Lancemc
Blue Crack Addict
Hollywood is practically bombarding us with sequels these days. 2007 was the year of the threequels. Pirates 3 Shrek 3 Spiderman 3 and a lot of other sequels, remakes, and adaptations. we've seen 4ths in series as well, with Die Hard 4 this summer and Indy IV set for this coming Memorial Day.
The fall season is looking to be fantastic, and usually is, but as for the rest of the year, it's been suffering from some hardcore sequelitis (side-effects include rampant remake and adaptation outbreaks).
So I ask...
When are film sequels acceptable? When aren't they?
Should they only be relegated to predefined source meterials like The Bourne Films and Lord of the Rings?
Should sequels only be handled by the directors of the first films, or it is better if a sequel it handled by a new director with a fresh take on the setting?
What consitutes a good sequel, and where does one draw the line between the value a series may lose due to a sequel and the entertainment value of the sequel film itself?
How about all those above questions with regards to remakes and adaptations? We're going to be seeing a TON of remakes coming out in coming years.
Also, how about the comic-book craze we're entering? We've seen a shit-load of comic book films already, but if you look at the major studio lineups, we're just getting started, and you can bet your ass the average quality is only going to decrese with a rising number of films being made. Next year does look mildly promising though, with Iron Man and The Dark Knight, and a possibly good take on The Incredible Hulk.
What say thee?
The fall season is looking to be fantastic, and usually is, but as for the rest of the year, it's been suffering from some hardcore sequelitis (side-effects include rampant remake and adaptation outbreaks).
So I ask...
When are film sequels acceptable? When aren't they?
Should they only be relegated to predefined source meterials like The Bourne Films and Lord of the Rings?
Should sequels only be handled by the directors of the first films, or it is better if a sequel it handled by a new director with a fresh take on the setting?
What consitutes a good sequel, and where does one draw the line between the value a series may lose due to a sequel and the entertainment value of the sequel film itself?
How about all those above questions with regards to remakes and adaptations? We're going to be seeing a TON of remakes coming out in coming years.
Also, how about the comic-book craze we're entering? We've seen a shit-load of comic book films already, but if you look at the major studio lineups, we're just getting started, and you can bet your ass the average quality is only going to decrese with a rising number of films being made. Next year does look mildly promising though, with Iron Man and The Dark Knight, and a possibly good take on The Incredible Hulk.
What say thee?