Underappreciated Trilogies

[Grendelsbayne]

I love The Matrix but I thought the sequels were empty CGI fluff and I haven't bothered with them in many years. I thought The Animatrix dealt with the thematic issues better, as well as the short run of comics that were produced (which, incidentally, introduced me to Neil Gaiman).

On the flip side, The Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy is often derided by movie goers, but I love all three (On Stranger Tides, however, is weak) and I still love At World's End the most. Things may have gotten unwieldy towards the end, but I've always found everything held up well enough.

I definitely agree about the Pirates. It's an interesting comparison, I think, to the Matrix, since both tend to suffer the same problem for what, I think, are at least some of the same reasons: great first movie raising expectations (perhaps beyond a reasonable height), sequels shifting focus in a way that not necessarily everyone liked, sequels being made as basically a two-part single story, which I know turned off a lot of people. But I think where the Matrix sequels somewhat undermined the world of the original and seemed to lose part of what made the original special in their quest for bigger and better, the Pirates sequels were much more consistent (albeit also much less ambitious). Honestly, I think if they hadn't spread the story out across two movies (and hadn't filled in so much of the extra space with a little bit too much of just Johnny Depp being weird) that the Pirates sequels wouldn't have an image problem at all. Except for Stranger Tides, which was just uninspired.

 

[DigificWriter]

I definitely agree about the Pirates. It's an interesting comparison, I think, to the Matrix, since both tend to suffer the same problem for what, I think, are at least some of the same reasons: great first movie raising expectations (perhaps beyond a reasonable height), sequels shifting focus in a way that not necessarily everyone liked, sequels being made as basically a two-part single story, which I know turned off a lot of people. But I think where the Matrix sequels somewhat undermined the world of the original and seemed to lose part of what made the original special in their quest for bigger and better, the Pirates sequels were much more consistent (albeit also much less ambitious). Honestly, I think if they hadn't spread the story out across two movies (and hadn't filled in so much of the extra space with a little bit too much of just Johnny Depp being weird) that the Pirates sequels wouldn't have an image problem at all. Except for Stranger Tides, which was just uninspired.

I haven't seen On Stranger Tides, but I'm curious as to why you think it was 'uninspired', especially since it was an adaptation of a pre-existing novel transplanted into the "Pirates" universe.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I haven't seen On Stranger Tides, but I'm curious as to why you think it was 'uninspired', especially since it was an adaptation of a pre-existing novel transplanted into the "Pirates" universe.

Mainly because it felt like it was going through the motions. The new characters weren't very convincing (Well, Blackbeard was ok-ish), Jack Sparrow seemed to have slipped into full on doing whatever for no particular reason mode which made him feel almost completely detached from the plot. The focus was extremely wonky, with an overly long introduction in England and the addition of the Spanish troops as an extra threat despite never actually giving them anything interesting to do, so that they came off as mostly pointless except for the final scene. The choreography seemed kind of rote, as well, and for a lot of movies I wouldn't care, but a Pirates movie without great action is already hanging by a string. Also the whole murderous mermaids/loving mermaid thing was kind of weird, even if the actress did seem sweet.

Nothing against the book, which I haven't read. For all I know its a great read, but the movie adaptation just wasn't very interesting.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ That's fair; I was just curious and figured I'd ask.

I'd like to mention Peter Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy as another 3-film saga that I don't think gets as much appreciation as it deserves because I personally think that, in terms of narrative quality on the whole, the films easily equal their companion/sequel films from the Lord of the Rings Trilogy and together form one of the best multipart film franchises in history.

 

[DonIago]

Ironically I felt like Battle of the Five Armies was way too long when I saw it in the theater (and 48 FPS didn't do it any favors either), but when I saw the extended edition at home it seemed like a better movie despite being longer. I half-jokingly concluded that Jackson simply cut the wrong material when creating the theatrical cut.

 

[Greg Cox]

Nothing against the book, which I haven't read. For all I know its a great read, but the movie adaptation just wasn't very interesting.

Never seen the movie, but the novel by Tim Powers is very good. Have no idea how they squeezed Jack Sparrow into it, though.

The hero of the novel, as I recall, is a naive young puppeteer who eventually becomes a notorious pirate captain and clashes with Blackbeard over the Fountain of Youth.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ They replaced the novel's chief protagonist with Johnny Depp's Captain Jack and added in Gibbs, Barbosa, and other Pirates-exclusive characters as well.

 

[lurok]

Mentioned in the other thread, but I love Carpenter's 'Apocalypse Trilogy' (The Thing, Prince Of Darkness, In The Mouth Of Madness).

 

[marillion]

Mentioned in the other thread, but I love Carpenter's 'Apocalypse Trilogy' (The Thing, Prince Of Darkness, In The Mouth Of Madness).

Are they connected in any way? I LOVE Prince of Darkness.. One of my favorite go-to horror movies, but I had no idea that there was such a thing as an "Apocalypse trilogy"

For me, the Narnia Trilogy is underappreciated. Even the last one, Voyage of The Dawn Treader has some really good qualities, though it suffered from lack of budget and not featuring (even though they were in there a little bit) most of the original cast. Beautifully shot and well acted, I really enjoyed them.

