Should trilogies become duologies?

[Binker]

In case you don't know what a duology is, a duology is two movies.

Should that happen? Because in recent times, movies like X-Men and Spider-Man go from good/very good to great in the first two films, but once three comes along, it drops to okay to even just bad (X3, Spidey 3). So shouldn't three movies become two as the norm? I mean I heard that Jon wants to stop after Iron Man 2, because he feels the same way. And we are getting a Nolan Batman trilogy (it seems TDK leads to #3), and it looks to be the same for Singer's Superman (guessing).

But all in all, what do you think? Because of recent movies, should trilogies becomes duologies?

 

[BMM]

I don't think superhero franchises need to be limited to two movies. Third installments just need to be handled better. Both Spider-Man 3 and X-Men 3 suffered, not because there wasn't a good story to tell but, because there was interference during the pre-production process.

 

[Evil Twin]

There's no magic number for how many movies you need to make. James Bond is in the 20s. Harry Potter is shooting for 8.

I do think that 3 is an incredibly arbitrary number though. Sometimes you can say everything you want in 1 movie. I'd have been perfectly happy if The Matrix stopped at one film. Or POTC. I certainly never need to see a sequel to WATCHMEN. Heck, I think they're going to be scrambling to find a character arc for Tony Stark in Iron Man 2, although obviously they've just scratched the surface on action and plot.

OTOH, sometimes you need more. Harry Potter needed seven books before he became an adult. Batman has a huge rogues gallery that has only been scratched and different aspects to the character that have rarely been addressed.

The material really should control the length of a series more than the box office.

 

[JackBauer]

You shouldn't even limit yourself to two or three movies in the first place. Comic book movie franchises can go as long as Bond, as far as content is concerned. When you plan only on 2 or 3, you have to cram stuff in and dumb it down.

 

[Sun_Down]

There's no magic number for how many movies you need to make. James Bond is in the 20s. Harry Potter is shooting for 8.

Well put. X3 and SM3 suffered from poor direction and story. But that shouldn't limit talented creative teams from stopping at 2 films.

 

[ANTOINE X]

In case you don't know what a duology is, a duology is two movies.

Should that happen? Because in recent times, movies like X-Men and Spider-Man go from good/very good to great in the first two films, but once three comes along, it drops to okay to even just bad (X3, Spidey 3). So shouldn't three movies become two as the norm? I mean I heard that Jon wants to stop after Iron Man 2, because he feels the same way. And we are getting a Nolan Batman trilogy (it seems TDK leads to #3), and it looks to be the same for Singer's Superman (guessing).

But all in all, what do you think? Because of recent movies, should trilogies becomes duologies?

I would say It all depends of the story. Unfortunately some director or producer don't understand they just want to make a trilogy to make more money. LOTR was too long they could have easily do it in 2 movies same thing with with Matrix.

 

[Warhammer]

I don't think superhero franchises need to be limited to two movies. Third installments just need to be handled better. Both Spider-Man 3 and X-Men 3 suffered, not because there wasn't a good story to tell but, because there was interference during the pre-production process.

That definitely is legitimate for X3, but not for Spider-Man 3. That film had no excuse.

 

[SPIDERMAN117]

That definitely is legitimate for X3, but not for Spider-Man 3. That film had no excuse.

Umm Sony and Adi both pushed for Venom when Raimi didnt want him at all. Scraping Vulture completly and putting in Venom? I dont know if that counts as having problems with the film

 

[bullets]

Ben Kingsley was set to play Vulture . I hope he doesn't feel sour grapes after the debacle that enusued during pre production.

 

[Heretic]

I would actually go in the other direction...

The problem is that the studios and everyone thinks in terms of trilogies...so if they areon part three and thres too much story or demand to introduce new characters, they just smoosh everything into one film instead of letting it breathe into a fourth film.

 

[ANTOINE X]

I would actually go in the other direction...

The problem is that the studios and everyone thinks in terms of trilogies...so if they areon part three and thres too much story or demand to introduce new characters, they just smoosh everything into one film instead of letting it breathe into a fourth film.

3 is the magic number for multiple sequels(generally). A trilogy it s like one big movie with a beginning a middle and a end after that its extra.