Sequels, Adaptations, & Revivals In Movies: A Discussion

[Guest Supreme Gamesmaster]

With the sequel to Hellboy and the revival of Speed Racer coming out, negative energy is charging the moviegoing atmosphere. Sequels, adaptations, and revivals, as a fact, suck. Or do they? Discuss here.

 

I think a lot of the problem isn't the movie, it's the moviegoer. When one walks into a movie theater to see a sequel, adaptation, or revival, they expect it to fail. No, strike that. They want it to fail. Whether they know it or not, they want the movie to be bad so they don't have to say that something they liked changed for the better. It's the innate human nature that despises change and longs for the past. Moviegoers don't want to accept the changes in the revival, so they see the movie as bad. One might say they never actually see the movie.

 

One example is the Inspector Gadget movies. The first one was criticised for being too dissimilar to the cartoon. The second one was then attacked for being too similar to the cartoon. No matter what, the sequel, adaptation, or revival will fail, because the moviegoers want it to. Human nature is that people hate change, which is what sequels, adaptations, and revivals all offer.

 

Discuss.

[2sick4u]

In my opinion, it's not actually the movie goer that induces failure. No, i believe it's the sole responsibility of the advertising portion of the feature.

My example here would be such films as spider man, widely successful over all 3 movies simply because of it's ability to be the "Showcase" On the movie listings.

Public knowledge leads to a successful movie; all should know. This formula doesn't differ for something of a sequel. We all know spider man, thanks to advertising, so, we should all have some sub-conscious keen to see something familiar in a movie. This, equals becoming the summit of the box office.

However, i kind of contradict myself; as some movies are never meant to have sequels. Ie. If titanic would happen to get a sequel, simply because of its box office ratings, it would fail, since it is based on a historical event. In all movies a stories told, and sequels only succeed if planned in the story. Ie. For hellboy (Which i never even knew had a sequel, advertising again.) he learns his reason for life, and conquers it. Story told. The producers probably needed another mansion, and decided a sequel, simply demolishing the old story. My theory as to why sequels would fail.

 

And as for your inspector gadget example; well, what about harry potter? I can't seem to get away from people who demand precision from the books.. which the movie doesn't show. Yet; it was still popular. So. Overall... It comes down to.

Popularity of the movie before it.

=].

2sick~

[Wyhe]

That depends on the movie itself.

If the movie's a good or great one, (such as Chronicles of Narnia,Harry Potter series,Indiana Jones series,Lord of the Rings) then go ahead.People will be cheering up like there's no tomorrow.

However,if that movie is a bad one,then screw the directors,producers & scriptwriters for making this piece of junk back to the cinema doors when no one's welcoming them.

[OmegaWave]

Most movie revivals and sequels suck (Speed Racer, Iron Man, and Indiana Jones excluded.)

 

It's basically proof that Movie Directors have FINALLY run out of good ideas for movies. There is even a Dragonball Z LIVE ACTION movie coming out later this year. If that doesn't say something, nothing will.

 

Directors need to stop working on multiple movies at once and makeing movies month by month. They to make at maximum, 2 movies a year. They need time to formulate ideas. Because of the blood thirsty fans and media, they aren't given any time to think because of the constant pressure.