 

[DonIago]

As far as Narnia goes, I enjoyed the first two, particularly Prince Caspian, and have them at home. Sadly I found Dawn Treader lacking in the theater, and couldn't bring myself to pick up a copy. I think part of the issue was that the divergence from the original work there was, for me, more problematic than in the earlier films.

 

[Set Harth]

I half-jokingly concluded that Jackson simply cut the wrong material when creating the theatrical cut.

Yeah, all that Alfrid bullshit needs to go.

 

[suarezguy]

I'd nominate the first three Scream movies, the original was pretty great, both in terms of as a horror film in itself and commentary on older ones, the second relatively disappointing but still good and the third oddly enough seems to gets the least amount of praise as if it was a last gasp but I thought it was also pretty creative and intense, almost as good as the first.
Then came 4, less creative and not particularly needed but still a good epilogue, better than 2.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

The Narnia trilogy is often overlooked, I feel. The movies came out during the height of swords and sorcery genre in Hollywood, had some success but never reached the heights of Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit. Maybe it was marketing or the time of year the films were released, but I just can't figure out why these films didn't perform better or gained the notoriety of their competition.

 

[DonIago]

I commented on Narnia earlier, but I'll just chime in again to say that I think the first movie is good but a little too aimed at kids for my taste (and the Father Christmas thing feels a bit jarring and out of place), the second movie is easily my favorite of the three, and the third is...the less said about it, the better.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

I'm the opposite when it comes to Prince Caspian and Voyage Of The Dawn Treader. I prefer the swashbuckling adventure on the high seas, to the dark coming of age King Arthur story. Not that Prince Caspian is bad. I actually think the movie is an improvement on the book. It's just the way Narnia is presented in PC that I didn't enjoy. Going to Narnia should be fun, magical and adventurous. PC felt like we were dropped into Middle Earth during one of the dark times of that world. While I enjoy the LOTR movies, it's not something I like to see in Narnia. Which is one of the reasons why The Last Battle is my least favorote Narnia book.

 

[DonIago]

(chuckles) I fear we have diametrically opposed viewpoints there, but I admit there are times when I prefer the more fun Narnia as well...though, as far as the movies go, it's a shame we don't get to see much of Narnia at a time when it isn't under siege in some manner.

Though I suppose "The Pevensies go to Narnia and have a few beers with Aslan and Reepicheep" wouldn't make for much of a movie.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

(chuckles) I fear we have diametrically opposed viewpoints there, but I admit there are times when I prefer the more fun Narnia as well...though, as far as the movies go, it's a shame we don't get to see much of Narnia at a time when it isn't under siege in some manner.

Though I suppose "The Pevensies go to Narnia and have a few beers with Aslan and Reepicheep" wouldn't make for much of a movie.

How about a Kings Festival and Tournament as the basis for a movie? The Pevensies go back to Narnia and there is to be a grand festival and numerous lords and ladies from Narnia, the Lone Islands, Archenland and Calormene arrive to participate and compete. Of course all the talking animals and fantasy creatures would be there as well. Either enjoying the festivities or competing as well.

I imagine people would get a kick out of something like that.

 

[DonIago]

I admit my first thought upon reading that is "it sounds like the set-up for a murder mystery."

As a visual thing it sounds cool. As a story idea, "everyone gets together for a tournament" doesn't in and of itself, have a lot of legs, for me.

I think part of what irritated me about DT was that I'd read the book first, and IIRC the White Witch doesn't appear in it at all, while she came up in the movie. It felt like TPTB knew they had a popular character and couldn't let her go even though at this point they really should have.

 

[Dick Whitman]

The Matrix sequels suffered for doing wrong everything the Back to the Future sequels did right.

You have a surprising success of a first film. BTTF was never planned as a trilogy. Even when they started writing a sequel. But the script was way too long and certain ideas were not developed enough. But there was a natural cut off point when Doc gets stranded in the Old West. So they decided to make two films back to back. The Old West scenes which would have just been the last act of the second film, became its own more developed film.

While the first thought on the success of the Matrix was - Let's make a trilogy! It did not matter if they had enough ideas to warrant two sequels right away. It's a mind set that has infected Hollywood since and rarely does it payoff.

The Trilogy that comprises Star Trek II, III, and IV was far from planned either.

It would be refreshing to see more film series which are successful but narratively directionless have a 3rd film create a trilogy by properly revisiting and resolving ideas left dormant.

 

[JD]

Never seen the movie, but the novel by Tim Powers is very good. Have no idea how they squeezed Jack Sparrow into it, though.

The hero of the novel, as I recall, is a naive young puppeteer who eventually becomes a notorious pirate captain and clashes with Blackbeard over the Fountain of Youth.

Is the mermaid stuff something they added for movie? I just skimmed the Wikipedia article for the book and I didn't see a mention of mermaids anywhere.