regarding Pirates of the Carribean...
...ignoring for just a moment that nobody pronounces that word right.
Okay, we can move on now.
xposted to moviebuffs,
Multi·Genre·Fandom, & ubergeeks
12:39 AM 7/16/06 · I'd originally intended to catch the 2nd film in the series on the way home from work. It was about when the train passed the stop I needed to get off at that I realized I'd taken the wrong one out of habit; right train for home but not for where I'd wanted to go. Anyway, I figure that shouldn't be a huge issue as being so popular it will very likely be in theaters still come next weekend.
However, even though I've so far managed to avoid any major spoilers...I have heard enough to make me think that labelling these films as being part of a trilogy is a tad premature. Not only that but flat out wrong! This opinion may change once I've actually seen PotC: Dead Man's Chest but until then let me share with you the thought process.
From what I've heard so far, the film in theaters now isn't exactly complete. It ends solidly enough but has definite hints to a followup film. So far as that goes...okay, fine; whatever. This does not make them all part of a trilogy though. The Lord of the Ring and The Matrix series were trilogies but that's because each film flowed into the next within a given timeframe and ongoing story arc. The Star Wars films, both the 1st and 2nd arcs (you can argue individually which comes first so far as that goes) were both trilogies in and of themselves.
Not this time.
The way I see it Pirates of the Carribean was a stand alone film. That characters are seen in the 2nd film that were in the first and the time period is, fundamentally, the same does not make it a trilogy regardless of how unfinished the 2nd one was. The 2nd and 3rd, whenever that last one's coming out, are part of an ongoing story but just because there was a film before them does not make all three of them a trilogy. From what little I know of the plot and storyline that's cooked up for the 2nd, which admittedly isn't enough to fill more than a few sketchy sentences, nothing from the 1st film directly corresponds to the events in it...other than same people.
I suppose there may be other examples of this but the only one coming to mind is the Indiana Jones series of films. There's 3 of them but they're not really a trilogy are they? It differs in that each of them is a stand alone film but I still hear people refer to them as a trilogy.
Am I wrong?
If I may get as literal as possible: the Merriam·Webster & Garfield Dictionary...
...so I like Garfield. Sue me...
...but as I was saying...defines a trilogy as being a series of three dramas or literary or musical compositions that are closely related and develop one theme. Now, once again with my limited understanding of events in the 2nd film, this doesn't seem to be the case. There may be an ongoing story with Dead Man's Chest that goes into whatever the 3rd film will be on about but none of that connects to the 1st film.
While trying not to ruin the 2nd film for me, feel free to have a go with some chatter on this.
Okay, we can move on now.
xposted to moviebuffs,
Multi·Genre·Fandom, & ubergeeks
12:39 AM 7/16/06 · I'd originally intended to catch the 2nd film in the series on the way home from work. It was about when the train passed the stop I needed to get off at that I realized I'd taken the wrong one out of habit; right train for home but not for where I'd wanted to go. Anyway, I figure that shouldn't be a huge issue as being so popular it will very likely be in theaters still come next weekend.
However, even though I've so far managed to avoid any major spoilers...I have heard enough to make me think that labelling these films as being part of a trilogy is a tad premature. Not only that but flat out wrong! This opinion may change once I've actually seen PotC: Dead Man's Chest but until then let me share with you the thought process.
From what I've heard so far, the film in theaters now isn't exactly complete. It ends solidly enough but has definite hints to a followup film. So far as that goes...okay, fine; whatever. This does not make them all part of a trilogy though. The Lord of the Ring and The Matrix series were trilogies but that's because each film flowed into the next within a given timeframe and ongoing story arc. The Star Wars films, both the 1st and 2nd arcs (you can argue individually which comes first so far as that goes) were both trilogies in and of themselves.
Not this time.
The way I see it Pirates of the Carribean was a stand alone film. That characters are seen in the 2nd film that were in the first and the time period is, fundamentally, the same does not make it a trilogy regardless of how unfinished the 2nd one was. The 2nd and 3rd, whenever that last one's coming out, are part of an ongoing story but just because there was a film before them does not make all three of them a trilogy. From what little I know of the plot and storyline that's cooked up for the 2nd, which admittedly isn't enough to fill more than a few sketchy sentences, nothing from the 1st film directly corresponds to the events in it...other than same people.
I suppose there may be other examples of this but the only one coming to mind is the Indiana Jones series of films. There's 3 of them but they're not really a trilogy are they? It differs in that each of them is a stand alone film but I still hear people refer to them as a trilogy.
Am I wrong?
If I may get as literal as possible: the Merriam·Webster & Garfield Dictionary...
...so I like Garfield. Sue me...
...but as I was saying...defines a trilogy as being a series of three dramas or literary or musical compositions that are closely related and develop one theme. Now, once again with my limited understanding of events in the 2nd film, this doesn't seem to be the case. There may be an ongoing story with Dead Man's Chest that goes into whatever the 3rd film will be on about but none of that connects to the 1st film.
While trying not to ruin the 2nd film for me, feel free to have a go with some chatter on this.