|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
#1
11-26-2004, 03:21 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Why are the first ones the best?
I've wondered about this. Most movies with sequels always have one movie that's best. And normally it's the first one that was made. Why is this you think? I'm just bored and thought of something. This is what I came up with.
Normally the first is the best because you can't go wrong. Nothing can really be wrong (except bad graphics, acting or plot) in the first one because theres nothing you can compare it to. But in sequels you have to follow the main plot from the first one. Keep the character looking the same, nothing to different. Like “he couldn’t do that in the first one.” Know what I mean? Anything goes in the first one, nothing can be wrong. That’s all IMO. Just wondering everyone else’s thoughts upon this subject.
__________________
Ever dance with the Devil by the pale moon-light? _______________________ Isn't it funny how quickly people turn against you... even your so-called friends? 
|
|
#2
11-26-2004, 03:24 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
i think i gave that answer a good shot in the other sequels thread :
Many of them were made without the anticipation of a sequal .. but someone later - usually a hack - saw a way to make money off video rentals so they whore off some piece of trash knowing it will get rented because of the name. And the hack is usually someone who's just getting their start in the business. Or someone who has proven that they can get a film made without going over the tiny budget. (a very valuable skill in hollywood) Sequals have also suffered when its the same director because the director loses the vision - or hunger - or interest by the time they had to do the sequal. Or worse yet they tried to lazily recreate the exact working formula of the 1st movie. i think this reasoning stands up ...
|
|
#3
11-26-2004, 04:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Another point is that the originals are just that - original. Many sequels that get slated are because they just tread old ground. For instance Jurassic Park, the first one was outstanding and at the time really was something to marvel, by the time the second one comes out the novelty wears off and it's as if people are now used to seeing dinosaurs savage men. The film falls down because of a bad story and the dinosaurs can't save it. The same can be said for pretty much all unsuccessful sequels.
There is also something about the first film of a series that you see too, you will always be that little bit more fond of it then the others. Take CD's for example, you are introduced to a band, you think they are pretty good and you deicde to check out their back catalogue. More often then not the first album from them you listen to will end up being your favourite despite others perhaps being better. This doesn't apply to everyone and doesn't actualy have anything to do with the quality of the CD, or film in this case, it's just an example of how personal preference can alter opinions too.
__________________
"Only the dead are equal"
|
|
#4
11-26-2004, 04:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I agree.
|
|
#5
11-26-2004, 04:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
good points but in the horror genre in most cases it is glaringly apparent that the sequels are crap. many dont get theatrical release ... many arent even related to the origional in any way shape or form, they just have the rights to the name.
I agree that often the 1st thing you see is the best because it was your first exposure but if you were to watch Halloween 6 and go back and see the 1st one i'm damn sure you'll prefer the 1st one. The same could be said for most of the 'slasher' sequels which are pure exploitation of the fans ...
|
|
#7
11-26-2004, 04:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
the Hellraiser films come to mind, since they are a great example of how milking the franchise has gon way too far. The 1st 2 were good...they went down hill from there.
|
|
#8
11-26-2004, 04:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
No shit!Part 3 with the sculpture was fucking retarded.I am afraid of what may come if an Evil Dead 4 surfaces, please for the love of god stop fucking with sacred franchises!
|
|
#9
11-26-2004, 04:37 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
To expand on the music analogy, most bands' first album is the best. The way that is explained is because the band has had a near-infinite amount of time to write and perfect the songs that are on the first album. The first album is the culmination of, many times, years of hard work and practice and editing of ideas. It is the best 13 or 14 songs out of the, probably, 50 or so that the band has written. Then when that album sells a few copies, the label starts putting pressure on you to release a new album while you're still hot. This is when bands call up their songs that didn't make it onto the first record and also sling out new songs in about 1/10th of the time they took to finesse the first songs. This process is repeated for the 3rd and subsequent albums. While this isn't the rule for music, it's the same for movies. Writers and directors have had an infinite amount of time to come up with the ideas and scenes and dialogue for the first movie. They have obsessed over every little minute word and movement, making sure that everything is perfect and exactly the way they want it to be. Then when that first film is successful, the studio and distributor start harping about a sequel, and if you don't do it, they'll find someone who will (being as you signed your life's work over to them in your fervor to see it finally done). So the director and writers rehash the things that worked in the first one, add a little bit of difference, and bam! there's your sequel.
__________________
Oh, parlez-nous à boire, non pas du marriage
|
|
#10
11-26-2004, 04:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
 |
|
|
