Which do you prefer - movie trilogies or movie series sequels?

[yoda313]

So with the hollywood summer movie time fast approaching and the inevitable sequel push which do you prefer more? The well told trilogy with a defined ending or a never ending and also no consistent story series? Or do you prefer individual movies with no sequel potential that are more original?

Or if its based on a book series like harry potter or james bond (ok at least the EARLY james bond movies back in the 60's) are those acceptable?

DO you suffer from sequel burnout? Is hollywood running on fumes and just rehashing anything with a recognizeable name??

I like trilogies and series - Star Trek is a good series in my opinion - Lord Of the Rings and Star Wars made excellent trilogies. the Matrix trilogy was a bit of a stretch - to me there really wasn't enough of a story to do three movies. Although I liked them and own the dvds I think they might have been better off making the second movie longer and wrapping it up quicker than pushing out REVOLUTIONS. That was just a weird way to end the story.

So how about you? Sick of sequels? Speak out!!!

[Tolyngee]

I am glad you mentioned "director" before "actor" in your one option.

Although it seems many don't care (or even understand) who the director is, it influences my attitude towards a film more than any actor in it. (Actually, actors can influence me negatively, though...)

I believe I could name a dozen directors (Fincher/Bay/Burton for starters) that can at least get me to start watching a movie... I can't say that about a single actor...

I haven't been to the theater in 2.5 years, and can't say I feel I have missed anything. Spiderman 3 looks possible to get me out again Friday, and maybe Pirates 3 (Pirates 1 was okay, but Pirates 2 was the first film in quite some time that I considered watching it again!)... But I think Transformers will be the winner... While I have some interest in the Transformers storyline, Bay's involvement interests me much more...

But, back to your question:

I think I like sequels. If you can make three interesting movies out of a storyline, I bet a fourth can also be done. Or even more. I can't imagine Indy 4 doing damage.

But, I do wonder if the Matrix fiasco might turn people off to so-called trilogies. Matrix rocked, fell asleep during Reloaded, and can't even force myself to watch the finale on DVD...

But, maybe Matrix doesn't count, as no one believes they really intended that from the beginning as a trilogy...

(I guess my point is trilogies/sequels can obviously do damage to a supposed franchise...)

Hmmm, good question: When exactly did Police Academy hit maximum suckage?

[guns1inger]

I think you have to be careful in how you define trilogy. To me a trilogy is a continuous story line. LOTR was a trilogy, as was The Matrix. Star Wars also counts in this list, as do the Harry Potter films.

On the other hand, I don't see the Star Trek films as forming an on going, connected story line. To me the movies are standalone stories, for the most part, and really just extended episodes from the series. Similarly film franchises like Spiderman and Superman are separate stories linked by common characters. A long bow could be drawn to try to argue they are part of a continuing narrative, but personally I think that is stretching it.

Finally, you have the blatant money spinning franchises that are neither sequels nor on-going narratives, but simply repeats of what happened in the last film, transposed to new characters - think Friday the 13th, Final Destination et al. James Bond started in the series box, but ended up in the money spinner box.

A true trilogy works when the story is big enough to justify and sustain the format. LOTR worked. Matrix didn't. Star Wars worked the first time around, but failed the second, IMO. There simply wasn't enough story for three films, and so they ended up 60% filler. A 3 hour epic would have worked better than a 6 hour yawnfest.

Sequels and series can be very hit an miss. With franchises I often find the second film to be the more enjoyable because I don't have to sit through needless and contrived exposition to set up the characters. Spiderman and X-men were good examples of this. The second films in both franchises were better films for me because they were able to get straight down to business, and dedicate the film to the story. They also benefited from having the same director carry them through. Sometimes sequels work because they do get away from the original instead of slavishly following them. Aliens worked extremely well in part because it was a great standalone film, and because it expanded the simple concept of the original to much greater level.

Unfortunately, for every Aliens we get a hundred Jaws 2/3/4 type fiascos.

For me, as with the previous poster, the people behind the scenes are usually the key indicator, rather than the names (or lack of names) in front of the camera. However this holds for any film, not just sequels and series. It's not 100% (for example, loved Seven and Fight Club - very disappointed by Panic Room), but it gives you a good indication of what you will get ;

Tony Scott : frenetic eye-candy, superficial substance that doesn't stand up to scrutiny
Michael Bay : big, loud, empty-headed pop-corn munching fare
Joel and Ethen Coen : Never the same thing twice, but almost always hits the mark

Of course, not everyone is so consistent in their output.

Bottom line - a good film is a good film, whether it is a standalone epic, a summer blockbuster, a small independent or the fourth in a series. Even sequels and series can allow for individuality and originality, albeit within the confines of genre or character (think the aforementioned Aliens, or Mad Max II). It is when the studios decide that the target audience is the lowest common denominator, and that they should not get anything new or unexpected that you get crap. unfortunately this appears to be most of the time now.

[Tolyngee]

But LOTR isn't considered a trilogy. It's considered one long film broken into three. That's the main reason PJ only won best director once, and not two or three times. The way 1 & 2 end and 2 & 3 start abruptly shows this.

Many question whether some of the Trek films are "canon."

[gadgetguy]

Many question whether some of the Trek films are "canon."

In the words of Roddenberry... "What you see on screen is canon, everything else isn't."
IMHO
The Star Trek films are a series. The term series has nothing to do with story arc, it can be completely different stories based on the same characters/universe or one continuous storyline. A trilogy, by definition is a series of three. If a series continues beyond three installments it is no longer a trilogy although Star Wars could be argued as two separate trilogies.

[Tolyngee]

Many question whether some of the Trek films are "canon."

In the words of Roddenberry... "What you see on screen is canon, everything else isn't."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_canon

"Adding confusion to the issue is the fact that Roddenberry is quoted as saying he didn't like the movies, and "didn't much consider them canon".[5] Unfortunately, there exists no definitive list of which movies in particular Roddenberry disliked, or what elements in them he didn't consider canon. However, the movie Star Trek V: The Final Frontier is most often singled out, along with unverified claims that Roddenberry called it "apocryphal at best".[12]"

Color me confused then...

I would like to say that TNG is easily my favorite television series ever... The only other show I've ever seen every episode of is X-Files, which I forced myself to watch the finale season or two...

But I am not much of a Trek fan... So I should just plead ignorant/confused... But I've been under the impression for quite some time that some big names (roddenberry, etc.) in Trekdom aren't big fans of some of the films...

(Although I was also under the impression this might have a lot to do with the egos of Shatner and Nimoy getting in the way of things... Shatner being concerned that his buttocks get properly airbrushed is such nonsense...)

But 2 and 6 are must-see films...