|
|
Post by Allan on May 17, 2007 22:42:00 GMT 10
Has anybody noticed that just about every "big" movie this year is a sequel? We've just had Spider-Man 3, and will soon have Pirates of the Carribean: At World's End, Shrek the Third, Ocean's 13, Live Free or Die Hard, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, and probably more I'm forgetting.
The only two "big" movies out this year I can think of that aren't sequels are The Simpsons Movie and Transformers - the former a spin-off from TV, the second an adaptation from TV.
So what does everybody think about all these sequels? Are they a good thing, or has Hollywood run out of ideas? Personally, I'd like to see some new concepts get out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nina on May 20, 2007 20:51:32 GMT 10
lol I want to see all of those movies! I like sequels, I like to see characters I like again.
|
|
Deleted
Posts - 0
Likes -
Joined - January 1970
Nov 23, 2024 14:55:39 GMT 10
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2007 4:27:59 GMT 10
I don't mind sequels if the original movie left room for a sequel without feeling forced--or was intended to have sequels. But just because I like the first one doesn't mean I'll like the sequel(s).
|
|
|
|
Post by Nico on May 21, 2007 5:48:54 GMT 10
Sequels will always Sell, Even if they Suck, If you loved spiderman 1 & 2, you would buy the boxset with all three, They know that, they will always make there money if they are following a sequel,
Just look at Grease, Great movie, Great Soundtrack, Great actors/actresses. then Grease 2, it sucks, but I bet plenty of People paid to see it.
Speed, The second was really bad (imo), Maybe it was the fact that keanu reeves wasnt in it, which meant they had the leading lady, who had a romance with him suddenly has a new guy we have to get used to?,
Personally, I am a sucker for sequels, especially ones like potc, and Die Hard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beck on May 21, 2007 8:41:13 GMT 10
I like some sequels but they mostly only work with the same characters, with some additions, and some gone, but not just one of the mains like in speed 2 and Grease 2 which had only Frenchy still in it so wasn't much of a sequel :dunno:
|
|
|
|
Post by Allan on May 21, 2007 10:55:54 GMT 10
They do generally only work with the same characters, however 28 Weeks Later was an exception to this rule. Basically, the movie was set in the "same world" after the situation had progressed, with no returning characters. And it worked, which is rare.
I'm a sucker for sequels, though I do think that movie studios are relying on them a bit heavily.
|
|
|
|
Post by buffymanic on May 22, 2007 0:35:07 GMT 10
who cares if they're good movies? If thay are entertaining and stick to what works with the franchise than why not keep making them until someone important pulls out or the market stops getting excited. I want to see all of those movies and it doesn't bother me that maybe they may not be quite as good as the original or the first two but you can't make up your mind without actually seeing them.
Perhaps its just coincidence that none of the big films are originals
|
|
|
|
Post by Allan on May 22, 2007 0:36:31 GMT 10
If they're enjoyable, they're enjoyable. But sadly, that isn't always the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by buffymanic on May 22, 2007 0:38:34 GMT 10
yeh but out of that lot the only one I'd be worried about would be Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, all the rest have a lot of good backing behind them
|
|
|
|
Post by Allan on May 22, 2007 0:42:25 GMT 10
I'm a little worred about Pirates 3 and Ocean's 13. And apparently Shrek 3 has been getting terrible reviews - that said, I am planning on seeing them all.  I wasn't a big fan of the first Fantastic Four movie, but the teaser with Johnny and the Silver Surfer blew me away, and is really making me look forward to it. |
|
|
|
Post by Bre on May 22, 2007 6:50:52 GMT 10
I'm sick of sequels. It's rare to see original scripts now and whenever one comes out, it's more exciting for me. Sure I'll watch a sequel if it seems good enough, but the first one would have to blow me away in order to see the second one. But then when that happens, the follow up is rarely as good as the original and then I get all disappointed and it's not good.
I do prefer sequels to remakes, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allan on May 22, 2007 12:54:10 GMT 10
I don't mind remakes so much if they're adaptations from another medium. To me, it doesn't seem so much like a remake, rather than another interpretation of the source material (look at the crappy old Casino Royale compared to the new one for instance).
And occasionally, remakes of old movies (like Ocean's 11) work well, because they bring it to a new audience who wouldn't bother with the original.
Back onto sequels, and which ones do people find better than the original films?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bre on May 22, 2007 13:16:58 GMT 10
Yeah I think they should remake crappy movies if they think they can improve. But why remake great movies that don't need to be remade. Psycho for example. The new one sucked and didn't need to be remade. The original is perfect as is. Why remake it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Allan on May 22, 2007 22:08:00 GMT 10
The thing that really pissed me off about the Psycho remake - aside from the first one being perfect - is that it was a shot for shot remake. It offered absolutely nothing new. To me, it was pointless.  |
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Jan 14, 2008 21:16:13 GMT 10
I like some sequels but they mostly only work with the same characters, with some additions, and some gone, but not just one of the mains like in speed 2 and Grease 2 which had only Frenchy still in it so wasn't much of a sequel I found this interesting, because generally speaking, I would agree with you. However, when I saw 28 Weeks Later, I was surprised - the movie was made by a different director (to me, that's generally not a good sign as it is), and none of the original cast returned for it. Yet, much as I loved 28 Days Later, the sequel not only lived up to it, but surpassed it. I think the thing that worked for this individual movie is that it was set in the same "universe", looking at the repercussions of the zombie attack and what it did to the world. So it was a completely different story spawned from the original, more than a direct sequel. Can anybody else think of any sequels without much of the main cast that lived up to the original, or any sequels (regardless of the cast) that surpassed it? |
|
|
|
Post by Bre on Nov 7, 2008 11:22:10 GMT 10
There's going to be a Sex and the City sequel. Not sure how I feel about that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lizzie on Nov 7, 2008 11:45:40 GMT 10
Yeah me either. I wonder what it'll be about?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bre on Nov 7, 2008 11:47:31 GMT 10
I don't know. The Carrie/Big thing is pretty much over, right? If they keep going with them, it will suck. It would have to revolve around one of the other girls, I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lizzie on Nov 7, 2008 11:49:44 GMT 10
I bet Carrie will be pregnant or something.
Orrr..
She wants to get pregnant, Big doesn't, and it turns out he already has a kid!
|
|
|
|
Post by Beck on Nov 7, 2008 15:57:01 GMT 10
Eh I think a sequel would be a bad idea. Its always centred on Carrie and I don't see a sequel suddenly focusing on one of the others :dunno:
|
|
