Rules and Standards and Categories Oh My

I feel it necessary to discuss, at least in small part, about some of the general rules and practices that I follow on this site. Specifically, looking at the different labels and categories that I give films or that films give themselves and how they fit into the system I have.

I've known I needed to write this a long time ago but I was recently inspired to do so by Thunderbolts*, which has just come out this past weekend. I won't be diving into my thoughts on the film but you can read my review if you wish. I was also inspired by my recent viewing of both the Matrix and Terminator franchises. I had to come to a decision on how to label/sort these films in one way or another, and I think that I'll use these decisions as a basis for my thought process moving forward. I already had a good idea of my sorting system before this past week but I need concrete examples in order to really make my points. So let's get into it.

TITLES

I am very specific about which title is the "official" title on display here at my reviews. In reality, I actually have two "titles" that I allow each film to have. The first is the standard one that is displayed at the top of each review and the main title displayed in all other parts of the site. The secondary title is the description title, which is often identical to the main title. However, there are many cases in which the secondary title is different, such as for foreign films where I make it the film's original language title. There's also films with multiple titles, such as Dr. Strangelove or Stairway to Heaven, which get unique secondary titles.

The way that I choose which title is which is entirely dependent upon one thing: the main title will always be the "standard" name used by American film watchers and scholars. This means for movies like Stairway to Heaven, I don't use the English release title, even though the film was made in England, and instead use its American version. For other films, this may mean that an unofficial title is used, such as Hana-bi, a title which is not used for American theatrical release but is nonetheless the standard title used to talk about the film today.

This brings me to Thunderbolts*, a film that now has two English titles: Thunderbolts* and New Avengers or whatever. I need to be clear about this: I hate this. I hate that Marvel planned an entire retcon of a film title for a dumb marketing ploy. I will not accept this. The film was released, marketed, and sold as Thunderbolts*, and that's what it shall remain as here. I'm not going to even give Marvel execs the pleasure of making the secondary title New Avengers, because that's not how it works.

Trilogy or Series

Currently on my reviews I have two separate categories for a "Trilogy" and a "Series". Both can be found under the Ranked section, where I rank the films that are a part of a given franchise. I do think that the terms "Trilogy" and "Series" hold specific, unique meanings within the film world and I like separating the two. However, this was not the original reason for their distinction on my reviews. It's actually way easier to set up a "Trilogy" ranking on the site because of the way I store and present the data, not to mention how much more space certain "Series" can take up.

So what are the actual differences between the two terms? This is something that I've been thinking a lot about recently, and I'm still not 100% sure. Obviously, a "Trilogy" is a series of three movies with a complete narrative, while a "Series" (maybe more commonly referred to as "Franchise") is a series of films that do not necessarily have an overarching storyline. But once you actually start weeding through some of the famous franchises of film history, these definitions become pretty muddled.

Take an easy example such as The Lord of the Rings, which is obviously a Trilogy. Another easy example is the Mission Impossible franchise, which is obviously a Series. The main difference between the two is the fact that LOTR has one storyline which is told in three movies. M:I has several storylines, which each film more or less telling a complete narrative. So, based on this definition, what about a series such as Pirates of the Caribbean? It was originally just one movie, but got turned into a trilogy with the next two installments. And then more movies were added on top of that. So do I consider this a Trilogy because of the first three films, or a Series? Or maybe it was always a Series, since the first film contains a open-and-close narrative arc.

In my experience it's very common for a trilogy to begin as a single film. Apart from Pirates, there's several famous examples like The Matrix, Back to the Future, or even the original Star Wars. Many of these examples follow a similar pattern: the first movie is made without plans for any sequels, then once the money gets good two more (at least) are set out to be made.

I don't think this is a bad thing. I know Hollywood runs on money (unfortunately for them) and it's not always possible to greenlight an entire set of three movies before even finishing the first. But it does present an interesting problem for me. For The Matrix for example, it follows this standard "1 and then 2" structure, except for the fourth installment which released just a few years ago. Do I now recategorize the original trilogy as a "Series"? My current answer is no. While part of the same franchise, Matrix Resurrections is intentionally a reboot of the franchise and not a sequel, which is seen in storyline, timing, and even the title.

