With the propagation of “Part 3’s” being released this year (Spider-Man 3, Shrek the Third, Pirates…, et cetera, et cetera), I have come to ponder the meaning of the word “Trilogy” and it’s gross misuse, primarily by marketers, clever journalists, and not-so-clever message board posters. The assumption is, once a movie series numbers three, it is a trilogy, but is that truly so? Should three installments be the singular factor in judging the existence of a trilogy? If a forth movie in the series should be made, does that negate the trilogy status of the first three, and by extension, were they a true trilogy to begin with? Can it be further extrapolated that the first installment was always part of a larger trilogy before the third (or even second) movie was made?
I realize, this is mostly semantics, but these are important distinctions. Let’s take two of this year’s closing trilogies, Spider-Man and Pirates of the Caribbean. Now, the first films of both of these series stand alone movies, i.e. they have a clear ending that leaves no major plot threads dangling. Of course, both of these movies were fully intended to kickoff franchises and leave the promise of sequels. Certainly, if either of these movies bombed at the box office, there would have been no need for further adventures of Toby Maguire’s Peter Parker and Johnny Depp’s Captain Jack Sparrow. Still, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (if ever there was an unwieldy title that could only indicate a francise picture) ends with Johnny Depp sailing away in search of another adventure, and the last scene of Spider-Man shows Peter Parker not getting girl-next-door Mary Jane Watson but rejecting her to continue his double-life as Spider-Man. If anything, this scene in Spider-Man does demand a sequel because it so clearly says, “This story is not over.” They might have gotten away with it though.
This is where the similarities end, however. When we get to the sequels, Spider-Man 2 and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest, the stories of our heroes continue but with very different structures.
Spider-Man 2 continues Peter Parker’s story and gives him a new villain. By the end of the movie, the villain is vanquished and Parker gets the girl, effectively ending this chapter in the Spider-Man story, which many consider to be not only the best of the Spider-Man franchise but the best comic book movie ever. It also gives further promise of a sequel, with Harry Osborne (James Franco) presumably taking up the mantle of the Green Goblin to be Parker’s adversery next time around. Spider-Man 3 effectively ties up all those angsty strands from the first two movies as well as amping up it’s own plot with two other villains giving the Spider-Man franchise a finale on a grand scale. Three movies, each with singular plots but carrying along character and story threads that are wrapped up in the end. Sure, they could make a sequel, but the end of Spider-Man 3 does not demand one. It practically demands there not be one. The story as it is in the films is finished. Sounds like a trilogy to me.
Now, back to Pirates. Dead Man’s Chest did not so much continue the adventures of Johnny Depp and company as give them a new one. This time facing off against Davy Jones and (of all things) the East India Trading Company which is dead set on wiping out all pirate activity around the globe. There is still, of course, the continuing romance between Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly, but we pretty much have a whole new adventure kicking off with new allies and new adverseries. That is absolutely left unresolved at the end of the movie. It ends on the grandest of cliffhangers, with Captain Jack getting pulled down into Davy Jones’ Locker and the rest of our merry band of misfits resolving to rescue him. By the third film, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End, Jack not only has to escape from the underworld, but (in a plot whose mechanations I will not begin to describe) our heroes still have the forces of both Davy Jones and that pesky British monopoly of the seas to contend with. Which, of course, they do in an epic battle befitting the end of a trilogy.
But is it a trilogy? Aye, there’s the rub. The franchise seems to come to a conclusion, though it certainly leaves open the possibility of more adventures for Jack Sparrow and crew (and the forces of Disney and commerce would certainly demand another sequels). Even if there is not and the series ends at three, is this a trilogy? Certainly, Curse of the Black Pearl, Dead Man’s Chest, and At World’s End are three parts of a franchise, but they are not equal parts. I would even go so far to say that they are not parts of the same story. Curse of the Black Pearl has it’s own story that it nicely resolves on it’s own, whereas Dead Man’s Chest and At World’s End encompass a singular story broken up into two parts. So, the Pirates franchise may have three installments, but I say that does not make it a trilogy.
So, what does this mean for our perception of trilogies? Can we still call Star Wars a trilogy (despite the fact that it’s a 6-part saga)? What about The Lord of the Rings (a singular novel in 6 books, but collected in 3 parts as well as 3 movies)? Back to the Future? The Matrix? Could Lethal Weapon have been considered a trilogy from 3’s release in 1992 and 4 in 1998? Could Die Hard (it’s fourth installment forthcoming)?
Like I said, this is all semantics. And I still haven’t put forth my theory on a series of films that contain a trilogy. (Watch Star Trek II, III, and IV, and tell me what you think.) And what happens when a franchise is taken over by a creative team different from those who began it (Alien, Terminator)?
All I’m really getting at is perhaps we should not be so hasty in labelling trilogies. Just look at the Hitch-hiker’s Trilogy.
