Sluggo said:
Question: Do you think movie trilogies (like BttF) follow the same 3 act pattern? I know the classic SW movies do.
Trilogies - yes.
Quadrilogies - no.
;)
More on that in a second, but on to this really quickly:
And if movies do or don't, do they influence how we define sequels?
I think so. So far there's not another word for it, but you couldn't hardly say that the Indiana Jones Trilogy follows a Macro structure (they are simply sidequels, if that term suits you better (actually, I think sidequel is better used as a kind word for "movie spinoff" or "coattail rider")) nor could you identify any 3 Bond films and say that they follow a Macro structure. But, as Scary Movie 3 taught us, trilogies often come in threes. It's probably relatively easy to answer this question for most movie franchises:
Do the movies hold up to being watched out of order?
But really, you already know the answer without being told. You wouldn't want to miss an episode of Twin Peaks, or Lost, or Smallville... but you would probably be just fine if you dismissed an episode of Who's the Boss, Three's Company, or Taxi.
But then you have the X-Files. Half of the episodes are non-serial, and the other half definitely are. So, how do you classify that series? Or think of the Kirk Star Trek movies. 2, 3 and 4 form a trilogy/follow the act structure macroly- how retarded is that? But it's clearly there. You can skip 1 (oh, and I do!) and 5 (doubly so!) and get right on with 6... but even then you don't have to.
As I ranted earlier, I don't like it when people (not that 005 did this exactly, but he was in the ball park) assinuate that everything besides LotR is "sequels" and LotRs is "one big story broken into three separate parts, primarily for marketing purposes" and therefore shouldn't be discussed the way "sequels" are. To that point, it's probably the reason that I left the theatre in 2001 not sure that the movie was actually over. Not having read the books, I was a little confused when the movie said, "All right then. Nothing more to see here, just move along!" I knew it was the first of three movies, but still- the only contract that had been established with me as viewer was "the ring must be destroyed". There were no "death stars" that needed to be destroyed, no "black pearls" to be recovered. No mini act 1 problems to solve. Which is odd for the book(s) regardless of whether you have 3 Macro Acts or just 3 acts. I guess *SPOILERS!* Sam and Frodo escape the orcs and the Fellowship is broken- that is a change that marks the end of that Act one way or another... but it's far from a resolution to anything. It doesn't send you out on a highnote. Unless you were having a hard time telling the difference between Aragorn and Boromir. Then... I guess there's a silver lining there.
So, I think we do need another word than "sequel" for trilogies that follow the Macro structure... how's about "sequal"? No... maybe just "trilogy"? And we ask the likes of Jurassic Park and Indiana Jones to stop using it. I guess Indy already has. And, in a couple of years, Jurassic Park will be a Quadrilogy too... so I guess all might be right in the world.