Figured this would be more interesting than the usual Best Sequels/Worst sequels discussion.
I'm on my way to work, I'll add some tonight but feel free to start without me.
It is currently: Jun 03, '24, 6:03 pm |
Hanley! wrote:Most movies ... ?
Sequels shouldn't be done for most films. There's only one situation where I think a sequel is really warranted and that's when the film is really about one character. If the selling point of a film is the identity of the protagonist, then a sequel makes sense. Lets take Batman as an example. If the first movie is about a thing that happened to Batman, then it makes sense to have a follow up depicting the next thing that happens to Batman. Because Batman himself is the reason that people go to see these films.
But if the selling point of the movie is a particular plot, premise or high concept then you should have said all there really is to say in the first movie. Making a sequel after that will either just dilute your initial concept leading to diminishing returns on future movies, or it will come across like an entirely different film simply piggy-backing off an already popular title in a cynical attempt to sell more tickets.
Westcoastvibes wrote:Cast away, willson's revenge
11 posts
• Page 1 of 1
|
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests