 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 16, 2013 - 12:34 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
mastadge
(Member)
|
No, he didn't do it all on his own. But many followed him. Lucas pretty much started the "Trilogy" phenomenon.
After the Star Wars trilogy we got, Indiana Jones Trilogy, Matrix Trilogy, Dark Knight Trilogy, Spider-Man Trilogy, Jurassic Park Trilogy, X-Men Trilogy, Men in Black Trilogy, LOTRs Trilogy, The Hobbit Trilogy, etc, etc, etc. (Usually a fourth film comes into the line up after some years when the stars of said trilogy's don't perform so well in other films.)
Many successful films received sequels. And films like The Three Musketeers and Superman were always planned as two consecutive films. But the trilogy is all Lucas's doing. 
This argument feels a bit off to me, largely because I don't think some of these examples really count toward the "trilogy phenomenon" -- Indy was not conceived as a trilogy, it just happened to have a couple sequels before it petered out for more than a decade. The same can be said for Jurassic Park and Men in Black: neither were conceived as trilogies. They just happened to be films successful enough that a couple sequels got made. Spider-Man? Wasn't supposed to be a trilogy, to my knowledge. X-Men? Turned out to be a trilogy, but was that by design? In fact, your list omits one of the best examples, Back to the Future! It also omits The Godfather, of which the first two parts were made before Star Wars came along. And what of the Man With no Name trilogy, which entirely predates Star Wars?
While I certainly agree that George Lucas helped usher in the era of the modern effects blockbuster, the trilogy thing, I'd say, is incidental. A marketing gimmick. By framing a second sequel as the culmination of a trilogy, you can put more butts in seats than if it was just another sequel: it promises increased stakes and a sense of resolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 17, 2013 - 10:55 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
Screw critics. Usually anything I like is put down by them anyway.
I agree. Just about every film I enjoy has been merciliessly ripped apart by critics. (And if not by professional critics, by *somebody* on some website somewhere. You can't please everyone...)
Yes, I miss the late Roger Ebert's 'bravery' to not bow down to elite criticism and just admit when he had a good time at the theater with a movie that isn't suppose to reinvent cinema but just entertain. It seems a lot of critics are afraid to speak out against the grain because it might lose their audience.
And yet with movies like Iron Man 3 they decide to go soft and let it slide simply because it's such a cow milking 'crowd' pleaser... I still can't get over the fact that Avengers & Iron Man 3 have been so successful while they are so mediocre films if you strip down the special effects.
Well, that is nice to hear someone else ding Avengers. It was like the holy grail when it came out. It was okay at best, too many moving parts and way too many characters with tiny little things to say. I found myself rooting for the good guys to be wiped out they are so annoying in that film, especially Iron Man. I do not understand why it was so successful.
Avengers was a "fun" film. It also had some honest to goodness laughs, that weren't toilet humor. I felt generally happy after leaving the theater. It was as close to "Star Wars" as a film has gotten in recent years. Though unlike Star Wars where by the end of the film, I cared about Luke, Lea, Han, the robots, I really didn't care about the Avengers. But you made the correct point. To many characters. Or should I say they needed to focus on one or two characters. Star Wars had many, but it was Luke's story. Avengers, so close yet so far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unless you've actually SEEN the film AFTER EARTH, I wouldn't knock it. I disregarded the publicity and went to see it, and found both film & score enjoyable and worth seeing. Screw critics. Usually anything I like is put down by them anyway.
Maybe Lucas and Spielberg are just jealous of the success of AVENGERS-type event films.
Well, no on your last line. The fact is that After Earth is a commercial bomb, you might like it, but it is a bomb. It probably will end with a $100 million write off for them, at least. That is a huge flop.
Recall Heavens Gate? It was a studio killer, that is what they are talking about just a bigger scale. There are plenty of potential bombs this year that could damage a studio.
Many films find new life after DVD/BR release. AFTER EARTH will likely be one when people discover it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 18, 2013 - 9:15 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Joe E.
(Member)
|
And just to get to both sides, Solium said "He IS responsible for the large scale popcorn franchise business."
Now that is carrying things just a bit far don't you think? There have been a number of factors that generated the relatively mindless blockbuster business in general, and the blockbuster sequels as well. Lucas was certainly one of the prime players in creating that, but just one of them.
No, he didn't do it all on his own. But many followed him. Lucas pretty much started the "Trilogy" phenomenon.
After the Star Wars trilogy we got, Indiana Jones Trilogy, Matrix Trilogy, Dark Knight Trilogy, Spider-Man Trilogy, Jurassic Park Trilogy, X-Men Trilogy, Men in Black Trilogy, LOTRs Trilogy, The Hobbit Trilogy, etc, etc, etc. (Usually a fourth film comes into the line up after some years when the stars of said trilogy's don't perform so well in other films.)
Many successful films received sequels. And films like The Three Musketeers and Superman were always planned as two consecutive films. But the trilogy is all Lucas's doing.
Lots of those weren't planned as trilogies, but rather just ended at whatever point they happened to. Note that the third Men in Black movie also came at a point closer to fitting your description of where a fourth movie "usually" comes in. Note, too, that Lucas' own Indiana Jones series was never exactly a "trilogy" to begin with, even when it was just three movies (the "trilogy" labelling Paramount put on some older home video boxed sets notwithstanding) - the movies don't have the same level of interconnectedness as many of these others, being more episodic (if anything, though, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull might actually qualify as a loose trilogy, while Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom stands a bit farther apart); moreover, the original deal between Lucas/Lucasfilm, Spielberg and Paramount originally called for five movies, and they sort of fell behind along the way. Note further that The Lord of the Rings was originally published as a book trilogy long before Lucas even had the idea for Star Wars, and the LotR movies are adaptations of the books.
Lucas was complaining that the "franchise" business is killing the small personal film business. Considering his 35 year contribution to the franchise business, he is not one to complain. Which was my original point.
Actually, where does it say he was "complaining" at all? The wording used sounds like he's simply making an observation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related to this thread - from the New York Post newspaper, June 9, 2013, Maureen Callahan wrote an interesting article/ book review of "Sleepless in Hollywood - Tales from the New Abnormal in the Movie Business" written by author Lynda Obst.
I did NOT read the book but the information stated regarding it I believe pretty much summarizes an overview of the current (sad?) state of movie films. Always reaching for the bottom line.
The article online is at:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/books/what_went_wrong_with_n0rJu0ygy4BMa7QEV3oc7H/0
Any opinions? Disagree or agree?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
