Quote:
Originally posted by urgeok
in the case of some films - comic book super hero adaptations in particular - that usually holds the origional back ... they spend a lot of time establishing the origions (which most fans already know) then rush through the last 3rd of the film trying to introduce and resolve the conflict with one or sometimes two villians.
Spiderman was an exception where the origion was handled very effectively. (you could tell that was one of the few comic book adaptations made by a real comic book fan)
i find in a lot of series - especially if they run at least 3 installments .. that as a rule (not always) the series tanks at No. 3.
1 breaks the ground, 2 grows the story, but often by #3 the director is different, the legs are growing weaker ..
one note about star wars ..
i think the very 1st one ever made is and always will be the best.
it was fresh - no one knew what to expect..
the next one was stronger than everything after .. but i still thought the 1st movie stood on its own as one of the finest adventure films ever made..
|
Most of the comic book adaptations usually run that way. For that matter, most successful movies do too. If we take TCM, Halloween, F13, Nightmare on Elm Street, Alien, for example, its usually the very first movie which is regarded as the best one. People enjoy watching the sequels but IMHO, its rare in a franchise that any of the sequels is regarded as better than the original, except some I have pointed out in the first post. I would still gun for the originals though, because without them there wont be any sequels. Period.
I will give one point in favor of the sequels though. Without successful sequels, there wont be franchises or icons established. Ellen Ripley, Jason Voorhees, Michael Myers, Freddy Krueger, etc. are glaring examples.