Sequels - good fun or just rehashing?

[yoda313]

Hello,

Ok this is for Movies, games, books, music, whatever. Are sequels just a natural continuation that extends the fun of the original or are they just a lousy marketing gimmick for those without anymore original ideas???

I think in many cases it's fun and rehashing. Some say that for James Bond, Star Wars, Star Trek. That nothing compares to the original. Where as I think the sequels are SOMETIMES as good as the original.

It's hard to make a blanket statement. What do you think????

Kevin

[VCDHunter]

I dont really have a problem with sequels, its ******* remakes of good films that get on my tits.

[yoda313]

Hello,

Yeah REMAKES are NEVER the same as the original. Remakes are just a pathetic attempt at milking money from a classic standard.

Kevin

[shoozleboy]

This has been said before - but it's worth a repeat (or a sequel! ) :

IMHO - most sequels and all remakes are just a poor attempt from the entertainment industry to make some more money because the creative spirit of Hollywood has long past.

Most of today's music is the same way - they are just churning out the same trash that they did 10 years ago - only different bands are performing it now.

[VCDHunter]

Slight threadjack, has anyone heard the remake of the Band Aid single ? I mean the original was made by a bunch of talentless fucks but this remake is awful - so much mediocrity crammed into about 4 minutes. Who keeps telling these people they can sing ?

[yoda313]

Slight threadjack, has anyone heard the remake of the Band Aid single ? I mean the original was made by a bunch of talentless fucks but this remake is awful - so much mediocrity crammed into about 4 minutes. Who keeps telling these people they can sing ?

Hello,

The same talent agent that gave Ashlee Simpson a contract!

Kevin

[smearbrick1]

I have a serious issue with some book sequels... I think the Arthur C. Clarke Novels are really great (2001, 2010...etc) and James Patterson does some pretty good sequelish stuff, but has anybody read the sequel "Forrest Gump". My god, that sucked ass. There is no way that the original book could've have been good enough to create such a great film if the followup book was so terrible....

[northcat_8]

The same can be said of making cartoons into movies because we now have the technology to make Scoby Doo look more real instead of hand drawn

I personally am not a fan of sequals... *cough* *cough* matrix *cough**cough* Just saw the last matrix film the other day on Cinemax...I would have been pissed if I had went to a theater to see it.

The only time I think a sequal is good is if it continues the story of the original. Meaning that if the original was written and takes 2-3 movies to tell the whole original story then fine but don't make each movie 3 hours long....LOTR's....that's too long.

[yoda313]

Hello,

Northcat - Matrix I agree with - it should have stopped at 2.

LOTR - It had to be 3 hours each if it was to resemble anything close to the book. Your talking about hundreds and hundreds of pages of characters/stories condensed into a movie. It's going to be long. No way around it.

Kevin

Besides - LOTR is an academy award winning series

[VCDHunter]

The same can be said of making cartoons into movies because we now have the technology to make Scoby Doo look more real instead of hand drawn

Whose idea was that, a ******* live action version of Scooby Doo ? And how desperate do you need to be before you sign up for a live action version of that <I'm lookin at you here Atkinson>

I personally am not a fan of sequals... *cough* *cough* matrix *cough**cough* Just saw the last matrix film the other day on Cinemax...I would have been pissed if I had went to a theater to see it.

I didn't go to the cinema to see that as I had already seen the second one there - fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me <you havin this read to you george>

The only time I think a sequal is good is if it continues the story of the original. Meaning that if the original was written and takes 2-3 movies to tell the whole original story then fine but don't make each movie 3 hours long....LOTR's....that's too long.

Yes way too long 2 hrs each would've been a better length. Isn't the new release of part 3 so long you need to take time off work to watch the damm thing ?

[yoda313]

Hello,

Northcat + Vcdhunter - LOTR is ok at 3 hours each. What I can't stand are movies like Waterworld or Titanic that stand at close to 3 hours. Those are horrible and I would never sit through stuff like that :P :P

Movies based on books are often quite long. Look at Harry Potter.

