Trilogies are pretentious and annoying

I notice a lot of artists are obsessed with creating trilogies. Filmmaker Lars von Trier has his “depression trilogy” of films. Robert Smith and his band The Cure have their “dark trilogy,” consisting of their Pornography, Disintegration, and Bloodflowers albums. Filmmaker Ingmar Bergman had Through A Glass Darkly, Winter Light, and The Silence. There’s J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy of books. Tons of musicians compose trilogies of songs, or a song with three ‘movements’ in it. Emerson, Lake, and Palmer have their aptly titled tune, “The Three Fates.” Dream Theater have their “A Mind Beside Itself” trilogy of songs, consisting of Erotomania, Voices, and The Silent Man.

These are just a few examples that came to mind while writing this, and of course I’m not talking about franchise bullshit like Home Alone 1, 2, and 3. I’m talking about pretentious art stuff. I wonder why it’s so common, why artists are drawn to doing things in threes. I don’t know but I don’t like it. What about duos, quadruplets, quintuplets, etc? I haven’t come across any of those that I can remember so I feel like it’s mostly a path dependency thing, where artists are accustomed to other artists doing it so they instinctively copy the blueprint. Even when artists don’t intend to make a trilogy but later acknowledge they have inadvertently done so, I find it annoying. I don’t even want to hear about it. Trilogies are just so overdone.

I actually love almost all the pieces I listed in the first paragraph. I just have to not think of any of them as, ahem, you know what.

dana white and the UFC are obsessed with trilogies and immediate rematches

i’m sick of dana white saying the same shit after every fight: “that was amazing, i really thought it could have gone either way, we’re definitely going to look at an immediate rematch, we’re definitely going to see a third fight between these guys, how can you not when they put on such an incredible performance, blah blah blah…”

“that was the best fight of all time, we need to do it again.”
“what about the last fight you said was the best fight of all time?”
“yes, that was the best too. they’re all the best. we need to rematch every fight we’ve ever done.”

i’ve got a few hot tips for the fighting world: jones vs gustafsson didn’t need an immediate rematch — jones won. hendricks vs lawler doesn’t need a trilogy — hendricks won the first time, lawler won the second time. silva vs weidman didn’t need a rematch — weidman won. barao vs dillishaw was fucking great…but so what? it’s over, and dillishaw won in dominant fashion. move on, let barao work his way back up to a title shot, and let the next guy in line who earned it have a fucking shot at the title.

it seems like dana and whoever else calls the UFC shots are getting really fucking lazy or are trying to hype every shitty fight up to legendary statuses. it’s as if any fight that goes to decision is ‘too close to call’ in the UFC’s collective mind. well, here’s another hot tip: most fights that go to a decision fucking suck. i hate em unless both fighters are going balls out the whole time, like in the recent jones vs cormier fight. that was a good fight that ended up in a decision. BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN THEY NEED A FUCKING REMATCH. CORMIER LOST — NEXT CONTESTANT, PLEASE.

i think i’m going to apply for a position in the UFC setting up fights. the legacy of my glorious reign will be that no two fighters will ever face each other more than once. i’ll probably wind up giving dana white stomach ulcers or a heart attack, the pudgy bastard.