Please login or register. Welcome to the Studio, guest!


Quick Links:


newBookmarkLockedFalling

Stinky666

Stinky666 Avatar

****
Senior Member

422


December 2009
Seriously. What is it about a sequel you think usually doesn't make it work? Typically, on average.

Perhaps it's the fact the first movie they always put more effort into, and is more original than the rest.

Ever seen a movie that has a sequel (or sequels) that are better than its original? (Batman is excluded from this, so anything else :P )

Lucifer

Lucifer Avatar

*******
Mythical Studio Member

Eunuch
5,665


August 2005
Well, like you said, the original tends to have more effort put into it, and possibly more care taken with said effort because it doesn't have an established name to sell it. Plus, I feel like most of the good/original ideas are used in the original, so sequels tend to be just more of the same, rehashes of other ideas, or just plain shit altogether.

⸗April⸗

⸗April⸗ Avatar
Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.

**
Official Member

67


April 2012
I'm assuming you're excluding the Harry Potter films also? :P Because I think those "sequels" were well-done. Though technically they're not really sequels. Okay, I'm getting off track here.

I agree with what Lucifer said, they usually put more effort into the first and the original stuff has already been used. Pretty much sums it up very nicely. :D

Stinky666

Stinky666 Avatar

****
Senior Member

422


December 2009
⸗April⸗ Avatar
I'm assuming you're excluding the Harry Potter films also? :P Because I think those "sequels" were well-done. Though technically they're not really sequels. Okay, I'm getting off track here.

I agree with what Lucifer said, they usually put more effort into the first and the original stuff has already been used. Pretty much sums it up very nicely. :D



There are definitely certain exceptions. Although the Harry Potter series isn't a set of sequels, it kind of is in a sense. The reason they worked well, and actually got better is the simple fact they got older (the actors/characters), and it had more to it etc.

But typically, sequels definitely don't usually work at all. There's far far more (unfortunately) that are terrible, than what are actually good.

Of course, there are also some sequels that are still great, but not as good as the original.

Lucifer

Lucifer Avatar

*******
Mythical Studio Member

Eunuch
5,665


August 2005
The reason the Harry Potter movies worked is because it wasn't a single movie that had successive sequels. It was an established book series where each movie had original source material to work with. So it really doesn't count. Kind of like Lord of the Rings.

⸗April⸗

⸗April⸗ Avatar
Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.

**
Official Member

67


April 2012
Yeah, that's why I said technically. :P

The Rush Hour movies I thought were done great though, with all the sequels and everything. But I think most of that was due to the amazing chemistry between Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker. If they'd had to do the sequels with different actors, it would have been horrible.

I hate when movies do that too.. using different people for what is supposed to be the same character. Like we're not supposed to notice or something? I hated when they did that for the Batman movies... Katie Holmes and Maggie Gyllenhaal don't even look alike to me. I know I guess they have to do that if the original actor/actress doesn't want to do the sequel, but it's just annoying. :P

Lucifer

Lucifer Avatar

*******
Mythical Studio Member

Eunuch
5,665


August 2005
⸗April⸗ Avatar
Yeah, that's why I said technically. :P

The Rush Hour movies I thought were done great though, with all the sequels and everything. But I think most of that was due to the amazing chemistry between Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker. If they'd had to do the sequels with different actors, it would have been horrible.

I hate when movies do that too.. using different people for what is supposed to be the same character. Like we're not supposed to notice or something? I hated when they did that for the Batman movies... Katie Holmes and Maggie Gyllenhaal don't even look alike to me. I know I guess they have to do that if the original actor/actress doesn't want to do the sequel, but it's just annoying. :P


Honestly, the Rush Hours movies sucked. Like, as far as movies go, they kinda suck. But like you said, the chemistry between the two leads is what makes them so enjoyable. The third movie was about as bad as I expected. Just more rehashed shit, but it was just as enjoyable as the first two because nobody is watching it for original jokes, great action, creative storytelling, or witty dialogue. Just funny one-liners and hilarious kung fu improv from two very, very funny people. They work because the directors found a very special combination of people. Like you said, with anyone else, those movies would've bombed. Even the first probably.

And I can't help but think of the new Zombieland series. Same characters, different actors, mediocre TV writers. It outta be great.

newBookmarkLockedFalling