The Legitimacy of Sequels.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

From the beginning of movie time there have always been sequels. Lately it seems that all there is are sequels. But it only seems that way. Sequels have a source, and in most cases the source must be the beginning(Star Wars excepted now that TPM is the beginning). There are two basic types of sequels, the follow up type, working from unfinished business from the previous film, and the series type, which has a unique story but the same characters. The distinction of thw tow can either be minor, or substantial. Sometimes its strictly a matter of the source material. Take for example Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Based on an ultimate series of 7 novels, the films are not sequels of the first type, but of the second. They are self contained stories with a beginning, a middle and an end. James Bond, Indiana Jones, and even Jaws are other examples of the second type.

As a whole flm sequels are looked at as a necessary evil, something many people look down their nose at. They are money making devices and thats all. Studios actively seek the next blockbuster movie franchise. Summer time has become the dumping ground for mindless entertainment. Lately is be more mindlessness than entertainment. Sometimes the movie audience is used as a whipping boy as bad film after bad film are released mocking the filmgoer's intelligence. In other cases the filmmakers overestimate the intelligence of the filmgoer, and we get a dumb and dumberer, and 2 Fast 2 Furious.

Studios treat every release as if its an EVENT. Each film is the must see of the summer. Advertisers promoting Matrix Reloaded as the must see summer film said If you see 3 movies this summer, make sure you see Matrix Reloaded 3 times, or something to that effect. If you didn't see a particular film, you missed out. Ten of the top 40 grossing films of all time domestically are sequels. But studios don't feed just at the top of the boxoffice list. The hit the middle and the bottom of the list too. For every Two Towers, there are multiple Star Trek and Bond films. For every Star Trek film there is a Jason, a Michael, and a Freddy. We have Nerds, Police Academies, and American Pies. The top of the list is loaded with franchise producing films. In the top 20 alone, 14 films are either original, or sequels to original, or originals with sequels in production.

So is the legitimacy of sequels all about money? Mostly, but it doesn't mean there arn't some worthwhile sequels out there. While it is rare that sequels are better than its original, it has happened. Many would agree that Godfather II is the best sequel of all time. Its the only sequel to win best picture, for whatever thats worth. The Empire Strikes Back is believed by many, especially here, to be better than Star Wars, though not by me. Other fine second films includeTerminator 2, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, X-2, the Two Towers, Star Trek II, the Wrath of Kahn, and Gremlins 2.

Its very rare that the 3rd film in a series even approaches the original or the first sequel. When that rarity occurs it's almost always the series type and not a direct sequel. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban almost cannot help but be better than the first two films, simply based on superior source material. Army of Darkness, Escape from the Planet of the Apes, T-3, RTOJ, and Star Trek III, the Search for Spock all have qualities that are to be admired in a 3rd film.

Now the true series like bond and Jones ebb and flow, some are better than others. Each Bond actor has made at least one or more decent Bond film.

The flip side of the coin is the bad sequel They are more common, though for me harder to remember, because all you want to do is forget them. A retched sequel that comes to mind is the Mummy Returns, just a bad film in so many ways. RoboCop II was terrible as well. Its even more of a failure because it draws parallels to The Empire Strikes Back which Irvin Kerhsner also directed. What went wrong. The script would be the first place I looked. Ghostbusters II, Back to the Future II, Home Alone II all can be described with common adjectives, bigger, louder, darker, and badder. Make that last word bad, because the originals were all fine films. The new Lara Croft film debuts soon, and its easy to assume it will be on the bad list, but truthfully its likely to end on the better than the original list, mainly because the first film is so terrible.

Its easier in the long term to be excited about sequels, they are a know quantity. 2005 promises to be a sequels dream with what we hope is 3 or 4 great blockbuster sequels. Can Lucas redeem himself and his series with Star Wars Ep III? Is adventure's name still Indiana Jones? Will people flock to see intelligent dinosaurs? And how hot will the Goblet of Fire burn. In the short term, its harder to know what original films are about and what sequels will they spawn. Good and bad sequels are here to stay. They are a legitimate craft form, sometimes crossing over into art. They are a great breeding ground for young talent. Its so very fun to find that rare sequel that surpasses the original in almost every way (X-2).

