`Lord of the Rings,' `Matrix' have spurred development of more By Patrick Day Los Angeles Times
When the characters in writer-director Kevin Smith's romantic comedy Chasing Amy mention ``the holy trilogy,'' they aren't discussing religion. They're talking about Star Wars.
Since the release of Return of the Jedi in 1983, fans and Hollywood executives alike have looked to the original three Star Wars films as the gold standard for handling movie sequels. Rather than telling a series of self-contained stories, this trilogy presented a single story across three films.
``Star Wars was different from anything that preceded it,'' said Leonard Maltin, film critic and host of the syndicated TV series Hot Ticket. ``It created a mystique and proved that (serialized filmmaking) could be done.''
Even lowbrow comedy sequels have tried to elevate themselves by claiming to be part of a trilogy. This summer's American Wedding, a second sequel to 1999's American Pie, was advertised as ``the thrilling climax of the American Pie saga.''
But it takes more than recurring characters and a serialized story to win fans' hearts. As the creators of this year's The Matrix Revolutions and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King found out, the kind of epic filmmaking required to create a ``holy trilogy'' comes with benefits and hazards.
These successful three-film series have set off a flurry of trilogy developments. New Line Cinema, which released the Rings movies, is working on adaptations for Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials fantasy novels. Paramount is considering a trilogy based on its upcoming retro sci-fi film The World of Tomorrow. And Sony has agreed to let director Len Wiseman turn Underworld, his surprise hit pitting werewolves against vampires, into a trilogy, with a prequel and a sequel to come.
``We didn't jump into this thinking, `Let's go create a trilogy,' '' Wiseman said. ``Once we were throwing ideas around for the first Underworld, we realized we had too much story to tell for one movie.''
With the Rings films grossing $1.7 billion worldwide and winning six Oscars before the third film was released, other filmmakers may be tempted to try three-film cycles.
But Rings was a special case, as New Line's executive vice president and head of production, Mark Ordesky, points out. ``It requires a very special group of people working a very special way to commit 18 months to film all three movies at the same time.''
``Rings is in a category all by itself,'' Maltin said. ``It wasn't made the way any other trilogy or series of sequels has been made in the history of movies. It's been a benefit to the quality of the finished product.''
The Rings films had the added benefit of coming from J.R.R. Tolkien's immensely popular novels, with the three-film structure mapped out.
``The worst thing you can do is inorganically try to create a trilogy when one doesn't exist,'' Ordesky said.
Building off the $456 million worldwide box-office success of the original Matrix in 1999, Andy and Larry Wachowski were not bound by pre-existing material in creating a sequel, so they decided to make the package a trilogy, filming two sequels simultaneously in Australia.
Although audience anticipation gave the first sequel, The Matrix Reloaded, a $91 million opening weekend, enthusiasm for the film fizzled quickly. Many fans left disappointed, feeling the story had become mundane and did not live up to their expectations. The third film, The Matrix Revolutions, grossed $48 million in its domestic opening weekend.
``The problem with the Matrix sequels was they were not faithful to what the fans expected,'' said Greg Dean Schmitz, who writes Greg's Previews for Yahoo! Movies.
Despite the perception that the two films were a creative disappointment, together they have grossed $417 million domestically and $1.1 billion worldwide.
[
0 comments - Add yours