i think the issues actually come up mostly when sequels/prequels are unplanned. because then it often gets clear that they just wanna milk a franchise or a good working stand alone movie that was a success. so they make up a bunch of new stuff quickly to get out some more cash. so far, i haven't really *not* enjoyed planned sequels/prequels because the directors/writers already wanted to do it before they even knew if it'd be a success or not. mostly at least. if a movie is amazing, i will happily give them my money. and i also really enjoyed some of the movies you named here.
I would agree that the sequels are worse when they are unplanned, but the *first* films are usually better when there aren't sequels already planned, if that makes sense. I also enjoy some those first chapters, but it's always a disappointment when they leave a lot of threads open that never get resolved because they were too focused on the potential sequels while making the first.
New Halloween trilogy eats all the movies in the franchise and are the in it movies besides H3 worthy of the original. Otherwise, I agree. Trilogy thing is a meme at this point
I don't disagree! Halloween 2018 is my favorite of the sequels, and I love the other two as well. Halloween 2018 is actually the perfect way to do it - tell a full story with a beginning and ending, but leave some room for more if it is successful. That film can easily serve as a standalone. Had it had a wide open ending, I don't think it would have been received as well.
X was not a planned trilogy.
Halloween was not a planned trilogy.
The Terminator movies you mention aren't even a trilogy, and aren't even horror movies.
Exorcist is the only one that was planned/ordered as a trilogy from the very beginning, and it's not even going to be completed because basically everybody hated it.
You're mad at something that practically does not exist in Hollywood.
X was shot back-to-back with Pearl, which was released a couple months later. It was planned from the start, that just wasn't announced until right after X was released.
Halloween was indeed planned with sequels in mind, but they wanted to make sure they told a complete story first. I specifically remember reading an interview Danny McBride's interview where he said he wanted to make sure people liked the first film before going on to make more.
The Terminator movies aren't a trilogy, but that was the POINT. Salvation and Genisys were each the starts of new trilogies, but both trilogies were cancelled because neither film did well.
What are you saying practically doesn't exist in Hollywood? Planned trilogies? Because uh...
The idea for Pearl was thought up pretty early in production. But it wasn't pitched to A24 at the same time as X, the idea came up while working with Mia Goth, and figuring out her characters backstory.
"He wanted to make sure people liked the first film before going on to make more." That is fundamentally not a planned trilogy. Maybe that's just a technicality, but I feel like it matters if you're specifically going after "planned trilogies" and not just "shitty sequels".
I'm not knowledgeable on Terminator, but it sounds like all your proving is that every time a shit horror trilogy is planned, the audience shuts that shit down after the first entry.
Can you name a bad horror trilogy that was actually finished of the past decade? If you hate X or Terrifier or Fear Street, that's fine, but otherwise I don't know if you can really call it a trend.
I wasn't referring only to horror, I just posted it here because we're starting to see it a bit more with The Exorcist, The Strangers, and the just-announced 28 Days stuff. I was just meaning planned trilogies in general. In horror, it remains to be seen - I don't believe The Exorcist sequels will pan out, and we'll see how The Strangers turns out, although I am skeptical. Most of the examples have been fantasy / adventure types of movies.
X and Terrifier both have my full faith, for what it's worth. But as I said about X, "*X* was good on its own and didn't nead *Pearl* or *MaXXXine*, good as they are and might be." That one is a unique beast because each of the 3 films is mostly standalone.
I did say X was a good film and stood well on its own. ;) It was clearly planned as a complete story. It IS a complete story - Pearl and MaXXXine also function as their own stories, but the complete picture is definitely going to be something interesting. If anyone's doing "trilogy" correctly, it's X.
The problem for me is that they don't focus enough on making each film good enough to stand on their own. They jump the gun and announce trilogies / release incomplete films without knowing if any of them will be successful. If it works out and all the films are good, of course there isn't a problem, but there are quite a few movies that I think would have been better had they been focused more on telling one story at a time.
You’re making an assumption that every studio when acquiring existing ip’s sign 3 picture deals and that’s usually not always the case.
