I've always said that one of my issues with sequels is that, so…: archmage

I've always said that one of my issues with sequels is that, so often, they are doing a sequel to a film who doesn't need one. In the case of a long running saga, say Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, the movie you see is merely part of a longer story, then sequels make sense, you are following the characters through the story. For something like Indiana Jones, the character is established to be more than just "some guy", but a hero, someone who has had many adventures, so there's always another tale to tell. Most films, though, are situational. A story that tells of something that happened in some place at some time. When it's over, it's over. Period. Making a sequel to this requires you to explain how this further story has any connection,. and it is tenuous at best, since there's no reason for it.

Take Die hard, for instance. A fun action flick, sure. But the premise is that this man is in the wrong place at the right time, and makes a difference in something that might have gore otherwise, had he not been there. When it's over, it's over, the situation has passed. But there's been three of them, and we're supposed to just believe that this man is constantly in that position. it's just sorta sad...especially in light of them making a fourth film, which apparently sees our bloody hero cop coming "out of retirement to take down an Internet-based terrorist organization."

Yeeeeeeah, right. Department Of Stupid Fucking Ideas That America Will Slobber Over, you have a call on line DUH.

(no subject)

I Gotcher Free Inhabitant Status Right Here, Swingin'

(no subject)

Error