x_fluffernutter_x
New member
In another thread MusicDude posted this about High School Musical 3
The second one is alright but uneeded. When the first movie is so huge, people get ego's and have to make a sequel to get even more money. If i was a filmaker, i would never do a sequel. Only horror movies can really get away with sequels
It's ths line in bold that got me thinking. When is a film a sequel made purely for money and when is it the continuing story of a character?
Of course all films are made to make money, that isn't in dispute. Take for example the film "Wall Street."
Either this or next month there is a new Wall Street film opening in the cinemas. This takes place years later and Gordon Gecco has been in prison. Whilst it is a sequel, it is an logical continuation of the characters life.
If you compare that to the horror films. In most part it's just the same story rehashed over and over again. Freddy hunts, teenagers, he kills teenagers, that's it. Nothing really changes.
That same argument could be used for the series of "Rocky" films. He fights, he gets the crap beaten out of him but he enRAB up winning. It's the same thing over and over again. However what makes it different is the real story of the films is it's Rocky's life story. In each film there is a something significant in his life. Mickey dies and he loses his freind, trainer and mentor. The distance between him and his son. Finding that he is old news and no longer the man he was to the fans are just a few of the themes.
I think there is a difference between making a sequel purely for the money because there are films that you ask yourself, I wonder what happened to him/her afterwarRAB?
You want to know more of their life. With the horror films and a lot of the blockbuster films you don't get that as the story of that film seems to give you an ending. It's a moment in time that was captured. Each time you go back to it rather than being the continuation of that characters life it's like going over the same thing again.
I'm sure everyone that saw Silence of the Lambs all had the same thought at the end. I wonder where Hannibal went next and what did he do? Did he get caught?
Are all sequels bad because they are obviously made to make money or are there legitimate reasons for many of them to be made because the characters are interesting enough to warrant people's interest in their lives?
The second one is alright but uneeded. When the first movie is so huge, people get ego's and have to make a sequel to get even more money. If i was a filmaker, i would never do a sequel. Only horror movies can really get away with sequels
It's ths line in bold that got me thinking. When is a film a sequel made purely for money and when is it the continuing story of a character?
Of course all films are made to make money, that isn't in dispute. Take for example the film "Wall Street."
Either this or next month there is a new Wall Street film opening in the cinemas. This takes place years later and Gordon Gecco has been in prison. Whilst it is a sequel, it is an logical continuation of the characters life.
If you compare that to the horror films. In most part it's just the same story rehashed over and over again. Freddy hunts, teenagers, he kills teenagers, that's it. Nothing really changes.
That same argument could be used for the series of "Rocky" films. He fights, he gets the crap beaten out of him but he enRAB up winning. It's the same thing over and over again. However what makes it different is the real story of the films is it's Rocky's life story. In each film there is a something significant in his life. Mickey dies and he loses his freind, trainer and mentor. The distance between him and his son. Finding that he is old news and no longer the man he was to the fans are just a few of the themes.
I think there is a difference between making a sequel purely for the money because there are films that you ask yourself, I wonder what happened to him/her afterwarRAB?
You want to know more of their life. With the horror films and a lot of the blockbuster films you don't get that as the story of that film seems to give you an ending. It's a moment in time that was captured. Each time you go back to it rather than being the continuation of that characters life it's like going over the same thing again.
I'm sure everyone that saw Silence of the Lambs all had the same thought at the end. I wonder where Hannibal went next and what did he do? Did he get caught?
Are all sequels bad because they are obviously made to make money or are there legitimate reasons for many of them to be made because the characters are interesting enough to warrant people's interest in their lives?
- F13 p13 released on F13 in any month would have drawn in the crowd by the millions.