Can't wait to see Pirates of the Carribean, so that I can start anticipating the sequel.

[HPFAN 1]

Can you blame the sutdios for secreting these terrible sequels for money. It all boils down to money in the end. Speilberg, Shymalon (sp), Lucas, and even JW anticipate the pay check attatched to these films. They do however admire and love the work they do but like i said it boils down to money. Studios no longer care how many Oscars they have under there name they care if this film will rake in the cash. Can you blame them? Don't blame the studios for throwing garbage at you blame yourself for going out and paying for the crap. Maybe if the millions of people learn what a good film is and limit them selves to nothing below mediocre, then they'll stop dishing out garbage and maybe then they'll recognize good films.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I don't think I am blaming anyone?

[Hector J. Guzman 1]

Jones should have been made in 1994 when they said they were planing to do it.

Midi of Faekes the Phoenix

[Hlao-roo 389]

I thought was Back to the Future: Part II was fantastic. Over time, it's certainly become more highly regarded for its more intricate exploration of time travel -- a few critics at the time admitted the plot was somewhat inventive, if, perhaps, it lacked the heart of the original simply because it was not predicated on the charming premise of seeing what your parents were like as teenagers.

The best part of the movie, of course, is the introduction of the "chicken" taunt. I love it.

[Guest]

Maybe if the millions of people learn what a good film is and limit them selves to nothing below mediocre, then they'll stop dishing out garbage and maybe then they'll recognize good films.

Keep wishing. These kind of "films" are called "videos". They never see the light of a projector--just the wheels of the inside of a VCR (and never DVD, because the distributors don't have that kind of money). In other words, I'm talking about straight-to-video B-movies.

Millions of people don't watch these kinds of movies, yet they're still made. Christian movies and, sad to say, their sequels fall into this category (can we say the "Left Behind"-on-the-rental-shelf category? ).

Now about sequels themselves. A few months ago, when I was on vacation, there was a time when all I could think about was making sequels when I began making films. A sequel to Zorro, Rocketeer, remaking Superman, remaking Mag 7, etc. I just wanted to do it because they were all movies I've enjoyed for years and thought they could stand to be updated or have their original stories continued, for the sake of revisiting their settings and the ideas that started in the original. In the case of The Rocketeer, it was going back to the Golden Age of flight of Art Deco on the houses and hangars, nothing but radial engines, and the only airport security was a friendly watchdog named Bud. If I ever made that movie, it would be for the pure joy of making a sequel to The Rocketeer, not the pure joy of counting the money I got from it. Same goes for any film project I could make. Probably would just wind up giving most of the money away to some people or organization.

[HPFAN 1]

I don't think I am blaming anyone?

NO NO NO NO NO, i'm not saying that. The basic theme of your post is saying that sequels are bad with a few exceptions and they still have legitamecy. We unfortunely point fingers towards the big movie execs. But some blame has to fall on the people who pay to watch these movies even though they are not worthy for a sequel thus promting the studios to start production for the sequel with commercials like "the hottest movie this year" attatched to them. Unfortunly we who can spot a horrible, unorignal, weakly acted and poorly directed film in a croud are the minority. The masses flock to these movies like raving idiots with out seeing the faults in the film. Basicaly i'm saying if the public go to see a good film that is oscar worthy the big Studios will start concentrating on getting those directors who can produce those films. So it won't be rare to have sequels like the Godfather II. Because that's what the big studios will be focusing on "Good Films"

[Romão 2,274]

Well, I don't think I'm "smarter" than the general audience.

[scissorhands 16]

The sequel of Starship Troopers (one of the sci-fi films ever) will be released directly on DVD and VHS. Phil Tippet is the director. The first images look really cool (no F/X yet though).

In regards to the thread, X-Men2 is not as good as it's said to be. Simple as a circle, it's one of the most predictable films I've ever seen.

George Lucas has showed in the new trilogy how the prequels can be better than the original movies.

Matrix Reloaded expands to unexpected horizons the world of Matrix. The Wachowsky brothers (and sister) innovated, instead of just copying (like in X-Men2).

