Okay, so I don't know what started off the whole trilogy thing. Maybe it was the Godfather, or the Dollars trilogy. Answers vary, some even dating as far back as Boris Karloff's stint as Frankenstein in Frankenstein(1931), Bride of Frankenstein(1935), and Son of Frankenstein(1939). I couldn't say for sure, of course - I haven't seen enough films to say for certain, and even if I had my opinion is a drop in the film-review ocean - but what I do know is this:
I utterly hate them.
They ruin movies for me a little bit. With the exception so far of the Hunger Games trilogy (I found the first book to be totally unsatisfying, and the movie wasn't much better, but WOW wasn't Catching Fire awesome in the cinema?!) I find they get worse as they go along, and they would almost invariably have been far better if they'd been kept as single, standalone films and just left, instead of trying to pick up cash from the momentum of the franchise.
Okay, no, that's a bit harsh. I can name several trilogies I think are absolutely brilliant. For a start, there's the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which was three books and thus meant to be a trilogy. There was Toy Story which just went from awesome to I JUST HAVE SOMETHING IN MY EYE, I SWEAR! And though we're not yet onto the second part, I have to say that I love where the Hobbit trilogy is going, I think Peter Jackson crafts some absolutely beautiful movies. Oh, and I will say this: The Matrix trilogy isn't as bad as you say it is. Sure, the second one sucked, but I loved how gritty and dark the third one got while still keeping that over-the-top action going.
Things I haven't added there, and why:
1. The Godfather trilogy because I haven't seen it.
2. Edgar Wright's Blood and Ice Cream/Cornetto trilogy. While I believe they are three of the most wonderfully crafted, lovingly made and quintessentially British films ever made, they are essentially three standalone films with parallel themes and I don't count them as a "true" trilogy because I'm like that. Geez, I'm giving film buffs a whole lotta reasons to hate me, aren't I?
3. It gets worse - the Star Wars original trilogy because it's kinda an unwritten rule that they're on there, but also because, rewatching it, many of the characters I loved before come off as kind of terrible in the first movie. I know V and VI make up for A New Hope, but still, it's got me second-guessing myself about that and as a rule, I don't like to put it up there if I'm umm-ing and aah-ing over it.
But back to the matter at hand. Which is really superhero movies in this case. I liked all those sci-fi and fantasy movies because they managed to produce passable trilogies (heck, I'd even give episodes I-III a pass if Lucas cut Jar-Jar Binks and the midichlorians) and there was no one movie which really set the bar so low that I totally hated it specifically. But with superhero movies, there always seems to be at least one.
I've already been pretty controversial here, I think (I admitted to having problems with the original trilogy, I think that's sacrilege in some religions), but I'm gonna go a little further and say: I liked Spiderman 3. I'm not saying it was the best movie in the world (or even of the trilogy - that accolade belongs to Spiderman 2) but I liked the way it dealt with Peter's dark side, and with the problems of morality in general. Plus, that scene where he danced was kinda kickass. I think it was also for the same reasons I like the Matrix trilogy - it kept all the flash and the fun of the first two, but made it grittier. Leave the big evil for the third act.
And it did what a lot of superhero movies nowadays don't do: it changed things up, right at the end. We went from Norman Osborne's Green Goblin to Dr Octopus to Harry Osborne's Hobgolin teaming up with Spiderman to defeat Venom and Sandman. It had all these new villains coming into play, all the time, and that's something which is really missing from the superpowered genre.
Before I get people telling me that Batman had three completely different enemies, and so did Iron Man and x other movie et cetera et cetera, I want to point out that Bane was part of the secret order which trained Bruce Wayne and I consider him a continuation of Batman Begins and Liam Neeson's own villainous plan, not only because of Neeson's cameo in that film but because SPOILER ALERT Talia al Ghul is the real villain (it's been out for a year and a half, we're not responsible for spoilers now).
And my problem with Iron Man isn't that the villains were never changed up - although they were all power-hungry capitalists-slash-weapons-designers who wanted a closer look at Tony's sweet new suit - it's that Iron Man 2 sucked. Hard.
It's the same with Kick-Ass. There's only been two movies, but I'm expecting a third to be announced any time soon - it's not like them to stop at two. But I wouldn't blame them. Kick-Ass 2 felt a little weak, like we knew the characters couldn't die. All the beatings they took in the first one far outweighed pretty much anything they had to take in the second (with the exception of Hit Girl vs Mother Russia, and the twist they threw in there felt too obvious) and while I get that it was dealing with the pressures of leading a double life, I felt like it wasn't doing it all that well. They weren't exactly keeping it secret that they were Kick Ass and Hit Girl, and every time something fell apart in Dave Lizewski's life it didn't feel all that bad. Except for [SPOILER]. Man, I did not see that coming (it came out this August. I have some rules, y'know).
And with that, onto The Amazing Spiderman. I know the second film hasn't even come out yet, but I hated the way they did the first one, especially the Lizard, and the second one looks like they're just throwing as many villains into the mix as possible and making it even darker and grittier. And forgive me, but I can't see how a skateboarding dude with a popular haircut and a pale complexion can be the little picked-on kid at college, especially not in a post-Twilight America. And I'm still comparing it to Tobey Maguire's Spiderman, which I found immensely more likeable - Andrew Garfield looks cooler, yes, but Maguire had the capacity to do cool and nerdy which I don't think he can pull off.
Having just seen the trailer, however, I want to point out the main reason I think superhero movies, and especially superhero trilogies, really don't work.
Think about it: you've come up with a great idea for a movie involving a superhero. It's brilliant, the people love it, and you thought the big battle at the end couldn't be more epic. And then a few weeks later, you're called into the boardroom at Universal or Disney (they own Marvel, for those of you not in the know!) and they congratulate you, slap you on the back, give you a round of applause.
And then they say "now do another one. But make it bigger."
And therein lies the problem. In the first trailer, we got Spiderman battling the lizard on top of a toppling tower. In this one, we've got Spiderman battling so many different foes on so many toppling towers. Every time you wheel out a superhero, you've got to follow the formula. There is very little room for any difference. Which is why Thor and Captain America are two of my favourite movies right now: Thor gave us a focus on a hero regaining his powers, almost coming at it from the opposite direction to every other movie ever; Captain America had our hero wanting to be heroic from the very beginning, and then when he is he still can't use his powers. They explore the restrictions of heroes, despite their powers, and they do it in a way Batman and Spiderman never could, and Iron Man doesn't even come close to. Most of them focus on the balance between heroic life and normal life - Batman, Spiderman, Kick-ass, even Iron Man. And they do that because that's the heroic formula. They all have that same Spiderman schtick, "With great power comes great responsibility." And that's why the trilogies don't work.
We know that now, you've said it time and again. Now when are you going to tell us a new story?
Adieu!
No comments:
Post a Comment