(The Art of the Trilogy)
This post is inspired by the sign-off for my previous
article entitled The Most Compelling
Relationship in Video Games. If you want to then it can be viewed by
scrolling down to lower on this page or by clicking here.
When looking at how different story arcs are portrayed I
believe that some of the best games or films are those that appear as a trilogy,
there are two reasons for this. One: It splits up the development of main
characters, and two: it helps to put into perspective the level of peril that
characters find themselves in. I should note that I’m not saying that all
trilogies follow these formulae. I’m also not saying that trilogies should
follow them (but if Jerry Bruckheimer is reading this and decides to base his
work upon my scribblin’s, then go ahead); this is merely an analysis of the
patterns I have found in some of the ones I have enjoyed.
Firstly the development of characters in trilogies (and I
mean trilogies that were always intended to be trilogies, not single films that
have been given two sequels in order to transform them into money machines,
which is why Transformers probably
won’t be mentioned here) such as Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy and Shepard’s story arc during Bioware’s first
three Mass Effect games tends to
follow the same pattern. It also bears a resemblance to the description of how
‘productive teams’ are formed in business. Most groups do indeed go through
this process but it must be completed in order to become productive, the
process is as follows: groups go through forming, storming, norming then
performing.
"And to your left you will see...oh...more space."
Forming: Simple in the fact that all groups must initially
form in the first place. Because this is new and exciting, group members get on
well. Negative character traits aren’t noticed or are ignored.
Storming: The group begins to break down as bad habits grate
and incompatible personalities clash. This causes undesirable performance of
the group.
Norming: Members find ways to overcome, work with or use to
their advantage, bad habits or negative traits and the group finds a happy medium
in which to work.
Performing: Due to dealing with group problems, the group
works together more effectively, causing production to increase and the group
to perform well.
For this example it may be appropriate to add a fifth stage
to this process called Deforming, as every group that is created needs to end,
whether that is for a simple reason such as reaching the end of a contract at
work or for a complicated reason such as a band breaking up due because of
artistic differences.
Trilogies such as the ones previously mentioned will tend to
follow this process with the first film/game showing characters forming, storming
and norming, the second depicting them at their peak where they demonstrate
performing and the third instalment demonstrating deforming. When films or
games follow this process it seems to produce the most satisfying character
development due to its depiction of real life group dynamics and character development over enough time for it to be perceived and analysed, without it taking up so much time that the threats that characters encounter are not resolved in a satisfactory manner. In fact the threat, its nature and scale are the main factor in the other pattern I noticed that trilogies of this nature have. The ‘threat level’
pattern is as follows:
Instalment one: A general threat which is not of massive or
miniscule importance.
Instalment two: A threat to the entire environment in which
the story is set.
Instalment three: A threat personal to the protagonist(s).
An easy-to-understand example of this is The Matrix (and yes I know that the
original matrix trilogy was meant to be a little different but this too
followed the patterns that I’m describing. So…yeah.), where
Agent Smith should be considered as the threat and Neo as the protagonist. In the first film Agent Smith is merely one of the many threats
that the matrix holds for Neo, the second shows Smith trying to take over the
entire matrix for his own gain and the third depicts Smith’s personal grudge
against Neo.
So what am I trying to say? I’m not trying to build up to
anything large or profound here, and I certainly don’t believe that this blog
is going to change the way writing is thought of. What I do hope is that what
has been written here makes you think about how stories are presented to you
and that, when you get to the end, a small idea which has been mentioned here
attaches to your brain and helps the pieces of something that you may have had
a hard time thinking about fall into place. As always I welcome any thoughts or
comments you have on the matter to be discussed here.
I’ll see you in part III.
