Don’t use two films to tell a story when one will do!

Die Hard, Indiana Jones and Toy Story, three pretty perfect trilogies. In my opinion there isn’t one film in any of these series that has a huge, detrimental effect on the others. This is because every single one of those films is a single story, not trying to carry over any plot-threads, unanswered questions or huge story arcs from any previous film and what’s more, the first film didn’t try to set up the sequels before it had even finished!

This has been a ridiculous trend in films that I don’t think ever really works. Recently I watched the worst possible case of this with The Three Musketeers. The whole film is full of flaws (which I outline in my review) but one of the biggest gripes was that it lacked any major, set-piece finale. That is until the final scene sets up what could have been a very cool moment in the first film and the proceeds to run the credits! They literally saved the cool, major set-piece for what they believed was going to be an inevitable sequel!

Try making the first film good before setting-up a sequel we’ll never see!!!

This just left me angry because I’d invested two hours of my life. I was already pretty dejected by the fact that they’d somehow managed to mess-up the pretty straight forward Three Musketeers story but to then tell me that what I was watching was really just the “first act” and that I need to hope that enough people actually liked this film to get a sequel felt like a slap in the face!

It’s almost like they are planning to make a mediocre or under-developed film. To plot out a whole story that will take three films (or more) to actually tell means you are planning to leave out key moments, great moments, cool moments, so that you have something to put in a sequel you are gambling on being made. The irony being of course that by leaving out these potentially great ideas, you are hurting the film you are hoping will launch a series.

After the amazing Matrix, the very cool Matrix Reloaded, how disappointing was Matrix Revolutions?

It isn’t just films hoping to launch a franchise that fall foul of this “plan.” Another major bug bear is finding you have a critically and commercially successful film and then making the decision, before a story is written or even thought about, that it must be a trilogy and the next story will be told over two films! Pirates of the Caribbean and The Matrix are the big examples of this. (The original Star Wars trilogy, Lord of the Rings and Back to the Future to a lesser extent.) The problem with this is that whoever is writing these films then has to try to tell a story that warrants two films and the way to do this, usually, is to have about five different stories going on at once, one over-arching “huge” story that is flimsy at best and then two “main” stories for the individual films because the “huge” story wouldn’t hold together a six-hour film!

Toy Story tell one (Toy) story at a time and have produced one of the best ever trilogies as a consequence.

This will almost always lead to the second film being brilliant, setting up cool story points, introducing new characters and ending with a massive cliffhanger that leaves you desperate for film 3. When you get film 3 though, you find that a lot of the story they set up in the first film is resolved really quickly, the huge cliffhanger is also resolved easily within the first ten minutes and you are just waiting for the weak resolution to the “huge” story (or in the case of Lord of the Rings, the twenty different endings!)

The best way to do a trilogy is to have three films connected by a character or plot device. Die Hard has John Mclane, Indiana Jones has Indiana Jones and Toy Story has the great concept of toys that come to life. The films are connected and they will reference previous installments but this is just as a nod to the audience or to add realism. These films work because the writers didn’t have to try to tell a massive story but instead got two hours to recreate the magic that made the first film a success.

Die Hard isn’t John Mclane fighting the same villain or foiling the same terrorist attempt over three films and it is one of the best trilogies because of it!

This is something that two of the most successful films framchises seems to have avoided. The Avengers was a combination of lots of single films but the best in series (Iron Man and Thor) didn’t try to connect themselves with the “huge” story in any major way. The weakest films in the series (Iron Man 2 and Captain America) do try to connect and because of that they feel like prequels or in the case of Captain America, feel like an ending has been “bolted-on.” Luckily, Nolan seems to be comprising his trilogy of three stand-alone films and I’m sure that this will help The Dark Knight trilogy become one of the best ever.

Overall, as long as we have these huge summer blockbusters, we are always going to have forced sequels/trilogies. In the case of Matrix and Pirates of the Caribbean we were luckily enough to get one, maybe two, great films but when production companies are trying to launch series with films like The Three Musketeers, we are going to have to sit through lots of mediocre first films so we can see the potentially brilliant sequels. My only worry is that there is a certain web-slinging superhero that could potentially be going down the Musketeers route as well…

Lets hope they aren’t making a mediocre first film to set-up the incredible and “inevitable” sequel.

4 thoughts on “Don’t use two films to tell a story when one will do!

  1. Just have to say that this is an awesome post, was constantly saying yes, you are right to myself 🙂 Althought the Lord of the Rings might be a bit of an exception. The end of Three Musketeers was a bit weird, but I did really have fun watching it.

    1. Three Musketeers really disappointed me. I had such high hopes because of the source material and just felt it was lacking that “spark.”

      I have my own issues with Lord of the Rings that go way beyond it being told over three films… might save that for another post someday.

      1. I don’t know the source material for the Musketeers, so my expectations really were very low.

        Really need to revisit Lord of the Rings, been years since I last saw them.

You've heard my opinion, let me know what you think...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s