Franchises worthy of Trilogies

[Heretic]

It's a simple solution. If you have a property that can make you money for generations...don't do anything so stupid with it that it causes you to wash it all away and start over in less than 10 years.

But I'm all for having an overarching theme to a series of movies, then changing the theme after awhile but keeping the history (this is a good time to change actors if needed, they can take over the same character but everyone was kind of expecting a shift in tone anyway). I think that if you are having to reboot in less than 20 years, you've done something wrong.

 

[chamber-music]

Yeah, I really want to see these guys:

I would of loved to see the Dark Judges!

 

[DrCosmic]

It's a simple solution. If you have a property that can make you money for generations...don't do anything so stupid with it that it causes you to wash it all away and start over in less than 10 years.

But I'm all for having an overarching theme to a series of movies, then changing the theme after awhile but keeping the history (this is a good time to change actors if needed, they can take over the same character but everyone was kind of expecting a shift in tone anyway). I think that if you are having to reboot in less than 20 years, you've done something wrong.

This thread is not about those properties. Unless you want 10 Judge Dredd films and 10 He-Man films. :/

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Dead Space trilogy

Judge Dredd starring Karl Urban!

Hell yeah

 

[TheNextNolan22]

Lego Movie trilogy.

 

[Heretic]

This thread is not about those properties. Unless you want 10 Judge Dredd films and 10 He-Man films. :/

I would take both, as long as they are good.

I can't really think of any franchise that I would specifically put a 3 movie limit on.

 

[DrCosmic]

I'm pretty sure neither of those franchises are capable of having ten good movies.

So you wouldn't put a limit on Finding Nemo sequels or Ender's Game sequels or anything? There's absolutely no story you can think of that can say all it has to say in 3 films?

And are there no movies you like that didn't get a sequel? They don't deserve a trilogy because they deserve infinite films?

And if a story has been told great once... like Back to the Future, should it ever be rebooted? Should that have gotten infinite sequels too?

 

[Heretic]

I'm pretty sure neither of those franchises are capable of having ten good movies.

So you wouldn't put a limit on Finding Nemo sequels or Ender's Game sequels or anything? There's absolutely no story you can think of that can say all it has to say in 3 films?

And are there no movies you like that didn't get a sequel? They don't deserve a trilogy because they deserve infinite films?

And if a story has been told great once... like Back to the Future, should it ever be rebooted? Should that have gotten infinite sequels too?

I have no clue how many Ender's Game novels there are...or if the story is left open to explore more of the universe. Haven't seen the movie either, so I don't care if there is a trilogy. If the universe is as vast as Star Trek or Star Wars, then I see no reason why it couldn't continue. I also have never seen Finding Nemo, so not only do I not want a trilogy, I didn't watch the sequel. As far as Back to the Future goes...boy, I really didn't enjoy the sequel and found it unnecessary, and never watched the third one.

However...I'll play your game because I realize that it's just for fun...

There was a movie called Upside Down last year...a fantasy/sci-fi film about a world where another world was on top of it...so you look up and see the tops of their skyscrapers (and gravity is reversed). The movie rushed through DECADES of story, dealing with lost love, the exploitation of the poor by corporations etc. It was WAY too much for one movie.

So...
Upside Down 1: Tell the back story about the world, set up the scenario where the corporation that controls. The two leads are kids, and they meet and become close but are kept apart by the rising tensions. The main thrust of the story is how the under world is being exploited by the corporation.

Upside Down 2: Now teenagers, the two leads try to get back in touch, but can't. He is leading a life of poverty while she takes a job at the corporation. In this movie is where the under world becomes a wasteland and the stuff that he explains happened to his family goes down etc. It's also where armed guards take control of the space between worlds.

Upside Down 3: As adults, she is a top executive...and he has hatched a plan to get to the top world and bring it down. The rest of the actual movie happens.

Basically, I'd get more involved in the world, and spread the main story out over 3 films instead of cramming it all into one (which ruined it).

 

[gwynplaine]

 

[Lord]

I actually disagree with that. I think it should have been 'moar diff'rent' but after SM3, you need a cleanse. That's not something you can pick up from. There's no better way to separate from that than an origin story so everyone agrees that you're starting over, carrying nothing from the previous iteration.

EDIT: ASM was in a great position where people who need that kind of backstory already were familiar with the concept from SM1 trilogy and the people who were being introduced to Spider-Man were like 10 and under, who wouldn't have cared. You could have started with him getting bitten, and brought the audience along emotionally on that 'my life just keeps getting worse' ride instead of the 'oh, what are these strange powers' journey that most superhero flicks go with. Could have been really slick.

The Spider-Man franchise didn't really need to be clensed, most of the general public still liked Spider-Man 3, it was a similar situations as Transformers, critics and the internet hate the 3rd one, and act as if their thoughts were the norm when most of the public didn't think the same, and will allways return to the sequel.

Batman was broken, Superman was broken, Spider-Man was not.

All of who you believe that trilogies are the way to go...keep in mind that you would now be just 2 years away from having a movie filmed where teenage Peter Parker is bitten by a spider and gets powers. Do you REALLY need to see that movie again? Wasn't twice in a decade enough?

What does one thing have to do with the other? You can make a complete Spider-man trilogy and then do a 4th one without rebooting, a trilogy means there is a storyline, after it is done you can continue and start another storyline, you don't need to start over again.

Look at Marvel Studios, they're giving Iron Man a rest after its trilogy and are giving most of their main franchises a trilogy before taking a small hiatus. It doesn't mean they're going to be rebooted after.

In most of these cases you need to make the best first film you can, then you need to earn your sequel and trilogy, if there is more worth telling, then do more after the 3rd film.

 

[Heretic]

I agree with you Lord. My point is that there is no need to reboot and pretend the rest never happened. You could maybe kill Gwen Stacy and wrap up the Green Goblin story in Spider-Man 3, then for the next Spider-Man trilogy, you have a darker take...he's in mourning because Gwen is dead...give him the black suit...recast a new actor if needed...but don't pretend that the earlier stuff never happened. If he defeats Doc Ock in Spider-Man 1, don't bring him back 3 movies later as a brand new character we've never met. Instead, use another villain.

 

[Lord]

I agree with that, though there are some franchises where a more limited number of movies would be advisable. Like He-Man or Fullmetal Alchemist.

If Transformers had a reboot i think that the best would be for a trilogy, but then not reboot again, just continue from there, but the main Trilogy would stay there, having had a begining, a middle and an end that had Optimus Prime sacrificing himself.

 

[Octoberist]

Speaking of Transformers, where the heck is Hot Rod? Maybe it's a blessing he hasn't been tainted yet by Bay but still.

 

[Heretic]

Yeah, I think the problem comes in villains etc. He-Man can only beat Skeletor so many times before you have to just stop (Im aware there are a few others top villains, but not enough for 10 movies).

I see GI Joe as being different...and that may be because I happen to have grown up really loving the property, so I may just be placing more value on the concept. But, just to see...I've kind of typed out a few bullet points for what I would do with a GI Joe franchise (not even mentioning most of the Joe characters in each films, just very basic plot points) and I would need AT LEAST 6 movies to tell my story, probably more. If I wanted to really give secondary characters their due, I could easily stretch it a bit more.

EDIT: And even in a 6 movie run, I would be reducing Zartan down to almost a bit player.