With us showing the ridiculously good L'Eau des collines (The Water of the Hills) duology at Quoi de Neuf (http://www.myspace.com/hiphopfrancais) over the next two weeks ie. 'Jean de Florette' and 'Manon de Sources' I got to wondering why the duology is such a rare format, at least when it comes to series deliberately intended to be two volumes long compared to the much more popular trilogy.

There seem to be plenty of films with unnecessary tacked on sequels and others such as the Godfather that were just perfect at two films and should have left it at that.

Are there many other deliberate duologies other than L'Eau des collines that I'm unaware of? And how come so few series are only 2 volumes long but so many 3?

The Bill and Ted films?

only 2 of those :)

Possibly because a trilogy follows the taditional pattern of story telling-begining,middle and end.It's a while since I've seen L'eau de collines and can't remember how the story is ballanced between the two films or indeed if they can stand alone.

Are the films going to be shown on a big screen? I've only ever seen them on dvd and can only imagine how good they must be shown as they should be.I look forward to seeing them.

The Bill and Ted films?

only 2 of those :)
They're more two standalone films which feature some of the same characters, I wouldn't say they're a duology in the way L'Eau des collines is or the way that Lord of the Rings is a trilogy in that they feature one overall story arc across the films.

Possibly because a trilogy follows the taditional pattern of story telling-begining,middle and end.
I don't see why 'the middle' can't be the middle portion in the overall running time of the two volumes though. Besides I can't really think of any trilogies where each volume of the is neatly 'the beginning' 'middle' or 'end'.

It's a while since I've seen L'eau de collines and can't remember how the story is ballanced between the two films or indeed if they can stand alone.
They're two self contained stories (set a decade of so apart) which together tell a greater story. I think they stand alone very well but are much better viewed together, which is how the story was originally conceived and how the films were shot.

Are the films going to be shown on a big screen? I've only ever seen them on dvd and can only imagine how good they must be shown as they should be.I look forward to seeing them.
At I guess I'd say the screen is at least 2m so pretty big, if you know The Forum it takes up most of the wall to the left of the entrance when you come in off Devonshire Street.

I was clutching at straws a little to tryand think of a reason for the lack of duologies.I dont think it would be very succesful for the "middle"to occupy the last 1/2 hour of the first film and the first 1/2 hour of the second film (i.e. the middle of the overall run time) I think that would prevent the films from standing alone which obviousley have to do.How do Kill Bill I&II work as a duology?

I was clutching at straws a little to tryand think of a reason for the lack of duologies.I dont think it would be very succesful for the "middle"to occupy the last 1/2 hour of the first film and the first 1/2 hour of the second film (i.e. the middle of the overall run time) I think that would prevent the films from standing alone which obviousley have to do.How do Kill Bill I&II work as a duology?
I'd forgotten all about Kill Bill, I'd definitely say that was a duology in the way I meant as it was conceived as a single overall story.

I wasn't saying that I think films have to only work when considered as part of a series to be a duology/trilogy or whatever but that they should have been initially conceived as part of some over all artistic vision, Rather than the subsequent films being commissioned later on by the owners of the IP sometimes from completely different writers simply to take advantage of the commercial success of the initial film.