So my distinction does not simply end at how many movies are in a franchise. Having only three movies doesn't necessarily make you a trilogy, either. The original three Terminator movies maybe could be seen as a trilogy by some, but I see a different story. The films all build upon one another but also don't set up the subsequent films, making each film an open-and-close story. There's also the timing of the films, with each installment coming almost a decade after the previous. This signals to me that this is a "Series" first and foremost, and this is justified by the repeated sequels that have come out after the third movie.

I will continue to refine my definitions for these groups and others, and any decisions now definitely aren't final. I'm still not sure where to put Pirates, and I'll continue putting that off for now. My biggest takeaway is that these groups don't need to be set in stone, and only exist for my own organizational purposes. Don't be surprised if you see franchises switch places, or if you see a franchise in multiple places!

Genres and Subgenres

One of the biggest struggles I have when making my reviews is labeling the genres of a film. There's so much nuance and discussion around what a genre even is that it's impossible for me to get this right, but I do have a system and a few rules that at least keep things semi-consistent.

Let's start with my "Big Five". This is a name that I give to the five big genres that almost every film ever made falls into. I'm not sure if this was inspired by something I read or heard, but I'm sure I'm not the first one to do this. My main five categories are Action, Drama, Comedy, Horror, and Thriller. All of these categories exist because they are not only genres with specific tropes, histories, and expectations, but they also are used in unique and specific ways. Each genre invokes specific emotions in the viewer (adrenaline, fear, suspense), and films can use a blending of these emotions in their films. Basically, each one of the "Big Five" is a category describing films that intentionally choose said genre for its unique ability to generate entertainment in the audience. If a film is not exciting, sad, funny, scary, or intriguing, then why watch it? This is why (almost) every film every made falls into one of these five groups. There are a few notable exceptions but these are mostly limited to documentaries or other unique art films.

I also list several subgenres on the website as well, and try my best to categorize each film into these categories as well. Not every film has a subgenre to fit into, and some have several. A subgenre, for my reviews, simply is a more specialized group of common tropes, themes, and expectations that define a similar group of movies. Sometimes this subgenre is obvious, such as "Superhero", or less obvious, like "Romance". I'm certainly not an expert, and I'm sure I've made several mistakes even by my own standards, but my general rule is that for a movie to be a part of a subgenre, elements of said subgenre must be a major part of the narrative. For a broad category like "Romance", this means that a romantic relationship must be a main focus in the film. So side plots containing a couple or a movie simply involving a breakup doesn't make it a "Romance" film.

There's also several (albeit smaller) subgenres that I have not yet included on the site. I may choose to include or disclude certain groups in the future, but I'm decently happy with the categories I have now. I don't really see myself removing any of them but there are a few I may add. One of the bigger ones that I've been struggling with it "Mystery". I see this term get thrown around a lot but it does nothing but annoy me. Is any film with an unanswered question a "Mystery" film? Or does it have to involve a murder? But not every film about a murder is a "Mystery", and the term mystery is confusing in and of itself because sometimes the killer is revealed very early on! I wouldn't consider 2001: A Space Odyssey a "Mystery" film (and I hope you don't either), even though the mysterious alien artifacts are at the forefront of the narrative. Until I can justifiably separate the two, "Mystery" is the same as "Thriller" in my book.

If you've gleaned absolutely anything from this blog post, I hope it's that I have no idea what I'm talking about and all of this is arbitrary. The reason I feel the need to bring any of this up in the first place is because I care, and I want to organize my reviews based off of something. I'm not just throwing titles and genres around willy-nilly, but I don't consider my groupings perfect either. But I do think that the system I have now is about as good as it's going to get, apart from a few small tweaks that may come down the road. If you disagree, remember that all of my reviews are objectively correct at all times.