EPTWhy Sequels are Terrible - Page 2
| Blogs > Blisse |
|
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
| ||
|
Horiz0n
Sweden364 Posts
But both are "good movies" cant think of a movie where the sequal where better then the first one, probably because the originality that made the first one intressting isnt there anymore along with much more. And I think the 3rd lotr's movie where the worst. | ||
|
Louuster
Canada2869 Posts
| ||
|
Zorkmid
4410 Posts
The Lord of the Rings is ONE book. Tolkien's publisher just released it against his wishes in three installments cause it was so long. | ||
|
Servius_Fulvius
United States947 Posts
On July 08 2011 15:12 Blisse wrote: Why do most sequels suck? Is it because the big corporations sees the success of their first movie and decide they don't give a crap anymore and just release movie after movie to milk the most out of the series? Well sometimes. But for people like Steven Spielberg, they have enough money that they don't really care about money that much. There really comes a point in your career where the money doesn't even matter anymore. You just want to make good movies. Oh, here we go with corporation talk :/. I'd argue that a lot of sequels are suckling from the teat of their cash cow. Take the fourth Pirates movie. The plot of the first three were done. There didn't need to be a fourth. But people are still willing to pay to go see it. In the world of art this may be a mute point, but in the world of business you make as much money as you can. Perhaps, in an ideological paradise, money doesn't matter anymore, but this is the real world... With all of that in mind, let's move on to Jurassic Park. Good, yes? And the second and third were complete bombs. Why? Because after the first movie, you think immediately that the next movie is going to be great as well. But you're already used to the idea of dinosaurs in a park and in the city. Now, you tell me, what else can they do? Jurassic Park 2. Dinosaurs in a jungle, people get stuck and have to escape. Jurassic Park 3. Dinosaurs in a jungle, people get stuck and have to escape. It's exactly the same as Jurassic Park because there is nothing else you can possibly add to the movie. Sure, maybe the collective minds of several million fans have come up with an okay fan fiction, but there's really nothing you can add to make it even more amazing. I'm ok with the Lord of the Rings arguments, your opinion is your opinion, but have you ever READ Jurassic Park? The first movie is, primarily, a short explanation on how the dinosaurs came to exist again and then a lot of surviving when you're in the wild with them. The book focused a lot more on how the dinosaurs came to be again in an interesting "what if?" scenario you see in a lot of science fiction. The first movie didn't cover all the material in the book, primarily a survival sequence in the pterodactyl habitat. This was a big part of Jurassic Park 3, so it's a far cry from fan fiction, it's actually a legitimate part of the story. Sure, the plot of Lost World had a number of differences from the book, but the overall story was decidedly different from the first. The first movie was "hey, we made this theme park with rez'd dinosaurs, isn't it awesome? Oh crap, the power is out and they're loose!" while the second was "there's another island with dinosaurs, but this time a rival is trying to steal the dino's and the main characters are trying to rescue someone." Yes, they both have the survival aspect in common, but what do you expect? The plots, on the other hand, are different. Overall you seem to judge movies based more on action than the story they tell. The action sequences of sequels ARE going to be similar because if they weren't then you'd have an entirely different movie! The key differences are in the plot. A film is another way of telling a story, and if you don't have the stomach for the plot then don't expect to enjoy ANY sequel! | ||
|
Servius_Fulvius
United States947 Posts
On July 08 2011 22:09 Horiz0n wrote: cant think of a movie where the sequal where better then the first one, probably because the originality that made the first one intressting isnt there anymore along with much more. It's mostly a matter of opinion. However, it's generally accepted that The Empire Strikes Back and The Godfather II were better than their predecessors. Personally, I like Evil Dead 2 AND Army of Darkness better than the first (with Army of Darkness being my favorite - that was #3 in the series). I also like Aliens a lot more than Alien. Let's not forget Dark Knight versus Batman Begins, either! In the end, everything is debatable! | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32135 Posts
Not to mention T1 is nothing liek T2, and T3 is nothing like any of the others beyond the whole robots fight humans schtick. Complete different as far as style, ambiance and a whole bunch of other things | ||
|
VeNoM HaZ Skill
United States1528 Posts
