You’ve seen them everywhere. They dominate our movie screens, fill up massive shelves in bookstores, and basically dictate how we consume modern mythology. But what actually makes three books or movies a set? Honestly, the definition of a trilogy is a lot more flexible than your high school English teacher might have let on. It’s not just a collection of three things that happen to share a title. It’s a specific structural beast.
At its simplest, a trilogy is a group of three related works of art—usually literature or film—that are connected by a shared theme, a continuous plot, or the same set of characters. Sometimes all three. But if you dig into the history of the form, it’s rarely that tidy.
The structure of the three-act punch
Think about the way a single story works. You have the beginning, the middle, and the end. That’s the classic Aristotelian structure. Now, zoom out. A true trilogy often treats three entire volumes as if they were those three specific parts. The first entry is the setup. The second is the confrontation. The third? That’s the resolution.
Take J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. It’s the gold standard, right? Well, sort of. Tolkien actually viewed it as a single novel that was only split into three parts—The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King—because of paper shortages and publishing costs in post-WWII England. Even though it's the most famous example we have, it’s technically a single story divided by necessity.
Contrast that with something like the original Star Wars films. George Lucas basically built a blueprint for the modern blockbuster trilogy. A New Hope works as a standalone film, but it opens the door. The Empire Strikes Back complicates everything and leaves us on a massive cliffhanger. Return of the Jedi ties the bow. This "Expansion, Complication, Resolution" cycle is why the format feels so satisfying to our brains. We like things in threes. It feels complete.
Why the definition of a trilogy gets messy
Not every trilogy is a straight line. Sometimes a creator finishes a story and then realizes there’s more to say five years later. Or maybe they have three stories that don't share characters but explore the exact same weird obsession.
✨ Don't miss: Temuera Morrison as Boba Fett: Why Fans Are Still Divided Over the Daimyo of Tatooine
In the film world, we call these "thematic trilogies." Look at Edgar Wright’s Three Flavours Cornetto trilogy. You’ve got Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, and The World’s End. Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are in all of them, but they play different characters every time. The only thing truly connecting them is a specific brand of ice cream, some recurring jokes about jumping over fences, and a deep dive into the "collective vs. the individual." It fits the definition of a trilogy because the creator says it does. It’s an intellectual set.
Then you have the "accidental" trilogies. Sergio Leone’s Dollars Trilogy (A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly) wasn't planned that way. Marketing teams in the U.S. branded them as a series to sell Clint Eastwood’s "Man with No Name" character, even though the timelines don't actually match up and the character isn't technically the same guy in every flick.
The commercial reality of the three-book deal
In the publishing industry, the definition of a trilogy is often a business decision. If a debut novel performs well, a publisher is much more likely to greenlight two more books than one. Why? Because it builds a "backlist."
When Book 3 comes out, people buy Books 1 and 2. It’s a self-sustaining marketing loop. This has led to what some critics call "Middle Book Syndrome." You've probably felt it. It’s that feeling when the second book in a series feels like it’s just treading water, moving characters from Point A to Point B without actually resolving anything, just to make sure there's enough material left for the finale.
Suzanne Collins' The Hunger Games managed to avoid this mostly because the stakes shifted so radically in each book. The first was a survival game. The second was a political spark. The third was a full-scale war. That’s how you keep a trilogy from feeling like a stretched-out single story.
🔗 Read more: Why Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy Actors Still Define the Modern Spy Thriller
Historical roots: The Greeks did it first
If we want to get pedantic, we have to look at Ancient Greece. During the City Dionysia festival in Athens, playwrights would submit three tragedies to be performed in a row. These were often linked by a single mythic saga.
The Oresteia by Aeschylus is the only one of these ancient trilogies that survived in its entirety. It follows the murder of King Agamemnon, the revenge taken by his son Orestes, and the eventual trial that ends a cycle of blood feuds. It established the "Rule of Three" over 2,000 years ago. Even back then, humans understood that the first two events create a pattern, and the third event breaks or fulfills it.
Variations on the theme
Sometimes three isn't enough. Or it's too much.
- The Prequel Trilogy: These are made after the original set to explain how everything started. Think Star Wars Episodes I-III or the Hobbit films (which, let's be real, probably shouldn't have been three movies).
- The Spiritual Successor: When a creator makes three films that feel like they belong together even if they aren't officially marketed as such. Park Chan-wook’s Vengeance Trilogy (Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, Oldboy, and Lady Vengeance) is a perfect example.
- The "Incomplete" Trilogy: This happens when a series is cancelled or an author passes away. It’s a tragedy for fans who want that "threeness" but are left with a duo.
How to identify a true trilogy vs. a series
A series can go on forever. James Bond is a series. The Fast and the Furious is... well, it’s a lot of things, but it’s not a trilogy. A trilogy specifically implies a closed loop.
If you're trying to figure out if what you’re watching or reading fits the definition of a trilogy, look for the "Tragedy of the Second." Usually, the second part is where everything goes wrong. The heroes are at their lowest point. The empire strikes back. The world is on fire. If that tension is resolved in the very next installment, you’ve got a trilogy.
💡 You might also like: The Entire History of You: What Most People Get Wrong About the Grain
Actionable insights for readers and writers
If you’re a writer trying to craft one, or a reader trying to analyze one, keep these points in mind:
Focus on character arcs over plot beats. A plot can be stretched, but a character’s transformation needs to feel earned across three distinct stages: Innocence, Experience, and Wisdom.
Watch out for the "Bridge" trap. If your second installment doesn't have its own internal climax and resolution, it will feel like filler. Every part of a trilogy must be able to stand on its own two feet as a satisfying experience, even if the larger story is still open.
Thematic consistency is king. Whether it's the color palette in a movie or a recurring metaphor in a book series, the "vibe" needs to remain consistent. If the first book is a gritty noir and the third is a slapstick comedy, you haven't written a trilogy; you've written three unrelated things that happen to share a protagonist.
Respect the ending. The whole point of a trilogy is the finality. If you leave too many threads hanging for a potential fourth or fifth entry, you’ve fundamentally moved out of the trilogy space and into the realm of a franchise. There’s a difference. One is an art form defined by its limits; the other is a commercial property defined by its lack of them.
To truly understand a trilogy, you have to look at the space between the entries. It’s about the growth that happens in the gaps. When done right, it’s the most satisfying way to tell a story because it mirrors the way we see our own lives: a beginning, a middle, and eventually, a meaningful end.