best sequel development

Started by Tiff, May 13, 2003, 06:29:58 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

Tiff

May 13, 2003, 06:29:58 AM
sequel development: the changes that occur in the time at the end of the first movie in the series, to the beginning of the first sequel of a movie where they are first revealed.

i can't think of any.

that's depressing.
"Shut the fuck up!"

The Silver Bullet

#1
May 13, 2003, 06:41:45 AM
Did any of that make sense to anyone?
RABBIT n. pl. rab·bits or rabbit[list=1]
  • Any of various long-eared, short-tailed, burrowing mammals of the family Leporidae.
  • A hare.
    [/list:o][/size]

Tiff

#2
May 13, 2003, 07:02:07 AM
ok you know when you watched jaws1? and then you watched jaws2. and then you saw there were all these different things in it. like the characters have changed, the world has changed, everything has, like, changed? that's what a development between movies in a series is.  :)
"Shut the fuck up!"

Sal

#3
May 13, 2003, 10:19:37 AM
Most of the "Nightmare on Elm Streets," actually.

MacGuffin

#4
May 13, 2003, 11:31:18 AM
Quote from: Tiffi can't think of any.

Quote from: Tiffok you know when you watched jaws1? and then you watched jaws2.
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

©brad

#5
May 13, 2003, 02:55:23 PM
Quote from: The Silver BulletDid any of that make sense to anyone?

:lol:

nope.

Gold Trumpet

#6
May 13, 2003, 03:32:47 PM
I think one of the pitfalls of the sequel in general is not realizing that the first and second films are two different films entirely that should have different points. As the example Jaws and Jaws 2 were given, they do exist as showing different worlds and characters but that was not based on any merit, but just the fact the actors for the first refused to return. The whole point of the second Jaws remains intact to get the feeling of the scare that the original had. They just changed some minor details in getting that. What the sequel must do in find its own character so it doesn't look like it serving for the pleasure of how good the first one was. The sequel generally considered the very best is The Godfather Part 2. I think it is a good film, not a great one because of my point, it never really finds its own identity in purpose of theme and at best shows a new narrative. The truth of the film though remains the same as the first one in showing the struggle for power to be held and unspeakable things done to maintain that. The Godfather Part 2 is so crafty and slick though that it doesn't show its flaws as easily as the third in talent, but nonetheless it doesn't add that much to the first in anyway. Its hard to say what I would call the best sequel, because in even great films I admire like Satiyat Ray's Aparjito (part of the Apu Trilogy), many things remain the same from the first to the second and in my mind, shows the first as the better of the two because of it. Maybe Kiewslowski's Three Colors Trilogy stands as the best because its purpose is not to follow one story, but to show a multi layered thread of what could be one film. Its just that Blue, White and Red are divided in conjucture to time. White and Red though widen Kiewslowski's themes from the first and make the overall work more interesting because there is so much to take interest in and nothing is ever clearly brought to any end. The whole thing ends on an anti ending, an ending that only speaks for the variations of themes in the movies. Three Colors Trilogy I guess would be my pick as the best of sequels because if furthers and deepens not just the story of the first one, but the ideas of it.

~rougerum

SoNowThen

#7
May 13, 2003, 03:46:34 PM
Yes, Three Colors is amazing.

How about the Antoine Doinel movies? I've only seen the 400 Blows and Stolen Kisses, but they were two completely different films, that were a "series" of sorts, and both were wonderful in their own way.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

USTopGun47

#8
May 17, 2003, 05:32:59 PM
godfather 1 and 2
I'm somebody now, Harry. Everybody likes me. Soon, millions of people will see me and they'll all like me. I'll tell them about you, and your father, how good he was to us. Remember? It's a reason to get up in the morning. It's a reason to lose weight, to fit in the red dress. It's a reason to smile. It makes tomorrow all right. What have I got Harry, hm? Why should I even make the bed, or wash the dishes? I do them, but why should I? I'm alone. Your father's gone, you're gone. I got no one to care for. What have I got, Harry? I'm lonely. I'm old.

Derek237

#9
May 18, 2003, 09:31:14 AM
In Die Hard 1&2 Bruce gets back together with his wife, but in part 3 he's back in New York and they're broken up again, which sucks. But ya gotta give it points for being more realistic..... :shock:

Duck Sauce

#10
May 18, 2003, 11:49:18 AM
Did you guys know they are making a "The Lion King 1 1/2"?


http://us.imdb.com/Title?0318403

bonanzataz

#11
May 18, 2003, 10:01:41 PM
see my rant about disney in the DVD section for continuity, but do you see what i fucking mean?! walt NEVER allowed sequels, he HATED them. It was alright back when they were just releasing them on video, it was harmless enough. but now they make jungle book sequels and peter pan sequels that show up in theaters! it's an insult!
The corpses all hang headless and limp bodies with no surprises and the blood drains down like devil's rain we'll bathe tonight I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls Demon I am and face I peel to see your skin turned inside out, 'cause gotta have you on my wall gotta have you on my wall, 'cause I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls collect the heads of little girls and put 'em on my wall hack the heads off little girls and put 'em on my wall I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls

Pas

#12
May 26, 2003, 06:49:35 PM
Well, I guess we can now say Les Invasions Barbares (The Barbarian Invasions, the sequel to The Fall of the American Empire) ! I haven't seen that kind of character development in a sequel since...well...ever

Oh, yeah, you haven't seen it in the US yet...Miramax bought it so it'll be fine
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions