Star Wars 1 2 3
Star Wars 4 5 6
LOTR 1 2 3
Matrix 1 2 3
Xmen 1 2 3
Why not have quadlogies or quinlogies?
2007-02-28 06:31:48 · 9 answers · asked by trer 3 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
Well as for Lord of the Rings, it's probably because there were three books that the movies were based on, and not only that 3 is just a good number 2 is like ok what was the point of making a second one and 4 is sometimes too many.
However, there are several movies that attempt to do more than 3, sometimes they do well and sometimes they don't.
2007-02-28 06:41:48 · answer #1 · answered by Chenielle 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, Star Wars is actually 6 films, there just happens to be 20 years in between Episodes 3 and 4.
LOTR was a trilogy of books.
Matrix, depending on who you talk to, is also more than 3 films. They've put out anime and shorts for the franchise.
Don't forget Harry Potter which will be 7 films when they're done.
But mostly it's about the $$$
2007-02-28 14:40:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Three is a nice round number. 3 for the holy trinity that sort of thing. Perhaps the screen writer or director always thought of their movie as being 3 distinct parts, each being seperate but part of a whole. But yes, money I think is a major factor in a studio creating sequels to films. If the first does well make a second, if the second does better make a third.
2007-02-28 14:44:53 · answer #3 · answered by terrorfex01 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it just so happens that you mentioned 3 movies that are trilogies. that doesn't mean every movie is a trilogy.
nightmare on elm street has 7 parts
lethal weapon has 4 parts
friday the 13th has a gazillion parts
alien has 4 parts
die hard is coming out with its 4th part
superman has 4 parts, not even including the new one
batman has 4 parts, not even including the new one
speed has only 2 parts
shrek is coming out with a 4th part
i can go on and on.
2007-02-28 14:44:19 · answer #4 · answered by sevasxes 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
UPDATE - Seriously, I think the producers hope the box office will better if a sequel is presented as part of a "Trilogy", rather than just one in an endless line of sequels.
2007-02-28 14:36:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess you would get bored with the same old routine. But what about Lethal Weapon? That had four movies in its series, or Alien, which also had four?
2007-02-28 14:36:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
So you have to pay three times to see the entire history.
2007-02-28 14:35:07 · answer #7 · answered by Entenda a História 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
and dont' forget friday the 13th which had like 10, nightmare on elm street had 5... you need to watch more movies...
2007-02-28 14:39:17 · answer #8 · answered by Tacyella 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
its the power of three....
2007-02-28 15:16:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