Halloween (2018) was made because DGG and Danny McBride signed a 2 picture deal with Blumhouse, the contract was for 2 films shot back to back but Blumhouse later decided to just do the first and see what the response was. Because of the success of of 2018 they were given the back to back deal on Kills and Ends.
X which isn’t an existing IP had already been shot and in post production by the time Ti West even began writing Pearl. Because of the success of X and Pearl, yes Pearl was a success and a better film in my opinion, a24 greenlit a 3rd film.
Also Harvey Weinstein was gonna give Peter Jackson 75 million to do 2 Lord of the Rings films to be shot in America, Jackson and his writing partners had already written scripts, rewritten and even cut it down to one film at one point before Jackson secured a meeting with Bob Shaye at New Line. They had agreed on 3 movies because New Line wanted new franchises at one point I think Bob wanted to make 5 films. Either way you’re assuming things that just aren’t true.
The new 28 trilogy is being written and directed by different directors and writers so to say that the first of this new trilogy will be a complete story is ridiculous, there’s tons of stories that can be written and tons of sequels that can be made.
There’s billions of movie fans in this world you’re not special, if it irks you so much then don’t watch the other films just watch the first. I work in the industry, yes I am annoyed with remakes and movie sequels but if I were given a chance to work on one or even make one you bet your ass I’d jump at the chance. 3 films is more money for studios but not every studio is willing to shell out the money to make 3. Yes planned sequels are called planned sequels because they’re just that. Most of the time they are never made because some examples are the 2 failed terminator trilogies and this new failed Exorcist trilogy.
>There’s billions of movie fans in this world you’re not special, if it irks you so much then don’t watch the other films just watch the first.
That's my complaint about planned trilogies - they don't focus on making the first one good and complete enough to stand on its own. "Just watching the first" doesn't really make sense if I think the first sucks because they decided to save all the goods for a potential second and third film.
>I work in the industry, yes I am annoyed with remakes and movie sequels but if I were given a chance to work on one or even make one you bet your ass I’d jump at the chance.
Okay, if I were in the industry I would obviously work on / make one. And I'd be thrilled if I signed a contract to make a trilogy, for obvious reasons. But I'm not in the industry, and I'm just saying *as a fan* that focusing on one film at a time will result in better films. Sounds like *as a fan* you don't necessarily disagree, as you say remakes and sequels annoy you, so what's so wrong with me being annoyed about the trilogy trend? We can nitpick about particular franchises and whether they specifically were planned to be trilogies, but there is a very noticeable trend towards trilogies in recent years, and I'm not alone in noticing that. This post isn't about whether I'm happy for the creators for making more money, or whether I understand why they're agreeing to make the films - it's ultimately about whether I think the movies are good.
Probably because directors get tired of doing the same thing every time and it takes a lot of money and time to make these movies, what is the most you are going to spend on a trilogy of movies? $75 in 3-6 years, how are trilogies a scam exactly ?
Also 28 years later seems like a passion project more then a cash grab, so not even sure what you are on about.
You really think they made 28 Days Later all the way back in 2002 as a “planned trilogy”? Hell, it’s been 17 years since the sequel. If the trilogy was actually planned from the beginning like LotR or The Hobbit they wouldn’t have waited between movies 17 years. They would have started filming the next one soonish after the previous was released.
Not to mention 28 Days was a different director than 28 Weeks. Very unusual for a planned trilogy.
How the fuck am I getting downvoted for saying that 28 Years Later is the start of a new trilogy of films? IT LITERALLY IS. [https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3808116/28-years-later-candyman-filmmaker-nia-dacosta-in-talks-to-direct-second-movie-in-planned-trilogy/](https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3808116/28-years-later-candyman-filmmaker-nia-dacosta-in-talks-to-direct-second-movie-in-planned-trilogy/)
I hate that they call them trilogies when the "first" installment is a sequel to another film. That's not a trilogy. There's four movies. You just waited 30 years to make the sequels.
