How a Fourth Film Can Kill a Franchise
- Thread starter Gina_star
- Start date
The Boogerman
New member
Yeah, it was like an episode of Murder, She Wrote minus Angela Lansbury.
pingpongmaster
New member
I wasn't comparing it to the first or second ones, I was challenging your description of it.
three_ladybug
New member
Me too, watched it the other night again and still enjoyed it.
Agreed. On both points
Agreed. On both points
I reckon it's often the third film that loses it. The second film generally has a lot going for it. A bigger budget because the first film has proven the concept. The original talent is still around and interested. The writers and director have idea that are either left over from the first film or they came up with too late to include in it. Second films sometimes get bad reactions because they are less original than the first, but judged on their merits they are often good.
By the third film, you've used up the good ideas. The genre becomes formulaic, with the formula defined by the elements that are common to the first two films. The original talent and writers have lost interest and moved on. There is no longer any real artistic drive behind the film. Instead, it's all about the money. The film is made to exploit the fans of the first two films. The budget will probably be higher, with more SFX, but no soul.
Obviously not all 3rd films are like this, but I think a lot are. With Hellraiser, for example, I like the second film because it takes the genre in a new and interest direction, with a visit to Hell, leviathan, exploration of what cenobites are and where they come from etc. It also keeps the same lead actress. The third film is formulaic. The chase across town, for example, is by the numbers. We have new cenobites with moving parts embedded in them, which wasn't technically possible for the earlier films, but they too are formulaic. If I tell you "Camerahead", you can pretty much imagine the monster even if you've never seen him. We even have a heroine with a boy's name. I agree the 4th Hellraiser film was atrocious, but for me the rot set in with the 3rd.
Alien 1 and 2: good. Alien 3: not so much. Blade 1 and 2: good. Blade 3: not so much. Terminator 1 and 2: good. Terminator 3: not so much. I've not seen T4 but maybe it follows the Hellraiser trend.
By the third film, you've used up the good ideas. The genre becomes formulaic, with the formula defined by the elements that are common to the first two films. The original talent and writers have lost interest and moved on. There is no longer any real artistic drive behind the film. Instead, it's all about the money. The film is made to exploit the fans of the first two films. The budget will probably be higher, with more SFX, but no soul.
Obviously not all 3rd films are like this, but I think a lot are. With Hellraiser, for example, I like the second film because it takes the genre in a new and interest direction, with a visit to Hell, leviathan, exploration of what cenobites are and where they come from etc. It also keeps the same lead actress. The third film is formulaic. The chase across town, for example, is by the numbers. We have new cenobites with moving parts embedded in them, which wasn't technically possible for the earlier films, but they too are formulaic. If I tell you "Camerahead", you can pretty much imagine the monster even if you've never seen him. We even have a heroine with a boy's name. I agree the 4th Hellraiser film was atrocious, but for me the rot set in with the 3rd.
Alien 1 and 2: good. Alien 3: not so much. Blade 1 and 2: good. Blade 3: not so much. Terminator 1 and 2: good. Terminator 3: not so much. I've not seen T4 but maybe it follows the Hellraiser trend.
I liked Hellraiser 3 at the time,but it's dated very badly (cinematography,fashion,effects etc).It was obviously aimed at the teen crowd,unlike the first two movies.Due to studio insistance,Pinhead was turned into a Freddy Krueger type character,which probably backfired as the slasher style was well out of fashion by 1992.
I've come to appreciate Hellraiser 2 more than before.It was rushed and the bigger budget did not meet the plot requirements (e.g journey into "hell").It is also very confusing.Entertaining as a demonic fairytale with a complicated story and is probably one of the most underrated movies ever made from a gore standpoint.Much more horrifying imagery in that movie than in Hostel or Saw.
I've come to appreciate Hellraiser 2 more than before.It was rushed and the bigger budget did not meet the plot requirements (e.g journey into "hell").It is also very confusing.Entertaining as a demonic fairytale with a complicated story and is probably one of the most underrated movies ever made from a gore standpoint.Much more horrifying imagery in that movie than in Hostel or Saw.
Alien 3's still a good film IMO, it just had some REALLY big boots to fill, Alien Ressurection on the other hand reeked badly, and fits the "fourth movie death" theory perfectly.
I'll add Star Wars to the list here, I know a lot of people a few years older than me hate Return of the Jedi (I've never had a problem with the Ewoks) but I think it's a perfectly good finish to the original trilogy, The Phantom Menace on the other hand is a steam of rancid bantha droppings that killed Star Wars for me.
I'll add Star Wars to the list here, I know a lot of people a few years older than me hate Return of the Jedi (I've never had a problem with the Ewoks) but I think it's a perfectly good finish to the original trilogy, The Phantom Menace on the other hand is a steam of rancid bantha droppings that killed Star Wars for me.
I doubt whether a third sequel will ever match the quality of it's original predecessor, and that's partly due to the studios and partly due to the directors.
Most directors, if they see their work as a franchise will usually confine it the format of a trilogy (start, middle and end format), I'm not aware of any director taking their work to a quadrilogy.
Post trilogy (or post original film, if it was not a trilogy) is where the studios take more control and see the idea of sequels purely as a cash cow, thus milking the franchise with weaker and weaker films, there's often little creative integrity behind them.
Most directors, if they see their work as a franchise will usually confine it the format of a trilogy (start, middle and end format), I'm not aware of any director taking their work to a quadrilogy.
Post trilogy (or post original film, if it was not a trilogy) is where the studios take more control and see the idea of sequels purely as a cash cow, thus milking the franchise with weaker and weaker films, there's often little creative integrity behind them.
Libbles1233
New member
I think the 8th HP film is going to be the end of it...
Alien 4 definately is very very poor! and ruined a great trilogy (even though alien 3 is pretty bad - it was still had a lovely ending - ripley's death still beings tears to my eyes).
and the Hellraiser films - as a old fan, i rememeber being pretty disgusted with Hellraiser 4! its just dire to me.
the 5th being a better idea for a storyline - but done in a crap way. 6 -was good to see Kirsty back - but little else is good about it. and i havent a clue why they bothered with 7 or 8!
and the Hellraiser films - as a old fan, i rememeber being pretty disgusted with Hellraiser 4! its just dire to me.
the 5th being a better idea for a storyline - but done in a crap way. 6 -was good to see Kirsty back - but little else is good about it. and i havent a clue why they bothered with 7 or 8!
Ebony(anywhoo?)
New member
we can thankfully class star wars as 2 separate trilogies.
i have always thought though - what would have the fans been impressed with - as far as a new star wars film goes? i sincerely beleive anything they would have made, anything, eould have been hit with disappointment.
i have always thought though - what would have the fans been impressed with - as far as a new star wars film goes? i sincerely beleive anything they would have made, anything, eould have been hit with disappointment.