A Point id like to share.

[SKOOFx]

Someone on horrormovies.com was talking about saw3.com and saw4.com (which lions gate own at the moment).

They were bitching how sequels suck and how it would be nice if they did something new with the sequel concept in general..(to make movies more interesting). Instead of just shitting them out every few months for money.

But lets be honest, the more creative they get with the sequels, the more pissed off people become when something major changes in the story and they arent fed the same crap.

Here was my response.

----


Lets be realistic here. The movie companies/makers cant win. If they do the same thing, people will bitch that it wasnt as good as the original. BUTTT if they venture off into something totally different, people will bitch that they got dupped.

I mean, look at halloween 3
friday the 13th 5
Halloween 6

Both totally kool movies. (especially ft13 pt 5 I LOVE that film)


SPOILER..


BUTTT>.we then find out that jason isnt the killer, and everyone starts crying boo hoooooo.

I think it would have been great if tommy became the new killer at the end. Why? because it would have breathed new life into the dieing serious, and its pretty kool to think that someone can be turned into a monster from being trauamtized by one.

And with h3....

i think it would have been kool if carpenter busted out a new halloween story every year, each different in their own way. Some spawning a seqeul some starting fresh.

BUT NOOOOOO people want the same thing, and THATS WHAT THEY GET.... but then they bitch that the movies are repetative and stupid. ANSWER ME THATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT.

[Despare]

What if Tommy became the killer though? He wouldn't be indestructable or as strong... it wouldn't be "the same". Spinoffs are good for stuff like that but not sequels. I think everybody's thinking is skewed with the whole sequel thing though because if you're watching Halloween 2 you should expect more of the same, that's it, if a sequel surprises you great but really it's all about staying the course. You create a charecter, people love it and want to see more of it so a sequel is great for that. What if Jaws 2 had no shark? What if there was no time traveling in Back to the Future 2? When I watch a sequel I merely expect a continuation of the previous storyline, that's it. I think sequels could change settings more often which really lends itself to a new experience like Pitch Black and Chronicles of Riddick. Those movies contained the same main charecter going around and being a badass but because the setting changed the two movies were seperate experiences and in my opinion were in two different genres. I don't know, I'll go see Passion of the Clerks and expect more clerkiness, I'll go see Spaceballs 2 and expect an irreverent space comedy, and I'll go see XMen 3 and expect... wait no I won't.

[stubbornforgey]

There is nothing wrong with sequels other than they kill a character off in parts one n two then the character omes back as somebodies twin or the added addtions that just dont suit the whole storyline from part one and talk about overkill..sometimes the whole plot drags on n on n on n on..and whats with the flashbacks..??

I dont really know cos i kinda skip the sequels..

I hate what they did with flowers in the attic.

[jesus1.0]

i fucking dare you to ban me woot woot !!! :D :D :D

[pinkfloyd45769]

I wish they would ban you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pinkfloyd45769]

I agree, people are going to bitch either way! Personally, I don't care. I have found both, sequels and remakes that I like or dislike. There are a few movies that i'd like to see have a sequel.

[Zombee]

I am not a purist either there are some great sequels (evil dead II, Batman Begins) there are also some really crappy ones. I feel the same way about remakes..

[stubbornforgey]

aw mind you..
after watching a great movie ..i always tend to ask...hmm
wonder if theres gonna be a sequel

[The STE]

Originally posted by Despare
What if Tommy became the killer though? He wouldn't be indestructable or as strong... it wouldn't be "the same". Spinoffs are good for stuff like that but not sequels. I think everybody's thinking is skewed with the whole sequel thing though because if you're watching Halloween 2 you should expect more of the same, that's it, if a sequel surprises you great but really it's all about staying the course. You create a charecter, people love it and want to see more of it so a sequel is great for that. What if Jaws 2 had no shark? What if there was no time traveling in Back to the Future 2? When I watch a sequel I merely expect a continuation of the previous storyline, that's it. I think sequels could change settings more often which really lends itself to a new experience like Pitch Black and Chronicles of Riddick. Those movies contained the same main charecter going around and being a badass but because the setting changed the two movies were seperate experiences and in my opinion were in two different genres. I don't know, I'll go see Passion of the Clerks and expect more clerkiness, I'll go see Spaceballs 2 and expect an irreverent space comedy, and I'll go see XMen 3 and expect... wait no I won't.

I think Tommy SHOULD have become the killer. The series got lamer and lamer once they made Jason actually come back from the dead (he never actually died until the end of part 4)

[Zero]

I agree completely on the Halloween3 - think of how much more inventive and interesting the whole period of the 80s would have been (and I've got nothing against the slasher/splatter stuff) if Carpenter had been able to launch the Halloween franchise as a broader concept of horror. But . . . no. . . people just whined that it didn't have Michael Myers.