The problem with trilogies today is profound.
Stories that were meant to be told in a single film or novel are a thing of the past. Writing a trilogy has become a necessity to be able to flesh out the story. Once upon a time, a story could be told within a single setting and there was often no need to expand upon it further than that.
We now find ourselves in a world where the opening novel/film has become a set up for the bigger world. Occasionally, this works extremely well, particularly when dealing with a fantasy. Lord of the Rings or His Dark Materials are examples of where this is a necessity, not overkill.
And then there are times where it just adds to the filler of the overall story itself.
Maintaining currency and relevance in the story is harder to do as a story goes on. What can often be said, and should be said, within one story opens to a wider audience, but as it goes by, the narrative can become weaker, the vision of the author fades and the focus of the story is less on building and establishing characters as it often is forcing us to read on ones that are not of importance.
Sometimes, the final film is the weakest. Star Wars, The Godfather. Both are classics. Both yielded brilliant trilogies. Yet both have that glaring weakness in them.
The third film.
But why is the third film usually so weak, compared to the others?
And why do creators feel the need to turn a body of work into a trilogy.
This issue is not limited merely to a trilogy. The sequel can be just as problematic. And then we enter the murky waters of the remake, the retelling of an already well written story. It strikes me that there is a lack of imagination on this part.
And yet, trilogies are not a new thing. As previously stated, they have existed since the time of Dumas. Greek stories brought about the sequel long before anyone else. And very often, they worked.
The problem is the modern-day story writing has become lazy, driven by the need to bring about a sequel and then a threequel, without ever questioning if the story was any good to begin with. It presumes that the work is not as important as the rate of return in the creation.
I recall, on the matter of remakes, watching several long before realising they were remakes. Cape Fear (1991) is a retelling of the original from 1962. The Departed (2006) is a western version of Internal Affairs series, which in turn is trilogy of its own. And if you follow the plot, it is almost a step-by-step retelling. This is in stark contrast to Cape Fear, which is concerned with the opposite of its original – morality.
Are we running out of stories to give to the world? In reality, there were only seven types of stories in the first instance. Has the expectation been that if you do not create several stories of the same universe, then the stories will be forgotten? Who knows? Sometimes, these stories appear to be completely pointless remakes.
Harry Potter is already being retold, despite the final film in the series being less than 15 years old? The point of this? No idea. It seems that ideas are running low in the tank of Hollywood these days.
Versions of shows retreat the same path. It strikes me that this has become the normalised version of how to write narration.
Are we at a point of where nothing original exists anymore? I refer you to my previous point that there were only seven types of stories in the first place.