On July 08 2011 22:58 Zorkmid wrote: Fun Fact: The Lord of the Rings is ONE book. Tolkien's publisher just released it against his wishes in three installments cause it was so long. Which is why it is so hard splitting it into three movies also. I never really considered the movies as individuals too much, I thought of them as a single 20 hour long adventure. It just makes more since that way. For terrible sequels see Karate Kid Part 2. Seriously? WTF!!! First you take time to learn karate from the coolest goddamn person to ever walk the earth. Then you go on a fucking rampage kicking the shit out of everybody you see, collecting some broken bones and shit on the way. And because you get so injured, Asian Jesus has to perform his body fixing awesomeness. Finally you fight Johnny, all while that annoying kid is yelling "Put him in a body bag Johnny!", and finally you crane kick him in the face to win the tournament. All of this for a girl who then dumps your ass in the sequel!!?!?!?!?!!! NO! JUST NO! | ||
|
xXFireandIceXx
Canada4296 Posts
| ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
And I totally forgot that it was one movie split into three. It doesn't really invalidate my argument since I never used the Lord of the Rings as an example... at least I'm pretty sure I didn't. Left to sleep after my post. :D And the reason I didn't put "Why Most Sequels are Terrible" is because that makes for a terrible title and argument. My argument is, "Why Most Sequels are Terrible," as shown if you read the op carefully. And I don't have the experience or memory to call on every example ever of every movie series. And even if I did, it's still my opinion. It's just an idea that I had, instead of people always saying, the corporations get greedy and release subpar content to milk the most out of the brilliance of the first movie, maybe we're just used to the idea, and disappointed when we watch somewhat of the same movie twice. I liked reading the arguments against me though, really interesting stuff that I never knew before. Also, which Terminator is the one with the cop and which Terminator is the one with the woman? | ||
|
lolsixtynine
United States600 Posts
| ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
Exceptions: Terminator 2 The Godfather: Part 2 That's all I can think of. | ||
|
Servius_Fulvius
United States947 Posts
On July 09 2011 05:06 Blisse wrote: Also, which Terminator is the one with the cop and which Terminator is the one with the woman? Terminator is the one with the soldier sent back in time (so he's like a cop), Terminator 2 has the machine that wears a cop uniform, and Terminator 3 has the female machine. | ||
|
Jonoman92
United States9109 Posts
| ||
|
Tal
United Kingdom1017 Posts
The first just had it all right...from Gandalfs fireworks to Rivendelll, it just felt expertly crafted and right. Generally on topic, isn't the Empire Strikes Back considered the best Star Wars film? | ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6600 Posts
On July 08 2011 21:40 BadBinky wrote: I don't think sequels are terrible. Sure most of the time they are but I can think of many movies where a sequel is better than the original. Godfather 2, The Dark Knight, Terminator 2 and The Empire strikes back just to name a few. Maybe the ones with better sequels have an idea that doesn't get boring or sometimes the original is so terrible the sequel looks good. wasn't planning on commenting cause everybody has mostly hit all my points... just felt I had to mention The Dark Knight isn't really a sequel... it's like the 8th movie in a series of films. Kinda like calling Quantum of Solace a sequel. | ||
|
Kenpachi
United States9908 Posts
On July 08 2011 22:58 Zorkmid wrote: Fun Fact: The Lord of the Rings is ONE book. Tolkien's publisher just released it against his wishes in three installments cause it was so long. i wonder if it would have been published as a textbook if it werent for the publisher lol | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
| ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On July 09 2011 10:18 Chairman Ray wrote: A huge part of what makes sequels worse than the first is that character, plot, and setting development are key elements in the quality of a movie. Take The Matrix for an example. The whole setting in The Matrix is very deep and intriguing, but most of it is spewed out in the first movie. In the second and third, you don't get the thrill of seeing a new setting and characters unfold, you only see how they interact. This is somewhat true, but with proper writing the plot and characters can grow and develop beyond their original incarnation. I guess the most recent example of this would be the Harry Potter series. The crafted storyline of the books allowed the script writers to create a longterm story arc which flows through the movies. The movies themselves grow with the characters both in tone and content. Some would say that this is just an example of corporations taking advantage of good writing but my counter to that is quite simply, are the movies good? I would suggest that by earning well over $1 Billion dollars the franchise has at least been financially successful. I stand by point raised in my first post, that without a proper storyline, without well constructed writing, sequels fail. This is not because sequels themselves are inherently bad, the writing is. | ||
|
Cuddle
Sweden1345 Posts
In LoTR, the story doesn't end until the third movie. In Matrix, the original story ends in movie one but there were more ideas floating around that was later adapted to movies two and three. Movie 2 and 3 is one story and thus, of the same "quality", albeit not as good as the original. The same goes for Pirates, a great first movie, but the others does not add anything we haven't already seen, it's just milking the concept and characters. | ||
| ||