Kevin

[northcat_8]

LOTR is a decent movie, the "ring" ideal is kind of lame, but OK, I can extend my imagination that far, but 3 hours for each part of it is too long.

Titanic...yea, I didn't care much for that movie either but I don't like Leonardo Decraptio either so maybe that had something to do with it.

[Capmaster]

Whose idea was that, a ******* live action version of Scooby Doo ? And how desperate do you need to be before you sign up for a live action version of that

That reminds me of a scene in Friends where Phoebe said she felt so bad when Bambi died in the movie ..I think it was. And either Chandler or Ross (I think it was Chandler) said "what ...you felt depressed because they stopped drawing the character?" I laughed my ass off

[yoda313]

Hello,

Titanic...yea, I didn't care much for that movie either but I don't like Leonardo Decraptio either so maybe that had something to do with it.

Yeah I have a personal ban on anything Decaprio.

I would have personally sued George Lucas if he took Decaprio as the older Anakin in Episode 2. I HATED that RUMOR.

Kevin

[pacmania_2001]

I'd prefer to sit through Titanic than Lord of the Rings.

[VCDHunter]

Whose idea was that, a ******* live action version of Scooby Doo ? And how desperate do you need to be before you sign up for a live action version of that

That reminds me of a scene in Friends where Phoebe said she felt so bad when Bambi died in the movie ..I think it was. And either Chandler or Ross (I think it was Chandler) said "what ...you felt depressed because they stopped drawing the character?" I laughed my ass off

I think Monica asks him if he "didn't even cry at Bambi" to which he replies "yes, it was very sad when the man stopped drawing the cartoon", with levels of cynicism to which we all aspire

[Capmaster]

Whose idea was that, a ******* live action version of Scooby Doo ? And how desperate do you need to be before you sign up for a live action version of that

That reminds me of a scene in Friends where Phoebe said she felt so bad when Bambi died in the movie ..I think it was. And either Chandler or Ross (I think it was Chandler) said "what ...you felt depressed because they stopped drawing the character?" I laughed my ass off

I think Monica asks him if he "didn't even cry at Bambi" to which he replies "yes, it was very sad when the man stopped drawing the cartoon", with levels of cynicism to which we all aspire

Ahhhh yeah! That was the line. Thanks

Chandler would be right at home here in OT

[VCDHunter]

Chandler would be right at home here in OT

Could he be anymore at home

sorry I just couldn't resist

[Capmaster]

Chandler would be right at home here in OT

Could he be anymore at home

sorry I just couldn't resist

I could actually hear him say that last one

My favorite Chandler one-liner: He's sitting on the couch at Central Perk describing a situation where it's "lose-lose" for him ...I forget the details. And Chandler (all done quickly) holds out his left hand and says "Rock", he holds out his right hand and says "hard place" ...then he sticks his head exactly between them, with a disgusted look on his face, and says "Me" .......just dripping with sarcasm ...I laugh my ass off every time I see that one

[northcat_8]

Hello,

Titanic...yea, I didn't care much for that movie either but I don't like Leonardo Decraptio either so maybe that had something to do with it.

Yeah I have a personal ban on anything Decaprio.

I would have personally sued George Lucas if he took Decaprio as the older Anakin in Episode 2. I HATED that RUMOR.

Kevin

The only movie I have actually watched with him in it was "Catch me if you can" and had it not been a late night, with nothing else on TV, and Tom Hanks had not been in it, and if it would have been after I got GTA San Andreas I would have never seen it

I haven't watched Titanic all the way through, I've just seen bits and pieces of it...I can't take more than 5 minutes of it at a time.

[yoda313]

Hello,

Northcat - DITTO on Titanic. I've only seen maybe ten minutes of it when it was on tv. That's it. No more.

Kevin

[Capmaster]

Hello,

Northcat - DITTO on Titanic. I've only seen maybe ten minutes of it when it was on tv. That's it. No more.