BTTF2 is one of the best sequels ever. The script was original.

Home Alone 2 was exactly the same film as the first one: but that's why it's so funny! you see how they wanted every element to coincide with the original film, even if it takes place in a different city.

The Bond films are boring. I won't say anything about them.

And Harry Potter saga will never evolve???? HP1 and HP2 are the same movie.

s-hands, who completely disagrees with Joe

[Hector J. Guzman 1]

Here here on HP

Hector - who agrees with Peio, except on the Star Wars thing

[Marian Schedenig 8,210]

I'd add two more sequel types:

1) The hybrid type. While the Harry Potter parts form a series and each part is a more or less complete story, they're still very much interconnected. More than just reusing characters, the events of one installment are often very important for the others. Not that much for the first two books/movies, but all the more later on.

2) The useless "it made money, so let's do another one" sequel of a movie that wasn't really sequal-able to begin with. Stuff like Harry Potter or Blues Brothers, where the second movie is more or less a clone of the first movie or generally just "more of the same" where you can clearly see they had no ideas at all because there simply wasn't that much left to do with the elements from the original.

And I disagree about BTTF 2 being bad. Of course it's not as good as the first one, but it's a lot of fun, particularly when watching all three movies in a row. There are lots of complicated, fun connections between the three installments.

Actually, there would be another type of sequel, but few movies of that type exist (except for TV "miniseries"): A long movie split into several parts that were never meant to really stand alone and therefore shouldn't be called sequels at all, yet are constantly referred to using that term. LOTR comes to mind.

Marian - who is annoyed whenever he reads something about "Lord of the Rings 2".

[A24 4,346]

Scissorhands wrote:

George Lucas has showed in the new trilogy how the prequels can be better than the original movies.

Even George Lucas doesn't believe that. How can you be so blind? Is it sarcasm or do you just like to provoke?

----------------

Alex Cremers

[JoeinAR 1,949]

s-hands, who completely disagrees with Joe

Peio, you can't completely disagree with me, there are some statements of fact that simply cannot be disagreed with. Now my opinions on what are good and bad sequels is fair game.

Besides my whole point is that sequels are a legitimate for of filmmaking, that despite their shortcomings, there are some fine sequels out there. I never said that sequels were bad, just that bad sequels are more common.

However I can disagree with your statements that Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets are the same. They are nothing alike at all. And Lucas has not proved his prequels are better than the originals, he has proved he can't make films as good as the original.

Joe, who loves sequels more than people seem to realize.

[Guest]

You go Joe, you intellectual powerhouse you.

[Rogue_Leader 2]

I don't care what anyone says!!!

Ford can still DEFINATELY play Indy IMO. However, I do agree the film should have been made a while ago. Its WAY over-due.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

You go Joe, you intellectual powerhouse you.  

A.I., I appreciate your sincerity! Thanks

[Hector J. Guzman 1]

(XX!XX)

[Hector J. Guzman 1]

I don't care what anyone says!!!

Ford can still DEFINATELY play Indy IMO. However, I do agree the film should have been made a while ago. Its WAY over-due.

Of course he can play Indy. An old Indy. I still cannot envision Ford doing action scenes and look as vital as Connery looks at 72!

"Lost in the Wild" from The Edge (Jerry Goldsmith)

[Hector J. Guzman 1]

BTW, how can Lucas redeemed himself to someone that already liked his Episode II?

I love Episode II!!

Hot Barbecue

[A24 4,346]

Of course he can play Indy. An old Indy. I still cannot envision Ford doing action scenes and look as vital as Connery looks at 72!

True. And how much of his own stuntwork will he still be able to do? Will they place Ford's head on a stuntdouble the whole time?

---------------

Alex Cremers

[charlesk 0]

Can Lucas redeem himself and his series with Star Wars Ep III?

And for those who will hate it just because they can't get past TPM, get over it and relax and enjoy.  Lucas may not be a great director, but in this film Lucas pays homage to past movies and for no other reason than that I applaud him.

