Quote:
Originally Posted by neverending
I'm not a fan of sequel-itis. It's rare for a sequel to equal its source. I can think of only one instance- Bride of Frankenstein. In general, sequels are not made for artistic reasons, but instead are monetarily driven. The desire to make a "franchise" out of a work of art in general leads to product that quickly descends into mediocrity.
Particularly when you're dealing with something that has a literary source to begin with- say, a Stephen King novel or a John W. Campbell story- the sequels are not going to be as good as the originals. I'm one who is more inclined to cherish a work of art for what it is, rather than seeing its premise get worked to death.
Sure, there are a couple of series I do care for- Universal's Frankenstein films, Hammer's Frankenstein and Dracula films- but even those ended up being really poor by the end. Endless Freddy, Jason & Michael retreads, Amityville series, Hellraiser... all turned into crap. Most will disagree with me, I'm sure, but that's my opinion.
|
I believe we went on a tangent here.
I agree with all of your points but the premise of this thread was to identify which standalone films (in one's opinion) could have a killer sequel - assuming the makers, plotlines and most of the original cast were retained.
I was talking about just ONE sequel to the original. Not franchises (except for Trick 'r Treat, which I feel is begging for franchise treatment, if faithfully rendered) nor endless sequels where they take down the entire originality to the ground. I am well aware of those facts.
Geez, talk about burning down wishful thinking in a jiffy!
And there goes the thread... :(