Kevin

They could have done a better job of casting Titanic. DiCaprio was great as the retarded kid in What's Eating Gilbert Grape, but he just didn't cut it in Titanic :P

[northcat_8]

Now as for game sequals, I think it is a different story. GTA games do a good job, the games are different but a lot of the game play is the same.

Max Payne was another good 2 game deal as well as Deus Ex and many others.

A few movie sequals that make the cut are movies like "Busty Cops" and "Space Nuts" but then again you're not really watching those movies for the "plot" now are you?

[Rookie64]

Hello,

Yeah REMAKES are NEVER the same as the original. Remakes are just a pathetic attempt at milking money from a classic standard.

Yoda, are you aware that the Lord Of The Rings trilogy was previously made into movies before Peter Jackson remade those - I take it you're a big fan of Ralph Bakshi's version then


Some could even argue that Star Wars is a remake of THX 1138


The 1939 Victor Fleming version of The Wizard Of Oz (with Judy Garland) was a remake as well.

Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ is a remake of movie done several times over decades.

Oliver Stone's Alexander is a remake as well.

I don't have a problem with remakes or even sequels...it's more who is writing the screenplay...the director...the director's approach...the cast...the time and effort put into the production...etc

Most films are already commercial marketing gimmicks, regardless if they're original or not.
I usually have a problem with Hollywood formula - which is a certain structure a film has to follow as rule or law.
I strongly feel films should be free of that and it shouldn't have to be written in stone that you should make all films the same way.
THAT is the problem with Hollywood/major studio films.
The reason they do this is the formula way makes money - being artistic or creative is risky and can lose the studios a lot more on a film.

Squels are usually not given much time or effort...so most of the times they end being garbage - especially when those involved in the orginal movie bail out of the next project(s).

A lot of sequels DO end up ruining a good story or idea because they don't live up to the original or the audience's expectations.
Or the sudios just don't know when to quit.

Remakes can go either way - they can be lousy or they can end up being better than the original.
It all depends on the filmmakers.

JMHO

[yoda313]

Hello,

Rookie64 - Let me put it this way - OBVIOUS REMAKES.

Like Miracle on 34th Street. The newer Richard Attenbourough version was ok but not like the original.

It's stuff like that I'm referring to. EXACT redos. They NEVER work.

The new LOTR are NOTHING like any other version made. In fact its the first REAL live action version that I'm aware of. Yes there was a cartoon/animated combo done but very different from the Jackson version.

Kevin

---Yes most sequels are lame attempts at capturing an easy market. Most don't work and end at Number 2 ----

[shoozleboy]

Rookie64's post just shows you that yes, Hollywood has run out of creative ideas....

[zzyzzx]

I agree completely with shoozleboy who extended his criticism to music.

Except for Austin Powers 2 movie sequals suck. Remakes are just as bad, maybe worse, except in the case of a movie remake there is the potential to get a much better video quality on DVD.

[kiki]

Some movie sequels work well
Aliens, the sequel to Alien, picked up right where
the orginal left off. Aliens 3 -- well let's not go there.
Hollywood just dosen't GET IT.
Continue the story, don,t tell another one.
I was really looking forward to "The Chronicles of
Riddick" the sequel to "Pitch Black". It would have
been quite easy to continue the gritty appeal of the
original. INSTEAD, it was like reading a sci-fi novel
with the first 100 pages missing.

Kiki

[Capmaster]

Some movie sequels work well
Aliens, the sequel to Alien, picked up right where
the orginal left off. Aliens 3 -- well let's not go there.
Hollywood just dosen't GET IT.
Continue the story, don,t tell another one.
I was really looking forward to "The Chronicles of
Riddick" the sequel to "Pitch Black". It would have
been quite easy to continue the gritty appeal of the
original. INSTEAD, it was like reading a sci-fi novel
with the first 100 pages missing.

Kiki

Don't forget Godfather 2. Was actually better than the original ...not by much, but it was, IMHO

[shoozleboy]

I can agree with that... some sequels are better - but the far majority are just plain bad.

Cap - I agree on the Godfather 2 - I liked them both, but yes, 2 was better.