Superhero films: Trilogy or series?

Superhero films: Trilogy or series?

I will explain my opinion of why I feel superhero movies are best kept as trilogies rather than risking it unless truely necassary.

Editorial Opinion
By EdgyOutsider - Oct 06, 2012 01:10 PM EST
Filed Under: Other

I've been seeing ALOT of complaints about how it's bullcrap that superhero movies end with trilogies and that they should continue as long as they can go. The problem with this is why do a series of films past a trilogy? James Bond worked for 50 years because it's a different actor and a different story but same character, there were no limitations. Harry Potter worked because the entire series was already out and done, they just had to adapt them. Comicbook movies, particularly the superhero comicbook movies require a little bit of imagination and also adapting them faithfully. You can't go fully creative because that will piss of the fans but at the same time you can't fully adapt the comic frame for frame because it will show no creativity and it would get pointless. The Superman and Batman film franchises prove that going too far into a story for a single franchise can really make it stale and people would get sick of it as well as the films progressively getting worse. It's these examples why I feel that most superhero franchises should stick with trilogies. Wait a couple decades and then reboot it because there is always an someone with a vision for the character and they'll want to share it with the world.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe has different franchises all going on at the same time. Yes, Avengers is it's own franchise. I understand that these movies are meant to be franchises and I understand that but are fans really wanting to push the franchises as far as they can go before they get stale and tiring? Quite frankly, I don't see how it's worth it. I've said before that The Avengers can be the exception where it can go: The Avengers (I don't need to explain anything about it), The Avengers 2, Avengers 3 and finally the Civil War. Avengers 2 would have Ultron as the villain, Avengers 3 would be the Infinity Gauntlet storyline and then the fourth and final would be the Civil War storyline. These are just my ideas and I feel they can help make one of the best franchises and most epic franchises in the genre and in history of films. I would do the same for Justice League but I know nothing about them other than the roster and Darkseid and I would want them to seperate themselves from Marvel's The Avengers.

Superhero franchises are suppose to be a series of films, that I will agree. But, even the genre has limitations. I personally would wanna go a trilogy, 4 movies at most in order to try and avoid getting stale, boring and just flat out bad.

This is what I think. Comment below and be respectful. You don't have to like my opinions but I think you should respect it without getting upset about it.

New Academy Rules State Generative AI Use Will Not Impact Oscar Eligibility
Related:

New Academy Rules State Generative AI Use Will Not Impact Oscar Eligibility

F1: THE MOVIE Social Media Reactions Hail It As The TOP GUN: MAVERICK Of Racing Movies
Recommended For You:

F1: THE MOVIE Social Media Reactions Hail It As The TOP GUN: MAVERICK Of Racing Movies

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

kong
kong - 10/6/2012, 2:46 PM
It all depends. The Chris Nolan Batman films could keep on going for a while if Chris Nolan didn't want to conclude it at TDKR. It just depends. Star Wras, Harry Potter, James Bond. All successful series that go over 3 films. Yeah Harry Potter was already established as a book, but you said we'd get sick of a series. The Harry potter series started in 2001 and stopped in 2011. That would also mean multiple reboots. Marvel and DC will strain out the characters movies until the actor gets old. Then they'll either get a replacement and continue on or reboot it within 5 years.
Tainted87
Tainted87 - 10/6/2012, 3:13 PM
Superman and Batman are really poor examples. Superman was the first superhero movie, and the series that followed likewise, was the first to keep starring Superman in the spirit of Richard Donner's adaptation. Superman was not defined in Hollywood by the comics, but rather, by what the filmmakers felt like adapting... and even then they were lost.

It's why you just had Lex over and over again, why Brainiac was distilled down to a super-intelligent computer, why Bizarro became Nuclear Man in a movie that didn't make ANY sense... and so on and so forth.

Batman, on the other hand, took a lot from the comics and squeezed them together. References were made to the Dark Knight Returns and the Killing Joke, while attempting to make the character gothic and enigmatic... but with Burton's spin. The Batman movies that followed were poor renditions with little to no inspiration from the comic books, and were essentially trying to replicate a style over and over again, with characters from the 60s tv series. It's why Two-Face is wacky and why Tommy Lee Jones was trying to play Caesar Romero.

I say we give up trying to pin a superhero into three movies - three points of interest. A character is all the more interesting when thrown into diverse scenarios - you see how he or she copes with different situations.