(Extracted from this original post about AOTC at Ikonboard link)

And can you redeem yourself from your changes of mind? LOL

[Hlao-roo 389]

I noticed his "changes of mind," too, but I have my share of them, as well. I staunchly defended TPM when it came out and was one of the most vocal champions of John Williams's 2001 scores. I now find myself at the opposite end of the spectrum. It's not a new phenomenon: time can weather one's opinions.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I to was fairly positive about AOTC when I first saw it.

Then i made the worst mistake imaginable.

I saw it again.

Bigtime bantha poodoo.

Stefancos-

[Lurker 5]

I didn't need multiple screenings of AOTC to confirm my initial impressions. However, watching it a second time (over a year later) it was as bad as that first time. I don't anticipate a third viewing anytime soon.

Neil

[JoeinAR 1,949]

for some reason I cannot access the archive. All I get is the Don't post at this board.

Is there are trick I am missing.

Charles, I don't think I have ever said I hated the movie, but I did change my mind that it was great.

I have always liked Lucas' movie more than John's score, which I have been more critical of. I stand by much of what I said, but the film didn't stand upon 2nd viewing. After a 2nd viewing I decided it was the 4th best Star Wars film, and the score the 5 best or in this case the worst Star Wars score.

[scissorhands 16]

The word "worst" is derogatory. Better use "the least good".

[scissorhands 16]

I agree with you for the first time joe. AOTC is the 5th best SW score.

And, in my opinion, TPM is the best. There was an abrupt change between both scores, and i don't understand why, 'cause there is not that difference in the films.

[charlesk 0]

for some reason I cannot access the archive.  All I get is the Don't post at this board.

Is there are trick I am missing.

Charles, I don't think I have ever said I hated the movie, but I did change my mind that it was great.

I have always liked Lucas' movie more than John's score, which I have been more critical of.  I stand by much of what I said, but the film didn't stand upon 2nd viewing.  After a 2nd viewing I decided it was the 4th best Star Wars film, and the score the 5 best or in this case the worst Star Wars score.

I never said you hated it, but it was very funny this morning when somebody sent me the Ikonboard link, because you are here generally regarded as someone who didn't like the prequels.

The joke was short-lived, but it was fun anyway. Same I can say about AOTC

[A24 4,346]

I stand by much of what I said, but the film didn't stand upon 2nd viewing.

I too was fairly positive about AOTC when I first saw it.

I staunchly defended TPM when it came out.

What made the first time so good that the balance was positive???

----------------

Alex Cremers

[fommes 153]

I to was fairly positive about AOTC when I first saw it.

Me too. I guess the reason was that I went to the film with the lowest expectations possible, and went back home with 'a new hope', that the third prequel would be even better! (Oh, the irony...) No seriously, it was nice to see that it was not as bad as the first attempt.

The second time did no good too, but since the Phantom Menace, I have watched the prequels for fun and relaxation, not expecting awe, mystery, or quality cinema...

[Morn 8]

What do you have against Back to the Future II, Home Alone II?

I still cannot envision Ford doing action scenes and look as vital as Connery looks at 72!  

He was very good in that comedy where he was stuck on the island, what was it called? It has elements of action and adventure.

And I think that sequels are extremely valid for film making, they can be highly original and different, regardless of the fact that they are based on another film, and of very high quality. So I would say that their drawbacks are only slight drawbacks. It's sad that all too many of them are with out the inspiration or skill that the original had.

[Hector J. Guzman 1]

He was very good in that comedy where he was stuck on the island, what was it called? It has elements of action and adventure.  

Six Days, Seven Nights, I think it was called. I liked it. I wish Williams would do a score for this kind of film. Kind of like the music from The Lost World, but lighter. More fun than darkness.

[A24 4,346]

Six Days, Seven Nights, I think it was called. I liked it. I wish Williams would do a score for this kind of film. Kind of like the music from The Lost World, but lighter. More fun than darkness.

Does this make sense?

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Morn 8]

Of course it does, get new glasses, hehe.

[Hector J. Guzman 1]

Blame it on that sea blob:

Were you wondering whatever happened to Rosie? Well, there she is... er, rather there it is.

