was aimed at the younger audience, rarely is there any scary or dark scenes, which can mean more of the adult audiences won’t enjoy the film as much but this is a film that is for the family, everyone can enjoy it because of the humour which engages the audience. The film can be watched by children to grandparents because of the light hearted feel to the film.

The casting of the film was perfect, I cannot think of anyone else who can replace the actors, they all fit the role they were given, maybe because they are embedded with me, even the tiny roles I cannot think of a replacement. Daniel Radcliff as Harry Potter did a good job for his age, of course his performance was not going to be perfect with some occasions his acting wasn't the greatest and I can let that go because of the magical, mysterious world being created took me away from the bad moments and only in the good moments. Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley, who instantly makes you laugh because of his appearance, he brings most of the comedy in the film, and sometimes by the way he just looks. He’s a character that everyone simply enjoys watching. Emma Watson as Hermione Granger was another great choice, another actress that captured the character so well. All of the casting was perfect and made the film more entertaining.

The story was simple, with Harry needing the stone, with a bit in the middle to beef up the film. I was okay with that because they had to first bring these character’s to life and they did, meaning all the character’s that I was supposed to like, I liked, which allowed the only plot point not bore me as i was rooting for them. However I can see why this film can bore people because of the simplistic story telling.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's stone is a fun, family, and magical film, which started the Harry Potter franchise in a light hearted way. The film gave me a good time and has that re watchable factor that some films in the fantasy genre lack. I was entertained throughout, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s stone achieves 7/10