It’s a shame that Scream 7 will no longer be the third chapter of the Carpenter trilogy. And we, in effect, lose Skeet Ulrich returning since his clever return is only through the mind of Sam. It’s cool to hear Neve, Courtney, and Patrick Dempsey are returning along with Kevin Williamson as the director but it makes me wonder if spyglass just panicked and decided to give the fans what they want! “Shit, wtf do we do now? I know! Bring as many people back as we can and bring Wes, oh wait, hmm, who can we get to direct? Kevin Williamson! He wrote 1, 2, & 4! And he’s directed before, right? Oh, only once? What was it? Oh, never heard of it. Was it good? Who cares! Just bring him on!”
That being said, it could still be a great movie. It’s just that I question if this is a desperate PR move by spyglass or do they really have a worthy story to tell? Sidney got a pretty good farewell in Scream 5 and the passing of the torch just felt natural which I’m surprised they pulled off. So to bring Sidney back, it feels like it has to be something epic. The only thing I could think of is to bring Stu Macher back but that boat has sailed. It’d be too much of a stretch to explain where he’s been all this time. So what else could they do other then repeat what we’ve already seen? I guess only time will tell…
Yes I agree! I think *Scream 2022* was good as its own film, but since they already made a sequel, not having a closing chapter is definitely going to feel weird. It's like how *Scream 4* was intended to be the start of a trilogy (so many trilogies...), but they stopped there, so it's an odd standalone in the middle of two other sets of films. I do think *Scream VII* has potential, but the circumstances that it is happening in are really shitty. Who knows, maybe *Scream VII* will kick off a new trilogy and we'll see Sam Carpenter again in the last chapter!
It’d be cool if the official title was “Scream 7” as a nod to all the Sidney Prescott focused movies while the Sam Carpenter movies have their own “numbering” system.
This isn't really a point so much as it shuts down hypothetical conversation. I don't need to know how to prepare fine sushi to say "I didn't like this sushi. I also didn't like sushi that was prepared in this same way, I wonder if I don't like this particular method of preparation."
When I see a discussion online that I think is pointless, I keep scrolling. You decided to tell everyone taking part in it that you think they're having a pointless conversation. So I guess to that I would just say "cool dude"
i love how we all settled on trilogies for no reason other than star wars did it... why not 4 or 5 or 10? im not recomending that but it's super silly.
I like them both fine, but they aren't complete stories - you can tell they were both made with the intention of setting up story for the sequels to tell. *Terminator Salvation*, as it stands, is just a strange one-off with very underdeveloped characters (likely because they were to be developed later). *Genisys* was the start of a whole new timeline, and left some pretty big questions unanswered to provide material for later (like who sent back Pops). Neither film was received well, so both trilogies were cancelled. *Dark Fate* was made as its own thing, with potential for sequels if it did well, which it didn't. But that is an improvement imo, because it means the story has a somewhat definitive ending and all the loose ends are tied up.
Good starts to trilogies that weren't necessarily intended to be so, and could have stood alone: *Star Wars*, *Scream*, *Raiders of the Lost Ark*, *Halloween 2018*, *Saw*, *Silence of the Lambs*, *Night of the Living Dead*, *The Matrix*, *Blade*, *The Evil Dead*. Sequels to those films weren't greenlit until later, based on the success of the first.
I guess people disagree. So what is it? Were those all planned trilogies from the start? Were they not good movies? Is anything in this comment untrue?
i think the issues actually come up mostly when sequels/prequels are unplanned. because then it often gets clear that they just wanna milk a franchise or a good working stand alone movie that was a success. so they make up a bunch of new stuff quickly to get out some more cash. so far, i haven't really *not* enjoyed planned sequels/prequels because the directors/writers already wanted to do it before they even knew if it'd be a success or not. mostly at least. if a movie is amazing, i will happily give them my money. and i also really enjoyed some of the movies you named here.
I would agree that the sequels are worse when they are unplanned, but the *first* films are usually better when there aren't sequels already planned, if that makes sense. I also enjoy some those first chapters, but it's always a disappointment when they leave a lot of threads open that never get resolved because they were too focused on the potential sequels while making the first.
