If it's crap... We'll tell you
The Pros and Cons of a Sequel: Sequel Harder (Part 2)
hello there
I've been thinking lately about a few upcoming sequels. It got me thinking of sequels of the past. I'd like to express my thoughts on the entire concept of a sequel including the different types, and the pros and cons of them. Welcome to;
THE PROS AND CONS OF A SEQUEL (part 2)
Starting things off, we have;
THE REGULAR SEQUEL
The regular sequel doesn't make as much money as a blockbuster, but the original must have done well enough to justify another movie. Some other possibilities, the sequel was planned since production of the first one, or some other reason that doesn't really make sense, but a movie comes out of it.
Pros
1. Maybe the first one is actually good. Another one couldn't hurt. If it ends on a cliffhanger, it would suck for nothing to follow it.
2. Perhaps you love the first one, but it didn't get enough attention. A sequel could expand its popularity. Just make sure not to get all pissy and complain that you were a true fan from the beginning, not all these posers. hmmph
3. Some movies tend to suck, but when new people come on board for a sequel, talent and quality is always a possibility
Cons
1. Maybe the first one sucked, the license sucks, the people making it suck, the sequel will probably suck
2. The "Make It Stop" effect could occur. This happens when a series overstays its welcome, and too many movies are made to turn a quick profit
3. Take first movie, redo with new actors and characters, make money. The easy formula to quick sequel making
Some examples of a good 'Regular Sequel';
Hellboy II. Succeeds from Pro #1, 3
The first one was entertaining, but the magic Del Toro brought to Hellboy II was incredible. The plot allowed for some non-CG creatures to be used. The result, truly captivating environments, funny dialogue, great acting and action, and a wonderful comic book movie.
Kill Bill: Vol. 2. Succeeds from Pro #1
This one's a little different, because it was made as one big movie. Some would claim that it's not a sequel because of this. Personally, the drastic difference in tone, style, and overall change in the violence/dialogue ratio constitutes it as a sequel to me. I love Quentin Tarantino by the way.
Some examples of a bad 'Regular Sequel'
Saw 2,3,4,5,6, so on...Suffers from cons #2,3
I enjoyed the first Saw, and even sortof liked the second one (I don't care for them that much though) but with the 6th movie coming out and more on the way of the same ol' same ol' torture porn? Count me as not interested
Final Destination 3,4. Suffers from cons #3
They're not quite to the point where there are too many of them yet, but if the film makers could put a little effort into developing the storyline, finding some sort of way to mix it up, then I might just be aboard. If they keep goin the direction theyre goin? I'll be foreseeing their death soon (see what I did there?)
Overall, the regular sequel is very hit or miss, but the main point is that it's harmless. it's regular
Next, we have THE PREQUEL
The Prequel is a complicated effort, one that generally ends badly. However possible a prequel is at prevailing, I tend not to trust them.
Pros
1. The original(s) needs further explanation
2. The origin story is ACTUALLY interesting
3. An excuse to make an old character young again, fresh for new adventures (new cast?)
4. If it sucks, maybe it could draw attention to the originals? maybe?
5. Better story possibilities than the original
Cons
1. Who cares about some details left out?
2. Who cares about most origin stories?
3. Prequels tend to follow a series of movies that ran out of ideas to further the storyline, so they resort to a prequel
4. No sense of tension. You already know how it's gonna all turn out
5. Doesn't live up to its original's status(es)
Some examples of good 'prequels'
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Succeeds from Pro #3
Docta Jones! Docta Jones! Your sequel is a prequel? It's not an origin story? It kicks ass? saweet!
Star Trek. Succeeds from #2, 3, 4, 5 and does NOT fall for con #4
Technically a prequel, a sequel, and a reboot, this presequeeboot is just amazing in all sorts of ways. It was one of the most brilliant uses of the plot device, The Time Machine Trick, I've ever seen. JJ, keep up the good work!
Some examples of bad 'prequels'
Star Wars: Episode I, II. Suffers from cons 1,2,4,5
Do I really need to say anything? The third prequel is debatable, but the first two are not good movies by any stretch of the imagination. This is Star Wars, it's too bad it wasn't whatever Star Trek was able to do recently...O well, at least we got some cool action and Darth Maul.
Dumb and Dumberer. FAILS from cons 1,2,3,4,5
"Ok, so we wanna do a prequel to Dumb and Dumber with them in high school. none of the original actors, writers, or any real talent at all. What do ya say?"
"....hmm....I say we've got ourselves a movie!"
"Great! Also, we got this script for X-Men Wolverine, and Hugh actually signed on for this shit! I'm thinking cameos...lots of pointless cameos..."
