Reservoir Dog
05-28-2008, 07:04 PM
This is kind of a reaction to DNS's trilogies thread (although I disagree with every trilogy he lists to some degree. I agree wholeheartedly in some specific areas though) and kind of a reaction to Indiana Jones IV. I have only seen a couple of these and bits and pieces of others so I dont know how valid my extrapolated opinion can be so I will leave it up to more knowledgable watchers to decide.
What I mean by loosely connected trilogies is pretty much trilogies that have different characters in each film, usually have different titles and are discernable merely by the themes or other broad aspects of eachother. All these reasons are what makes them better as well as different to the traditional trilogy on the most part.
Usually in traditional ___ 1 ___ 2 ___ 3 trilogies they try to keep the same characters throughout each film and deal with different themes throughout the three films as in the loosely connected trilogies (the colors trilogy and Stones trilogy are the main ones I have in mind) they stay with one constant theme and flesh it out entirely with 3 different sets of characters. Now most of the time trilogies are big budget gross machines and have little subtextually to say, but even when they do it is usually unclear, underdeveloped or unresolved and almost always insuperior to regular movies or the first one in the series if it is lucky enough to be good. Now I am not saying this always happens in regular trilogies (Terminator comes to mind as an exception) but in these other loosely connected trilogies the themes come across way clearer and so begs the question. What is the better foundation for a spanning trilogy: characters or a theme? I would say the theme for the sole reason that there are so few characters that are interesting or well enough developed to carry 3 films on their backs and that is why I think most first films are the best. Because when the writers have to make another film they have to try to come up with a whole bunch of new shit and history behind the characters that fans disagree with or the writers keep the character the same and the character becomes boring. It is much more worthwhile to flesh out a theme unless you have a really (and I mean really) interesting character which is almost never the case.
I'm sorry for the length and repititious nature of this post. I actually meant for this thread to be more about discussing loosely connected trilogies, but turned into a Hollywood hate sermon and I dont proofread so...whatever.
Here are some loosely connected trilogies that I have seen/am aware of:
Blue/White/Red
Platoon/ Born on the Forth of July/ Heaven and Earth (although I havent seen this one)
Dogville/Manderlay/ (the third one)
Feel free to discuss these or others that arent listed. The Colors Trilogy is by far my favorite. I really think more people should see these movies. They are beautifully made and the stories are really interesting and the color themes are something to watch out for. The very end doesnt disappoint either. Makes you think about what they are all about.
What I mean by loosely connected trilogies is pretty much trilogies that have different characters in each film, usually have different titles and are discernable merely by the themes or other broad aspects of eachother. All these reasons are what makes them better as well as different to the traditional trilogy on the most part.
Usually in traditional ___ 1 ___ 2 ___ 3 trilogies they try to keep the same characters throughout each film and deal with different themes throughout the three films as in the loosely connected trilogies (the colors trilogy and Stones trilogy are the main ones I have in mind) they stay with one constant theme and flesh it out entirely with 3 different sets of characters. Now most of the time trilogies are big budget gross machines and have little subtextually to say, but even when they do it is usually unclear, underdeveloped or unresolved and almost always insuperior to regular movies or the first one in the series if it is lucky enough to be good. Now I am not saying this always happens in regular trilogies (Terminator comes to mind as an exception) but in these other loosely connected trilogies the themes come across way clearer and so begs the question. What is the better foundation for a spanning trilogy: characters or a theme? I would say the theme for the sole reason that there are so few characters that are interesting or well enough developed to carry 3 films on their backs and that is why I think most first films are the best. Because when the writers have to make another film they have to try to come up with a whole bunch of new shit and history behind the characters that fans disagree with or the writers keep the character the same and the character becomes boring. It is much more worthwhile to flesh out a theme unless you have a really (and I mean really) interesting character which is almost never the case.
I'm sorry for the length and repititious nature of this post. I actually meant for this thread to be more about discussing loosely connected trilogies, but turned into a Hollywood hate sermon and I dont proofread so...whatever.
Here are some loosely connected trilogies that I have seen/am aware of:
Blue/White/Red
Platoon/ Born on the Forth of July/ Heaven and Earth (although I havent seen this one)
Dogville/Manderlay/ (the third one)
Feel free to discuss these or others that arent listed. The Colors Trilogy is by far my favorite. I really think more people should see these movies. They are beautifully made and the stories are really interesting and the color themes are something to watch out for. The very end doesnt disappoint either. Makes you think about what they are all about.