[Hector J. Guzman 1]

This just in from 'Santiago Tiempos'--July 1, 2003

"...Valparaiso beach goers reported last seeing US TV star Rosie O'Donell struggling to escape riptide currents. Efforts to save the behemoth were hampered when large holes in the commercial fishing nets being used..."

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Hector, don't you think it's a bit inappropriate to mock and insult fat people.

I mean we have people who struggle with gravities pull posting here, and who knows how many silent readers here are among those who are twice the man John Goodman is.

You should be ashamed of yourself, Rosie is a role model to those who keep America's fast food franchises in business even in these troubled economic times.

Stefancos-

[Hector J. Guzman 1]

Who said anything about fat people? Anyways, I guess you´re right Stef, if anyone is offended that Rosie is fat, I´m sorry.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It's Steef, not Stef.

You probably missed my little run in bit BigKenLittle a few months ago and are not getting the joke.

Stefancos-

[Hector J. Guzman 1]

So, what´s the difference? But okay Steef. And BTW, I did read some of those posts of the stsar wars nerd with the light saber.

Hector - who thinks people should lighten up...

Hector2 - still wondering about some people´s real identity.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Steef is the correct abriviation of my name in my country, Stef is not.

That's all.

And BTW, I did read some of those posts of the stsar wars nerd with the light saber.

Yeah, that fat kid making like Dart Maul.

Hector - who thinks people should lighten up...

I agree 100%

Hector2 - still wondering about some people´s real identity.

Stefancos- who know Hector is really Antonio Garcia.

[Hector J. Guzman 1]

Steef it is.

Stefancos- who know Hector is really Antonio Garcia.

Dang it Bill, who made such an outreagous statement?

Hector - who thinks BigKen is one of the finest guys anywhere

[Luke Skywalker 1,796]

Yeah, that fat kid making like Dart Maul.

Well i think if i understood well, that kid might have a cameo in EpIII. i read it in the force.net but i dont know if he was the same.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

How could I have written this without mentioning Alien and Aliens. I know some think Alien is superior to Aliens,

but for my money I will always take Cameron's masterpiece over Scott's groundbreaking work.

[Marian Schedenig 8,210]

Alien, then Alien³...then Aliens, then Alien Resurrection.

Marian - who likes all 4 though and can't wait to see Fincher's own cut.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Sorry Marian, we could never agree here, like Cameron, I despise Fincher's sequel, one of the worst of alltime imho. How they could take the great characters in Aliens and just kill them like then and replace them with such wastoids....plus an alien Dog. The series should have ended with Aliens

My only real problems I have with Alien is the same problem I have with all Ridley Scott films, too darkly lit, no sense of pace. Plus he makes the same mistake all horror film makers make, something unseen is scarier than something in the light.

Joe, who knows the scariest things are always in the light, at least all the ones I have seen so far.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Marian - who likes all 4 though and can't wait to see Fincher's own cut.

That will never happen, Fincher has disavowed the film and has nothing to do with the upcoming extended version, which will NOT be marketed under the term "Director's Cut".

Stefancos- who thinks Alien3 is a flawed masterpiece

[A24 4,346]

Plus he makes the same mistake all horror film makers make, something unseen is scarier than something in the light.  

Joe, who knows the scariest things are always in the light, at least all the ones I have seen so far.

Could you explain that a bit further, Joe?

[Marian Schedenig 8,210]

But the unseen things are the most scary... Repulsion, The Tenant, Rosemary's Baby,...

That will never happen, Fincher has disavowed the film and has nothing to do with the upcoming extended version, which will NOT be marketed under the term "Director's Cut".

1) The new DVD was said to have an earlier cut of the movie, which would mean it'd have to be closer to what Fincher originally intended I suppose.

2) I read somewhere (and stupidly I can't remember where) that Fincher now IS involved with the new DVD cut.

Marian - who thinks Fincher's cut might be flawless and hopes he really does something for the DVD.

Mahler: Symphony #5 (Berlin Philharmonic, Rattle, DVD)

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Fincher is one of the worst director's out there IMHO(Alan's rules). He lucked out with Se7en, but should have stuck to Madonna video's. Rosemary's Baby is about as scary as a sunny day.

More later.