stand alone or crapfest

[jbar1026]

i hate how sequels that are actually just secound halves of the first movie!

take POTC:DMC and POTC:AWE the secound one was not as good as the first and the third one was a mess. i think this comes from the fact that the movies are two dependent on the other DMC didnt have a real ending and AWE if you had not wacthed DMC recently AWE would have been way harder to understand.

or the MATRIX 2 and 3 they just sem to be not as good as 1 and imo it is because they are not stand alone.

this also effected ERAGON imo the movie was good enough but it just ended with no real conclusion. this is because they were going to finsh the movie in 2 and 3

on the other hand. movies like SAW show how it should be done "not that SAW is great but i do like them" each movie takes from the ones before it and builds on it. but can be watched without having seen any other SAW movie.

[vesaker]

For POTC and Matrix its what i call the un-trilogy syndrome. Essentially these trilogies were orinially only the first movie but the movies sold so well that they wanted not only to do a sequal but a trilogy to make as much money as possible probably. The problem arises when they write the 2 remaining movies after the first one was completed but ty to carry on the stroy. They try to make sure you go see the third by making the second not realy end.

If they had been concieved as a trilogy to begin with then they probably would have had particular endings for each installment. I can only think of Lucas being someone who did this but actaully pulled it off good with the original SW trilogy.

[Servo]

I don't know. I think down to the core Lucas pretty much did the same thing. A New Hope was pretty wrapped. Bad guys lost, heroes got their medals. The end of Empire was still pretty open. Not to mention a whole new story arc was introduced in the second film. The only reason I think they'd stand alone as great films is that very reason - they're great films.

[rilocay]

Originally posted by vesaker
For POTC and Matrix its what i call the un-trilogy syndrome. Essentially these trilogies were orinially only the first movie but the movies sold so well that they wanted not only to do a sequal but a trilogy to make as much money as possible probably.

If they had been concieved as a trilogy to begin with then they probably would have had particular endings for each installment.


The Matrix was actually planned as a trilogy, but they condensed the story into one because they never expected it to take it off as it did. It won't be a long search before you find hints of it. A problem the matrix had was now with a story that had main parts condensed, they had to extend it again back to somehwat its original layout but work in what they had changed with the original movie.

As for POTC....i don't know...but what can you expect from a ride that as far as i know was originally a fair bit different from the movie anyways.

But yeah, the original SW trilogy did work, because there was always somesort of closure to the story at hand that was tied into the bigger picture.

[vesaker]

Originally posted by rilocay
The Matrix was actually planned as a trilogy, but they condensed the story into one because they never expected it to take it off as it did. It won't be a long search before you find hints of it. A problem the matrix had was now with a story that had main parts condensed, they had to extend it again back to somehwat its original layout but work in what they had changed with the original movie.

Yeah it definately looks like a smaller story stretched out too much, in Reloaded there were some pointless and wasted parts that if expanded could have filled out the movie a bit better. I haven't actually seen the third one though.

[LordSimen]

I thought the pirates sequels were just as good as the original.

[DarthWade]

The greatest sequel that was "the second half of the story" is The Godfather part 2.

[CosmicPuppet]

I agree completely with this opinion. I feel that it's disrespectful to the fans of the original film when they make sequels simply to cash in. Either you already had a plan or it just doesn't work. The only exception I'd make is for horror films which are usually low budget and meant to work on an entertainment/primal level of being scared. I take offense when films with horrible scripts get HUGE budgets and it adds up to a mess of a film. Why? Because with those millions, they could have made smaller better films which wouldn't have wasted the actors, crew, or our time as movie goers.

Hence why most films with sequels nowadays are incredibly dull and vapid. The only trilogy which worked in the 2000 era is Lord of the Rings and that's because they were already created beforehand as a story. I'm hoping Nightwatch could work as well, but I haven't seen Day Watch yet.

That's why right now, I'm already planning it a horror trilogy after I finish my rewrite of the first chapter. If a sequel is made, at least I'll have thought about it and didn't just "whip" it out for consumption. Every part will stand on its own and there won't be a silly BREAK in the middle of a scene or story like the Matrix Reloaded or Pirates. What is this, TV?? It works on Lost, but not in film.

[abraa cadaver]

Only the first half of the first Saw was any good. Every single Saw has sucked, so maybe use a different example. Like Godfather 2. Or Aliens, Alien 3 etc.

[jbar1026]

Only the first half of the first Saw was any good. Every single Saw has sucked, so maybe use a different example. Like Godfather 2. Or Aliens, Alien 3 etc.


i would use those examples but they imo just dont fit.
i have never seen godfather "any of them" and aliens was my fav of the quadrilogy. alien 3 is really good too i suggest you watch the directors cut

and if you didnt like saw 1 why did you waste your time with 2 or 3 not that it matters for this disscusion since im only refering to the movies taking from the previous ones and building on that. even if you hate them you have to admit they do that and do it well


What is this, TV?? It works on Lost, but not in film.

that is the exact point i was making

I thought the pirates sequels were just as good as the original.

as a whole yes, try to watch awe in a year and not watch dmc beforehand you will more than likely be lost i know i would be. i watched dmc the night before awe came out and had a hard time at points