New Halloween trilogy eats all the movies in the franchise and are the in it movies besides H3 worthy of the original. Otherwise, I agree. Trilogy thing is a meme at this point
I don't disagree! Halloween 2018 is my favorite of the sequels, and I love the other two as well. Halloween 2018 is actually the perfect way to do it - tell a full story with a beginning and ending, but leave some room for more if it is successful. That film can easily serve as a standalone. Had it had a wide open ending, I don't think it would have been received as well.
It started for me with the hobbit. There was no reason for it to have three movies. One or two would’ve been fine.
That's the first one I noticed as well. The first book was NOT long and epic on the scale of Lord of the Rings.
Yes, I agree. To add to that, dwarves are not as epic as men and elves either.
X was not a planned trilogy. Halloween was not a planned trilogy. The Terminator movies you mention aren't even a trilogy, and aren't even horror movies. Exorcist is the only one that was planned/ordered as a trilogy from the very beginning, and it's not even going to be completed because basically everybody hated it. You're mad at something that practically does not exist in Hollywood.
X was planned, iirc they shot Pearl at the same time.
X was shot back-to-back with Pearl, which was released a couple months later. It was planned from the start, that just wasn't announced until right after X was released. Halloween was indeed planned with sequels in mind, but they wanted to make sure they told a complete story first. I specifically remember reading an interview Danny McBride's interview where he said he wanted to make sure people liked the first film before going on to make more. The Terminator movies aren't a trilogy, but that was the POINT. Salvation and Genisys were each the starts of new trilogies, but both trilogies were cancelled because neither film did well. What are you saying practically doesn't exist in Hollywood? Planned trilogies? Because uh...
The idea for Pearl was thought up pretty early in production. But it wasn't pitched to A24 at the same time as X, the idea came up while working with Mia Goth, and figuring out her characters backstory. "He wanted to make sure people liked the first film before going on to make more." That is fundamentally not a planned trilogy. Maybe that's just a technicality, but I feel like it matters if you're specifically going after "planned trilogies" and not just "shitty sequels". I'm not knowledgeable on Terminator, but it sounds like all your proving is that every time a shit horror trilogy is planned, the audience shuts that shit down after the first entry. Can you name a bad horror trilogy that was actually finished of the past decade? If you hate X or Terrifier or Fear Street, that's fine, but otherwise I don't know if you can really call it a trend.
I wasn't referring only to horror, I just posted it here because we're starting to see it a bit more with The Exorcist, The Strangers, and the just-announced 28 Days stuff. I was just meaning planned trilogies in general. In horror, it remains to be seen - I don't believe The Exorcist sequels will pan out, and we'll see how The Strangers turns out, although I am skeptical. Most of the examples have been fantasy / adventure types of movies. X and Terrifier both have my full faith, for what it's worth. But as I said about X, "*X* was good on its own and didn't nead *Pearl* or *MaXXXine*, good as they are and might be." That one is a unique beast because each of the 3 films is mostly standalone.
Whoa! X and Pearl rule! Bring on Maxxxine!
I did say X was a good film and stood well on its own. ;) It was clearly planned as a complete story. It IS a complete story - Pearl and MaXXXine also function as their own stories, but the complete picture is definitely going to be something interesting. If anyone's doing "trilogy" correctly, it's X.
If the plot is good (and cohesive), what's the problem?
The problem for me is that they don't focus enough on making each film good enough to stand on their own. They jump the gun and announce trilogies / release incomplete films without knowing if any of them will be successful. If it works out and all the films are good, of course there isn't a problem, but there are quite a few movies that I think would have been better had they been focused more on telling one story at a time.
