Thursday, September 22, 2005
reasons why "the matrix" can't be considered a trilogy
i'm not sure if there is a true set of rules for what defines a "trilogy", but i'm gonna go ahead and make the decision that "the matrix" movies should in no way be referred to as a trilogy. don't all of the movies in a trilogy have to be of equal quality and value?? you can't have one good movie, and then make two shoddy sequels and call that a "trilogy". it just doesn't work that way. (plus wouldn't you be playing into all of the not-so-hidden christian symbolism of the matrix movies by calling it a trilogy??)"indiana jones": trilogy. "star wars": trilogy. okay, set of trilogies. "lord of the rings": trilogy. "godfather": (apparently) trilogy. (i know, i'm a horrible person cause i've never seen the godfather trilogy) (it's something i have to live with every day of my life). "police academy": not a trilogy. (octilogy???) it's not like you can just run around calling all shitty movies trilogies just cause there's three of them. "american pie" movies? not a trilogy. "tremors"? not a trilogy. "terminator"? no way a trilogy. "back to the future"? oh yeah, that one counts. and i will contend that even though the second one is simply a remake of the first with a bigger budget, and the third is no way has the title of the first two, the "evil dead" movies certainly qualify as a trilogy. (and a damn good one, at that).
okay, so i just actually looked up the definition of a trilogy, and i probably have it all wrong. but i'm sticking to my guns here!! supposedly the true definition says that a trilogy has to "develop a single theme". hmmmmm. so i guess that "star wars" and "lord of the rings" certainly count. and if you follow that definition, then "matrix" would also make the list. (but "indiana jones" and "die hard", probably not) but, again, i'm going to maintain that if you want to call a set of movies a trilogy, they all need to be of equal caliber. sure, you can argue over which movie in the trilogy is superior, but you can't have a single movie carrying the team, so to speak.
now which set of movies would win out for the best trilogy of all time??? that's a tough question, and i don't think there is one right answer. (and i definitely don't think i'm qualified to make that kind of a decision). i think to even be a contender for this title, the movies have to be considered truly epic. people may complain about episodes 1-3, but "star wars" is one hell of an epic story. and "lord of the rings"? epic. and i don't think there's any way to judge which epic-ness is superior. (and yes, epicness *is* a word. at least in my world).
and as a random note, i love the fact that the hitchhikers series is referred to as trilogy. (an "increasingly innacurately named trilogy"). genius.
and as a post-script, since i can't stop thinking about epic trilogies now....the "batman" movies don't count. maybe if they kept one actor as batman through the series. maybe. but, i think that the new "batman" has the potential for creating an epic trilogy, if they keep with the same cast. cause "batman begins" ROCKED! (and i think i've had a thing for christian bale ever since "newsies") plus michael caine? there's a genius actor. all they need to do is get rid of katie holmes, cause i found it very hard to watch that movie without constantly thinking "she's dating the crazy guy". that, and she can't act.
"jurassic park": no way a trilogy. "harry potter"? had potential, but 7 just won't work as a trilogy. "beverly hills cop"? ha! "home alone"? i guess that goes back to my previous comment about making one decent movie with two shitty sequels and calling it a trilogy.
now good potential trilogies..."spiderman". definite potential there. the "bourne" series? maybe if they had even attempted to have a story line resembling the original book for the second movie, but i think they screwed themselves over on that one. "x-men"? for sure! (i'm actually hoping they don't stop with just three on this one, provided they keep the same quality with future movies) (and i'm not just saying that cause hugh jackman is hot) (though he is)
okay, seriously, i'm addicted to talking about trilogies. must stop. but i am curious to hear people's thoughts on the subject.....
Posted by *erin* | 6:51 AM
7 comments
Hey--I'm your "next door" blog neighbor. I found yours by clicking on the "Next Blog" button at the top of the screen. Nice to meet you--here, have a plate of brownies and a hot dish casserole.
I think there are now 5 and a half books in the HHGG "trilogy." Does The Salmon of Doubt count?
i don't think salmon of doubt counts. and, i have to be honest, i haven't even read it. but i still absolutely love the fact that you can say that "so long and thanks for all the fish" is book 5 in the trilogy, without thinking twice.
and i'm no excited that i have a "next door" blog neighbor!! (and thanks for the brownies, they were good).
just kidding, mostly harmless is 5. i'm an idiot. (but to be fair, is it damn early in the morning)
I agree completely with what you say about movies with two sequels. Three does not a trilogy make. The part about each of the movies having to be of equal weight or quality, however, is somewhat questionable. Consider this: One movie could just as easily be a trilogy in itself if it consisted of three separate but related stories. As for considering things in threes to be somehow Christian, presumably because of the Christian Trinity, which not all Christians believe in, by the way, is to cede too much to Christianity. The Hegelian thesis - antithesis - synthesis is tripartite, but in no way related to Christianity. It forms the basis for many trilogies in cinema as well as in literature. Science, I believe, marches forward three steps at a time. Harry Potter may have seven parts, but it still breaks down into three basic parts: the good, the bad and the unknown. I think you'll find systems based on threes far more convincing than the aridity of binary systems. As they say in Traditional sciences like Magic and Kabbalah, "Two implies Three." Next comes four part systems. After a good night's sleep, maybe you'll notice the four winds, the four suits, the four directions... Thanks for a wonderful post. You're turning into a perfect blogger.
PS I really like what you've done with the sidebar. Much better than before.
My vote has to go to "The Thin Man" trilogy.
I think Adams was inspired by the Foundation Trilogy, which is a fantastic read, though sometimes mule-ish.
I wonder what a salmon of doubt would say to a penguin of destiny, other than *blub* *blub*.
Post a Comment | Back to "Electric Penguins"