Warner Bros has the advantage - they own all the rights to DC characters, so Batman can actually travel to Metropolis, Flash can punch Brainiac, Grodd can get flicked away by Superman, Martian Manhunter can travel to Gotham on business. A character's journey can transcend their own "series" and they can be involved with another hero's business.

And it won't get stale.
lokibane2012
lokibane2012 - 10/6/2012, 5:05 PM
All you need to carry a franchise to more than three movies is someone putting in efforts to actually make a good movie.

Batman 3&4 were shit because they were toy commercials. Superman 3&4 were shit because it was the first proper superhero film series and they hadn't quite figured out how to do it. Besides, one of them was a lame propaganda piece --which already shows 'best possible film' not being a priority.

James Bond, Harry Potter, and now LOTR/Hobbit will certainly join are all franchises that tried their best in EVERY film, and so it worked out just fine. It even paid off big at the box office.

And Nolan's films ending at a trilogy was actually pretty weak. It never felt like this is how it was meant to be from the beginning. It felt like there were missing chapters in Bruce's life. It didn't all tie together very well anyways. It was just... off.

So if anything, Nolan's TDKR was actually an example of not forcing a series to end at just 3 films, when there is so much more you can and should do with the franchise.
jimmyjay88
jimmyjay88 - 10/6/2012, 6:03 PM
i agree with lokibane2012 if done right franchises can be amazing, also agree with comments about the Dark Knight Rises
marvelstudios
marvelstudios - 10/6/2012, 8:04 PM
I like what Marvel is doing - making a superhero universe with different heroes.
ThunderKat
ThunderKat - 10/6/2012, 8:05 PM
Would you please edit and spell check.

I don't think you made a very persuasive point.

It's looking more and more like two movies expel all the creative juices.

IM2, S-M3, and TDKR prove that maybe the original director with the original cast has reached his limit. IM2 was a rehash. S-M3 was a mess of a rehash. And TDKR was a mess and unlikable.
EdgyOutsider
EdgyOutsider - 10/6/2012, 8:55 PM
Thunderkat: TDKR was very enjoyable, I have no idea what the big deal is on hating that movie. Iron Man 2 wasn't bad but it wasn't a rehash.

Also, I'm gonna say this to everyone (I don't mean to come off snarky) but I'm certainly tired of people telling me to edit my editorials whether it's for spellcheck or something else. If I post an article, I'm not going to go back just because I mis-seplled a couple of times. No article is perfect, I've seen editorials where some of the more "popular" people on here have spelling mistakes. Read an article for the sake of reading it, don't judge it because of a couple spelling errors.
Wallymelon
Wallymelon - 10/6/2012, 10:22 PM
i feel you on this article, only i think certain franchises should continue past a 3rd movie into a 4th and possibly more. films with actors who strongly portray the character like hugh jackman and wolverine. i would love to see a 4th iron man mainly because iron man 2 was such a throw away film. but im fine if iron man 3 is the last iron man with rdj and he just focuses on the avengers and ends his contract. but i really doubt that. but yeah i could see hugh jackman never giving up wolverine playing him into his old age. i think it would be awesome. that fool is wolverine.
AC1
AC1 - 10/7/2012, 7:12 AM
I think if you plan how a series would work before hand, then they don't necessarily need to stick to a trilogy. But they definitely shouldn't keep making films like there will be no end (unless it's James Bond). Sometimes, a trilogy might not be enough to tell a story. Sometimes you might need 4, 5, 6, or more films. It all depends on if ideas are planned in advance.
AC1
AC1 - 10/7/2012, 7:18 AM
And yeah, lokibane's point about The Dark Knight Rises sort of backs up my point too. I mean, while I feel the trilogy approach was probably best for Nolan's series, I also felt like huge chapters of Bruce's life and career as Batman had been missed out. I mean when you think about it, he is only active as Batman for about 6 months across the course of all three films. In many ways, The Dark Knight would've been a better way to end the series, and just leave it as a two-parter. That one seemed like a more fitting ending to the series than The Dark Knight Rises did IMO. It ended with a sense that Batman had done what he had to do, at the cost of a lot of things that were important to him, and that saving Gotham and retirement would've been his reward. The Dark Knight Rises only really works because it undoes the ending of The Dark Knight only to redo it in a slightly less convincing way.

So trilogies aren't always the best approach. Sometimes they shouldn't even reach a third film, and sometimes three just isn't enough.
ThunderKat
ThunderKat - 10/7/2012, 7:31 PM
Lizard,

Your article/editorial is more persuasive or convincing the better written it is. Why not show some pride and format, spell check, and revise?
View Recorder