Why does every movie series have to be in sets of three? Most movies have three acts in them to begin with, so why not make all movies standalone? And not all franchises end movies in trilogies, anyway, as they will expand them with more sequels and so on.
I don't see why trilogies are so important to Hollywood.
Post this on general discussion, stop spamming the TROS board with your pointless threads
shareStop telling other posters what to do. This Disney Star Wars insult is a trilogy--ergo, this discussion is appropriate. Persist in telling other posters what to do and I will report you to the moderators.
shareCalm down. He’s asking a legitimate question.
shareTrilogies bring three times the money of the same idea that could be done in one movie.
shareIf you want to develop a story that takes more than a single movie, three movies (maybe four) works quite well: one movie to introduce the bigger arc, one movie (or two) to develop and deepen the conflict, one movie to finally solve it.
Of course, that's no always the case, or better said, the cause. The new trilogy didn't have any big story in mind. It was a trilogy because of marketing. It sounds cool, important, deep: 'trilogy'. Abrams made a first movie leaving lots of open threads and without having much idea about how they would work out later (as usual), and RJ didn't know what to do with them. The whole 'trilogy' thing was just a forced marketing stuff.
I think most trilogies were still just innocent cash grabs until Lord of the Rings came along. Three movies is just about right to shake down fans for all they were worth. Then the notion of epic story telling came along. Even the OT of Star Wars isn't a very good trilogy. Empire was clearly a money grab sequel where they just wanted to bring everybody back for some more special effects adventure. And then they're jumping through hoops like crazy in ROTJ to make it all mean something. Trilogies are yesterday's news these days anyhow. Everything has gotta be 10 movies long. If they were locked into existing trilogy structure with Star Wars, these films probably would have been ongoing. Even the scifi novel genre this is all based on long ago abandoned trilogy structure as their authors wrote further and further books in their cycles.
shareFor the original books, LOTR was three parts (in books) anyway, so a trilogy is the natural fit. The Hobbit, however, wasn't, as it was one relatively small book by comparison. The filler for that horrible Hobbit trilogy was from the appendices at the end of the third LOTR book, except for Super Legolas, which was a movie invention (Legolas was not in the Hobbit).