Overall, the prequel has a tendency to fail. It's mostly a last resort move, and rarely justifies any production.
STAY TUNED FOR PART 3 NEXT WEEK
Part 1
I've been thinking lately about a few upcoming sequels. It got me thinking of sequels of the past. I'd like to express my thoughts on the entire concept of a sequel including the different types, and the pros and cons of them. Welcome to;
THE PROS AND CONS OF A SEQUEL (part 2)
Starting things off, we have;
THE REGULAR SEQUEL
The regular sequel doesn't make as much money as a blockbuster, but the original must have done well enough to justify another movie. Some other possibilities, the sequel was planned since production of the first one, or some other reason that doesn't really make sense, but a movie comes out of it.
Pros
1. Maybe the first one is actually good. Another one couldn't hurt. If it ends on a cliffhanger, it would suck for nothing to follow it.
2. Perhaps you love the first one, but it didn't get enough attention. A sequel could expand its popularity. Just make sure not to get all pissy and complain that you were a true fan from the beginning, not all these posers. hmmph
3. Some movies tend to suck, but when new people come on board for a sequel, talent and quality is always a possibility
Cons
1. Maybe the first one sucked, the license sucks, the people making it suck, the sequel will probably suck
2. The "Make It Stop" effect could occur. This happens when a series overstays its welcome, and too many movies are made to turn a quick profit
3. Take first movie, redo with new actors and characters, make money. The easy formula to quick sequel making
Some examples of a good 'Regular Sequel';
Hellboy II. Succeeds from Pro #1, 3
The first one was entertaining, but the magic Del Toro brought to Hellboy II was incredible. The plot allowed for some non-CG creatures to be used. The result, truly captivating environments, funny dialogue, great acting and action, and a wonderful comic book movie.
Kill Bill: Vol. 2. Succeeds from Pro #1
This one's a little different, because it was made as one big movie. Some would claim that it's not a sequel because of this. Personally, the drastic difference in tone, style, and overall change in the violence/dialogue ratio constitutes it as a sequel to me. I love Quentin Tarantino by the way.
Some examples of a bad 'Regular Sequel'
Saw 2,3,4,5,6, so on...Suffers from cons #2,3
I enjoyed the first Saw, and even sortof liked the second one (I don't care for them that much though) but with the 6th movie coming out and more on the way of the same ol' same ol' torture porn? Count me as not interested
Final Destination 3,4. Suffers from cons #3
They're not quite to the point where there are too many of them yet, but if the film makers could put a little effort into developing the storyline, finding some sort of way to mix it up, then I might just be aboard. If they keep goin the direction theyre goin? I'll be foreseeing their death soon (see what I did there?)
Overall, the regular sequel is very hit or miss, but the main point is that it's harmless. it's regular
Next, we have THE PREQUEL
The Prequel is a complicated effort, one that generally ends badly. However possible a prequel is at prevailing, I tend not to trust them.
Pros
1. The original(s) needs further explanation
2. The origin story is ACTUALLY interesting
3. An excuse to make an old character young again, fresh for new adventures (new cast?)
4. If it sucks, maybe it could draw attention to the originals? maybe?
5. Better story possibilities than the original
Cons
1. Who cares about some details left out?
2. Who cares about most origin stories?
3. Prequels tend to follow a series of movies that ran out of ideas to further the storyline, so they resort to a prequel
4. No sense of tension. You already know how it's gonna all turn out
5. Doesn't live up to its original's status(es)
Some examples of good 'prequels'
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Succeeds from Pro #3
Docta Jones! Docta Jones! Your sequel is a prequel? It's not an origin story? It kicks ass? saweet!
Star Trek. Succeeds from #2, 3, 4, 5 and does NOT fall for con #4
Technically a prequel, a sequel, and a reboot, this presequeeboot is just amazing in all sorts of ways. It was one of the most brilliant uses of the plot device, The Time Machine Trick, I've ever seen. JJ, keep up the good work!
Some examples of bad 'prequels'
Star Wars: Episode I, II. Suffers from cons 1,2,4,5
Do I really need to say anything? The third prequel is debatable, but the first two are not good movies by any stretch of the imagination. This is Star Wars, it's too bad it wasn't whatever Star Trek was able to do recently...O well, at least we got some cool action and Darth Maul.
Dumb and Dumberer. FAILS from cons 1,2,3,4,5
"Ok, so we wanna do a prequel to Dumb and Dumber with them in high school. none of the original actors, writers, or any real talent at all. What do ya say?"
"....hmm....I say we've got ourselves a movie!"
"Great! Also, we got this script for X-Men Wolverine, and Hugh actually signed on for this shit! I'm thinking cameos...lots of pointless cameos..."
