Conversation

Replying to
I mean it’s literally 1 book of raw material vs 3. You can’t upsample with interpolation by 3x. It’s like “Computer: enhance!” bs. I don’t think the epic cinema moment has passed. You could still make good movie trilogies out of good, highly visual book trilogies
Quote Tweet
Replying to @0xfbifemboy and @vgr
they tried to force another LOTR, but the moment passed (LOTR was the crowning jewel of the medieval epic cinema bubble) and The Hobbit book was fundamentally not The Lord of the Rings
3
29
One of the reasons LOTR is unique is it's a rare true trilogy, not spilling over into 4, 5, 7, 10 books. Beyond 3-4 volumes of a single core storyline, I think you are forced to go to prestige TV to get it right. Nobody has patience for 3+ movies in a straight-line story.
2
27
MCU works because it's a poset rather than a straight line story. Foundation, Wheel of Time, etc. had to go to TV. LOTR prequel based on Silmarillon material too... more TV than movies. Dune is the exception. A zillion books, but only like the first 2.5 are any good.
1
30
Reading Terra Ignota now. I think that would work as a trilogy (it's 4 books). Recently read Lillith's Brood. Also trilogy suitable. And Schismatrix Plus perhaps. In fantasy... any major material that stops at 3ish and hasn't been done? I think Gormenghast perhaps.
4
24
3 movies is really optimal for a single storyline. Another that nails the medium-story fit is the Nolan Batman trilogy. Original Raimi Spider-Man tried, but unravelled completely in the third part. By the time we got to Avengers, the extended universe context made it different.
1
21
I actually can't think of any single storyline movie series that worked to 4+ parts. Things like James Bond are more like sitcoms in that they are episodic stand-alone stories within an unchanging context (though latest Bond thing tried a bit of extended universe long-arc-ing)
2
20
I'll never cease to be impressed by a single human brain grappling with the limits of heterogenous complexity at vast scale, across dozens of modes.
1
32
The key is heterogeneity. The complexity here is arguably of a higher order than of what say a mathematician like Grothendieck wrangled into submission, since that is a kind of cognitive monoculture inside a savant brain. Ditto people who architect say big pieces of software.
1
29
What kind of brain can keep a zillion moving parts of *different types* in its head with auteur rigor like this? Story, vast laboring crew, actors, top creative lieutenants, props, fx tech, capital raising politicking, schmoozing governments, field infrastructure...
2
33