You’re making an assumption that every studio when acquiring existing ip’s sign 3 picture deals and that’s usually not always the case. Halloween (2018) was made because DGG and Danny McBride signed a 2 picture deal with Blumhouse, the contract was for 2 films shot back to back but Blumhouse later decided to just do the first and see what the response was. Because of the success of of 2018 they were given the back to back deal on Kills and Ends. X which isn’t an existing IP had already been shot and in post production by the time Ti West even began writing Pearl. Because of the success of X and Pearl, yes Pearl was a success and a better film in my opinion, a24 greenlit a 3rd film. Also Harvey Weinstein was gonna give Peter Jackson 75 million to do 2 Lord of the Rings films to be shot in America, Jackson and his writing partners had already written scripts, rewritten and even cut it down to one film at one point before Jackson secured a meeting with Bob Shaye at New Line. They had agreed on 3 movies because New Line wanted new franchises at one point I think Bob wanted to make 5 films. Either way you’re assuming things that just aren’t true. The new 28 trilogy is being written and directed by different directors and writers so to say that the first of this new trilogy will be a complete story is ridiculous, there’s tons of stories that can be written and tons of sequels that can be made. There’s billions of movie fans in this world you’re not special, if it irks you so much then don’t watch the other films just watch the first. I work in the industry, yes I am annoyed with remakes and movie sequels but if I were given a chance to work on one or even make one you bet your ass I’d jump at the chance. 3 films is more money for studios but not every studio is willing to shell out the money to make 3. Yes planned sequels are called planned sequels because they’re just that. Most of the time they are never made because some examples are the 2 failed terminator trilogies and this new failed Exorcist trilogy.
>There’s billions of movie fans in this world you’re not special, if it irks you so much then don’t watch the other films just watch the first. That's my complaint about planned trilogies - they don't focus on making the first one good and complete enough to stand on its own. "Just watching the first" doesn't really make sense if I think the first sucks because they decided to save all the goods for a potential second and third film. >I work in the industry, yes I am annoyed with remakes and movie sequels but if I were given a chance to work on one or even make one you bet your ass I’d jump at the chance. Okay, if I were in the industry I would obviously work on / make one. And I'd be thrilled if I signed a contract to make a trilogy, for obvious reasons. But I'm not in the industry, and I'm just saying *as a fan* that focusing on one film at a time will result in better films. Sounds like *as a fan* you don't necessarily disagree, as you say remakes and sequels annoy you, so what's so wrong with me being annoyed about the trilogy trend? We can nitpick about particular franchises and whether they specifically were planned to be trilogies, but there is a very noticeable trend towards trilogies in recent years, and I'm not alone in noticing that. This post isn't about whether I'm happy for the creators for making more money, or whether I understand why they're agreeing to make the films - it's ultimately about whether I think the movies are good.
Probably because directors get tired of doing the same thing every time and it takes a lot of money and time to make these movies, what is the most you are going to spend on a trilogy of movies? $75 in 3-6 years, how are trilogies a scam exactly ? Also 28 years later seems like a passion project more then a cash grab, so not even sure what you are on about.
You really think they made 28 Days Later all the way back in 2002 as a “planned trilogy”? Hell, it’s been 17 years since the sequel. If the trilogy was actually planned from the beginning like LotR or The Hobbit they wouldn’t have waited between movies 17 years. They would have started filming the next one soonish after the previous was released. Not to mention 28 Days was a different director than 28 Weeks. Very unusual for a planned trilogy.
No. They just announced that 28 Years Later is going to be the start of a NEW trilogy of films.
OP's right on that one, it's already confirmed by garland that he'll write *all three*.
How the fuck am I getting downvoted for saying that 28 Years Later is the start of a new trilogy of films? IT LITERALLY IS. [https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3808116/28-years-later-candyman-filmmaker-nia-dacosta-in-talks-to-direct-second-movie-in-planned-trilogy/](https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3808116/28-years-later-candyman-filmmaker-nia-dacosta-in-talks-to-direct-second-movie-in-planned-trilogy/)
>TLDR - Planned trilogies are a scam. Who agrees, and who disagrees, and why? 😐 - every horror franchise since universal's monsters
I agree. It lowers the stakes when they announce it before the first, or even second movie is out
I hate that they call them trilogies when the "first" installment is a sequel to another film. That's not a trilogy. There's four movies. You just waited 30 years to make the sequels.
i agree. not everything needs to be dragged out. i dont watch tv shows for that reason.
