Trilogys

[jupiter123]

Do you guys consider it a true trilogy if the same director does not do all three movies? Because i dont. For instance, X-men is not a real trilogy because Brett Ratner directed the third entry instead of Bryan Singer.

[jlou44]

Yes if the majority of the actors are present in all 3, and it continues with the same storyline. So I would definitely consider X-Men a trilogy.

[Foggy]

So the original Star Wars trilogy isn't a trilogy?

The Toy Story trilogy isn't a trilogy according to this rule either?

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by jupiter123

Do you guys consider it a true trilogy if the same director does not do all three movies? Because i dont.

No, I tend not to get caught up in things like that.
I tend to worry about things like apostrophes, and how "y" becomes "ie" when pluralized.

[MykeHavoc]

Of course it does. But once the franchise breaks the 3 movie barrier, I feel its unfair to pick and choose a "trilogy". Like, as much as I love watching Superman 1, 2 and Returns as a "trilogy", there are still 2 other sequels. As much as Batman, Batman Returns and Batman Forever were a trilogy for me growing up, there's still Batman and Robin to remember. Now you've got Nolan's films which will be their own separate trilogy, but they're still just entries in the overall Batman saga to me. So its tough to fairly judge.
Also I have the same issue with the Indiana Jones series and the Alien films. They had trilogies in them at one point. No more though. Most would say for the worse.

[filmnut5]

X-Men is definitely a trilogy. Same characters and same Good vs. Evil premise. Different directors are irrelevant (IMHO).

[jupiter123]

Ah man, the director is the most important part of the movie. he will either make or break a movie. To use the law of analogies he heart and sun of the the movie. The funny thing about Star Wars is the best movie of the franchise is the one not made by George Lucas. Empire Strikes Back

[jacobsever]

What about trilogies from the same director that don't have the same cast, don't even have the same characters or story line, but are considered "trilogies" due to similar themes spread throughout.

Such as Krzysztof Kieślowski's Three Colors triology, or Roman Polanski's Apartment trilogy, Lars von Trier's Europoa triologoy, etc etc.

[Gremal]

Heck, I consider the X-men trilogy XMFC, XM1 and XM2, which would definitely not stand up to most definitions.

[Col. Zombie]

Originally Posted by jupiter123

Ah man, the director is the most important part of the movie. he will either make or break a movie. To use the law of analogies he heart and sun of the the movie. The funny thing about Star Wars is the best movie of the franchise is the one not made by George Lucas. Empire Strikes Back

Return of the Jedi wasn't directed by Lucas either. It was directed by Richard Marquand. Even though Lucas did not direct two of the three, it was clearly intended by the writer to make all of them flow, ergo, making it a trilogy.

OP, your logic on what constitutes a trilogy is as flawed as your spelling, therefore, I delcare a fail.


...BTW, it is "trilogies" not "trilogys"

[victorvondoom88]

Originally Posted by jupiter123

Ah man, the director is the most important part of the movie. he will either make or break a movie. To use the law of analogies he heart and sun of the the movie. The funny thing about Star Wars is the best movie of the franchise is the one not made by George Lucas. Empire Strikes Back

You realize George didn't direct Jedi either right?

Honestly the script and the actors is the most important IMO. Take Empire for example the reason its the best out of the OG trilogy is it wasn't co-written by Lucas, Lawrence Kasdan and Leigh Brackett wrote the screenplay. I know Kasdan also co-wrote Jedi (w/Lucas) but its the Ewoks that make it suck and that's all George "Jar Jar" Lucas.

Another example Spider-man First one David Koepp screenplay. Spidey 2 Alvin Sargent . Spidey 3 Sam & Ivan Raimi screen story & screen play, Alvin Sargent screenplay. I think Alvin Sargent did what he could for spidey 3 but in the end if the story sucks the movies will suck.

[victorvondoom88]

Originally Posted by Col. Zombie

Return of the Jedi wasn't directed by Lucas either. It was directed by Richard Marquand. Even though Lucas did not direct two of the three, it was clearly intended by the writer to make all of them flow, ergo, making it a trilogy.

OP, your logic on what constitutes a trilogy is as flawed as your spelling, therefore, I delcare a fail.


...BTW, it is "trilogies" not "trilogys"

Agreed! The script is what matters most. I will say however that certain director's can have a huge impact on the outcome. I can't imagine Fight Club or Se7en done with as much impact as Fincher delivered.

So according to the OP the only trilogy there is, is LoTR & Spider-man, Star Wars prequels? Its the only ones that I can think of that have the same director across three films.

[Puonti]

Originally Posted by victorvondoom88

Agreed! The script is what matters most. I will say however that certain director's can have a huge impact on the outcome. I can't imagine Fight Club or Se7en done with as much impact as Fincher delivered.

So according to the OP the only trilogy there is, is LoTR & Spider-man, Star Wars prequels? Its the only ones that I can think of that have the same director across three films.

There are quite many actually. For example Back to the Future, Evil Dead, Austin Powers, The Matrix, Rodriguez Mexico Trilogy etc.

Still, the idea is incredibly flawed as some of the most cherished trilogies, like Star Wars and Toy Story, don't meet the criteria.

[victorvondoom88]

Originally Posted by Puonti

There are quite many actually. For example Back to the Future, Evil Dead, Austin Powers, The Matrix, Rodriguez Mexico Trilogy etc.

Still, the idea is incredibly flawed as some of the most cherished trilogies, like Star Wars and Toy Story, don't meet the criteria.

Yeah your right after I thought about it for awhile, those were the ones that came to mind first though.

[FlipperWasIrish]

Originally Posted by jupiter123

Do you guys consider it a true trilogy if the same director does not do all three movies? Because i dont. For instance, X-men is not a real trilogy because Brett Ratner directed the third entry instead of Bryan Singer.

yes

[Waszak1977]

Originally Posted by MykeHavoc

Of course it does. But once the franchise breaks the 3 movie barrier, I feel its unfair to pick and choose a "trilogy". Like, as much as I love watching Superman 1, 2 and Returns as a "trilogy", there are still 2 other sequels. As much as Batman, Batman Returns and Batman Forever were a trilogy for me growing up, there's still Batman and Robin to remember. Now you've got Nolan's films which will be their own separate trilogy, but they're still just entries in the overall Batman saga to me. So its tough to fairly judge.
Also I have the same issue with the Indiana Jones series and the Alien films. They had trilogies in them at one point. No more though. Most would say for the worse.

I agree. Personal preference is big in this area, especially when you have some people who will argue there's only one true trilogy.

The ^ statement carries a lot of weight seeing that we've had a lot of trilogies go over the "hump" so to speak.

Underworld is about to be another one. Will it be argued that it's still a trilogy being that Rise of the Lycan's was a prequel? Yet it's being sold as a trilogy now.

To each his own

[Guydowood]

But how about the un-official trilogy that is sandwiched in the six original series cast of Star Trek.

The Motion Picture is a stand alone film
but
The Wrath of Kahn
The Search for Spock and
The Voyage Home
all follow the same storyline, which was not intentional done.
However The Final Frontier and The Undiscovered County do echo references to those events that took place in the earlier films. Which is cool IMO.

[FrellingFrakker]

Originally Posted by Brown

(in good humor...)

Technically, none of them are trilogies in a "strict" sense. The classic Greek trilogy must have one basic plot, take place during one timeframe, and center around one location. I figure the SAW franchise is about the only series that ever came close to fitting within those rules.

Yes, and Saw most certainly puts lesser trilogies like "Lord of the Rings" and the original "Star Wars" trilogy to shame.