Good morning.
I have come here to discuss how film directors are now forcing splits and trilogies.
I get the "making more money" thing, but sometimes it just seems way too forced to me.
Strangely, I also note that it improves the movies sometimes.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was, in my opinion, better when it was split into two movies and there was enough time for them to actually stick more to the storyline and add detail etc.
However, this seemed quite silly to me after the 4th, 5th and 6th movies needed this the most and they only used it for the last one. Of course, it would have probably taken three years more if they split the others too.
The Hobbit came out recently and I haven't gotten a chance to watch it yet.
(Yes, it did inspire the title of this post.)
It's my favourite of the Lord of the Rings books and I do want to see it ASAP.
Well, this is The Hobbit - Part ONE. "An Unexpected Journey"
I do hope the trilogy doesn't ruin it. Why would it though?
I guess, despite being a bit annoyed, when the movies are split into parts, I'm happy that they are, so they can be given more attention to detail, etc.
I mean, hey, I'm gonna bitch and moan about wasting money on three movies to watch The Hobbit, but I'll obviously do it anyway.
#FirstWorldProblems?
On the other hand, the recently famous Batman trilogy was so addictive that I'm disappointed that they STOPPED at the trilogy. Really, though. I'm sure that this Batman trilogy did more for DC Comics than any other DC-related release ever could. Why stop when everything is going well?
I guess there must be politics and stuff behind it, but I really would have liked to see this series of Batman movies continue for a few more movies, introduce a few more villains, maybe allow for a few side-movies, maybe finally end with a massive showdown or something... I dunno.
Even the aging of the actors could have played into the storylines and stuff.
Another trilogy I was a little disappointed in was the X-Men trilogy. I loved the movies until the abrupt (in my opinion) ending. I thought it would have been awesome if they continued it for a bit and introduced all the classic characters and storylines before letting half the cast die in X-Men III.
Yeah, they had Wolverine's origins and X-Men: First Class. I thought both were interesting and cool :)
But they should have made more movies instead of cameos.
WHY DID GAMBIT HAVE SUCH A SMALL PART IN THE SERIES?
AREN'T THEY GONNA TIE UP X-MEN WITH THE AVENGERS?
The Marvel universe just has so many opportunities for success.
I do hope that they use them.
STILL WAITING FOR DEADPOOL. Violence and humour. There must be lots of violence and lots of humour. 4th walls being broken left, right and center. 18VL seems appropriate.
Just a few thoughts and opinions.
Feel free to agree/disagree.
I agree. Antiquity teaches us this, also. We can go back to Sir Ridley Scott's "Alien" in 1979, arguably the greatest sci-fi horror film ever made. James Cameron's sequel was fantastic too, and both are rightly, revered as masterpieces. However, the subsequent films, including the AVP films, are simply awful.
ReplyDeletePrometheus was beautiful in a Ridley Scott was but merely decent. Nothing like the first two.
Cameron's The Terminator and T2 are both astounding achievements but the series was destroyed by T3 and that other terrible example made recently.
Hollywood is running out of ideas, which is confusing because there are many lying around. The so-called Romcoms are the biggest example of what the word "mundane" truly means. 500 Days Of Summer was the last decent entry.
I believe Star Wars is another great example. Won't get into it, though, because it has been years since I last watched them. (Please do not disown me for this heinous crime) Episode 7 is a worry, and John Williams, arguably one the biggest reasons for the entire franchise's success, isn't on board for scoring it. It just seems unnecessary.
Some film sequels are required, if they are designed to be so in the first place, as in, this story needs 3 films. That's it... and not, half-way through making number 2, think "Oh! maybe we should do 4, or 5!" :/
Cameron's Avatar was designed to be a trilogy. He's writing the last two at the same time, at this moment. Only two.
He's also writing a screenplay for "Battle Angel". Just one.
Steven Spielberg has "Roboapocalypse" in the works. Just one.
I guess, very few directors and especially producers, desire any originality anymore.
If you want true originality, you have to look abroad. Places like Japan, Korea, Germany, France. Foreign language films.
To end off... the biggest sequel flop I've ever seen is Titanic 2. Sweet and holy fouls of eastern Siberia, it took a very long time to recover from that.
Anyway, forgive my long comment. I am in agreement. There are a lot of confused people in Hollywood.
BB...
Nicely said, Byron.
ReplyDeleteYes, Titanic 2 was a bigger disaster than the actual sinking of the Titanic.
The other stuff you mentioned, I guess they weren't as good as the original movies, but I wouldn't say they ruined the series/franchise.
However, I guess my opinion is usually biased in that I don't usually feel as disgusted about bad sequels as the average fan.
Perhaps I have TOO MUCH of an open mind about stuff. Yes, I will moan about a concept that is highly flawed, but I usually tend to view such movies as a director's opinion and not some catastrophe. A good example would be "Batman and Robin" [ducks to avoid incoming objects from readers]. WhaAAaaT? So I didn't hate that movie. I enjoyed it. I liked the lame jokes. I liked the way it was done.
So sue me.
(No, Apple. Please don't. That was a joke.)