Overall, the prequel has a tendency to fail. It's mostly a last resort move, and rarely justifies any production.
STAY TUNED FOR PART 3 NEXT WEEK
Part 1
Comment
-
Comment by Austin Baylis on September 17, 2009 at 3:26pm - In my opinion, Star Wars I was...... alright. Episode II was terrible. Episode III was fucking AWESOME!!!
-
Comment by Jack68 on September 14, 2009 at 9:25pm - New trek was lame - I'm with you. The story was terrible
-
Comment by Hero on September 12, 2009 at 8:38pm -
i also think the Hellboy 2 was better than Hellboy 1, what annoyed about Hellboy 2 was some of the dialogue where it's supposed to be funny, because it worked at times but mostly it didn't and felt forced.
Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom which is a prequel in my opinion just feels out place, The Last Crusade which is the third in the series was great, it's almost as good as Raiders.
-
Comment by Nick Sears on September 12, 2009 at 5:16am - indiana jones 2 is a actually a prequel to raiders of the lost arc. In raiders it starts off in 1938. it shows the date in the very begining. In temple in the shanghai scen it tells you 1934... i think somethin round there. no one really notices cause your like ok 30's watever but ya technically its a prequel. But its really subtle
-
Comment by KrissKross on September 11, 2009 at 12:40am -
Darth Corey,
I'm sure if you know this, but PleazDontHateMe was talking about Scary Movie 2,3,4
I can't tell if what u said was a joke lol (it does work though, only replace funny with awesome)
Joey Risso, Indy 2 is indeed a prequel, but its not traditional, because its not blatantly a prequel. It does take place before Raiders though, hence 'Prequel' :)
Teknolyze, i just consider it a sequel (barely) because of the huge difference. Also, I just think of "parts" as two or more movies. but you're right, it definitely is not a traditional sequel, if one at all.
-
Comment by Joey Risso on September 11, 2009 at 12:02am - how is indiana jones 2 a prequel? i guess i would have to watch it again. i agree with hellboy 2. I liked it a whole lot better than the original. the first hellboy was ok. star wars was not that bad. keep this posts comin!
-
Comment by Darth Corey on September 10, 2009 at 11:02pm - I disargee with u on saw and star trek. New trek was lame cuz the red matter made no sense, and the characters did irrational things. Saw 1 is just poorly written (Stupid villian, retarded mystery and of course doesn't deserve a million sequels) and was an bad excuse for death traps. Indy 2 is the only good prequel I can remember seeing (Don't get me started on the Star Wars prequels, sigh).
-
Comment by Renon Koral on September 10, 2009 at 7:24pm - Kill Bill Vol. 2 is ABSOLUTLY not a sequel. It's not really even a seperate movie. I mean, nobody thinks of Bertolucci's 1900 as two movies do they? And that was the same situation: where he realised in editing that he had too much plot to release it as one movie so he released it at appropriate leanth (five hours) but split in two. Same case with John Woo's Red Cliff.
-
Comment by KrissKross on September 10, 2009 at 4:18pm
-
it seems like he definitely shot scenes with two parts in mind. Especially with the cliffhanger at the end. idk, I guess I think of it like Lord of the Rings
I consider parts to be sequels, also the tone is drastically changed from part 1 to part 2
also...Inglourious Basterds was amazing. I just like saying that
-
Comment by Fungusmonkey on September 10, 2009 at 12:46pm -
Kill Bill 2 isn't a sequel in any way shape or form. It wasn't even a separate script. Tarantino has done countless interviews about how it was conceived, written, and filmed as one single movie that got split up in two because the Weinsteins thought it was too long for a single film and Quentin refused to edit it down to 2 hours. It was all filmed at the same time (except for minor parts and later reshoots which are typical of big films). It's one long story with several vignettes (each kill has it's own style). From what I've heard, the movie opened with the opening from part 2 (with her driving in black and white) then went straight into the black and white opening of part 1, then continued on from there. The place it's the most obvious is in the closing credits of Kill Bill 2, which were the original credits. You can see that they are unchanged and still list all of the actors in both segments, not just the ones that appeared in part 2.
Personally, I'm hoping for a Director's Cut from Tarantino sometime with it re-edited back to it's original one-long-film state.
Follow Spill on Twitter!
Latest Activity
Well I don't know how many of you saw this but it is a movie that many people didn't like. Many people said that the plot was bleak. Now I think many people didn't like the movie because it dealt with an issue that many people don't want to talk a…
Photos
Music
© 2009 Created by The Spill Crew
You need to be a member of The Spill.com Movie Community to add comments!
Join this Ning Network