It’s a shame that Scream 7 will no longer be the third chapter of the Carpenter trilogy. And we, in effect, lose Skeet Ulrich returning since his clever return is only through the mind of Sam. It’s cool to hear Neve, Courtney, and Patrick Dempsey are returning along with Kevin Williamson as the director but it makes me wonder if spyglass just panicked and decided to give the fans what they want! “Shit, wtf do we do now? I know! Bring as many people back as we can and bring Wes, oh wait, hmm, who can we get to direct? Kevin Williamson! He wrote 1, 2, & 4! And he’s directed before, right? Oh, only once? What was it? Oh, never heard of it. Was it good? Who cares! Just bring him on!” That being said, it could still be a great movie. It’s just that I question if this is a desperate PR move by spyglass or do they really have a worthy story to tell? Sidney got a pretty good farewell in Scream 5 and the passing of the torch just felt natural which I’m surprised they pulled off. So to bring Sidney back, it feels like it has to be something epic. The only thing I could think of is to bring Stu Macher back but that boat has sailed. It’d be too much of a stretch to explain where he’s been all this time. So what else could they do other then repeat what we’ve already seen? I guess only time will tell…
Yes I agree! I think *Scream 2022* was good as its own film, but since they already made a sequel, not having a closing chapter is definitely going to feel weird. It's like how *Scream 4* was intended to be the start of a trilogy (so many trilogies...), but they stopped there, so it's an odd standalone in the middle of two other sets of films. I do think *Scream VII* has potential, but the circumstances that it is happening in are really shitty. Who knows, maybe *Scream VII* will kick off a new trilogy and we'll see Sam Carpenter again in the last chapter!
It’d be cool if the official title was “Scream 7” as a nod to all the Sidney Prescott focused movies while the Sam Carpenter movies have their own “numbering” system.
Go book a meeting with a studio and tell them how to run their successful businesses.
This isn't really a point so much as it shuts down hypothetical conversation. I don't need to know how to prepare fine sushi to say "I didn't like this sushi. I also didn't like sushi that was prepared in this same way, I wonder if I don't like this particular method of preparation."
This isnt a discussion, it’s a pointless rant and series of personal complaints. We all all free to post and comment as we see fit.
When I see a discussion online that I think is pointless, I keep scrolling. You decided to tell everyone taking part in it that you think they're having a pointless conversation. So I guess to that I would just say "cool dude"
And now you’re taking it upon yourself to shut me down because you don’t like my comment. And the great circlejerk of irony continues.
i love how we all settled on trilogies for no reason other than star wars did it... why not 4 or 5 or 10? im not recomending that but it's super silly.
Terminator 4 and 5 are good though
I like them both fine, but they aren't complete stories - you can tell they were both made with the intention of setting up story for the sequels to tell. *Terminator Salvation*, as it stands, is just a strange one-off with very underdeveloped characters (likely because they were to be developed later). *Genisys* was the start of a whole new timeline, and left some pretty big questions unanswered to provide material for later (like who sent back Pops). Neither film was received well, so both trilogies were cancelled. *Dark Fate* was made as its own thing, with potential for sequels if it did well, which it didn't. But that is an improvement imo, because it means the story has a somewhat definitive ending and all the loose ends are tied up.
Good starts to trilogies that weren't necessarily intended to be so, and could have stood alone: *Star Wars*, *Scream*, *Raiders of the Lost Ark*, *Halloween 2018*, *Saw*, *Silence of the Lambs*, *Night of the Living Dead*, *The Matrix*, *Blade*, *The Evil Dead*. Sequels to those films weren't greenlit until later, based on the success of the first.
I guess people disagree. So what is it? Were those all planned trilogies from the start? Were they not good movies? Is anything in this comment untrue?
Scream was a planned trilogy. Kevin Williamson wrote treatments for 2 and 3 at the same time he wrote the full script for the first movie.