Trilogy Buzz

News hits that Underworld is now going to be made into a trilogy.

I recall the times when using the word Trilogy meant you were talking about Star Wars. Now the word is the buzz catch phrase for any movie that has 3 (or more) releases. Gone are the days of the sequel. That’s not good enough. Would you like a side order of Trilogy with your big budget movie? Now, just about every blockbuster is a “Trilogy”

It used to be that if a movie was successful and popular enough that they would make a sequel and see what happens from there. Take it one step at a time. Now, a movie does well and they plan 2 more at a time.

I thought Matrix was better left alone, but those in charge didnt feel a sequel would be good enough, so they planned to make it a triology. Indiana Jones is 3 separate movies that tell of 3 separate adventures of our favourite archeologist and although there are 3 of them I don’t really see this as a trilogy. (a 4th is due in 2005) Great movies all, but to me, to deserve the word trilogy, there should be a greater story being told over the span of movies. (Classic) Star Wars, Lord of the Rings and the upcoming final chapter of the Matrix seem to be the only true trilogies that spring to mind. (I am sure there are others that qualify) They span a greater story while featuring parts of that story into marketable “chapters”

Other serials that have achieved 3 movies that carry the trilogy buzz word really don’t qualify for the honours as far as I am concerned. Scream Trilogy? nope. Highlander Trilogy? Don’t even try. Terminator Triology? Sorry.

A movie can be good and have 3 parts, not saying that being a “not trilogy” makes it bad (but Highlander did suck after the first) but to package it as a Trilogy should be an achievement, not just 3 separate movies.
With any luck, Hollywood will stop scamming us with the anticipation of an epic trilogy when they are just farting out money printing sequels.

Comment with Facebook