|
Post by wildojinx on Jan 5, 2014 9:47:43 GMT -5
,,should they work as "stand-alone" to the previous work (so people who havent seen other films in the series can still enjoy them) or should they have a continuing storyline that means you have to watch every film in a series. Take the Dark Knight Trilogy. The Dark Knight can be watched as a stand-alone film (though the scarecrow cameo in the opener may confuse some people), all you need to know is who Batman (and to a lesser extent, Gordon and Lucius) is. Dark Knight Rises on the other hand is impossible to follow unless you've seen both Batman Begins and TDK, since it follows up on plots from those films (BB in paticular).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2014 10:01:36 GMT -5
Doesn't make a difference to me, the best ones can work as both. If you see a sequel (and you know it's a sequel), if you enjoyed it, then you will want to see the one(s) before it. Then you might see some things you remember from the sequel you've seen and it starts to gel together.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2014 10:07:20 GMT -5
Ideally, I think a sequel should be both. Having continuity is great, but at the same time you don't want to make a film so referential to past movies that a new viewer gets completely lost. However, viewers should understand that when you decide to skip the first film in a franchise, you might not understand everything in the sequels. Some films really don't have the allotted time to touch on every reference and re-explain things that happened 1 or 2 films back. I don't think a little research into a series is too much to ask given that we can access concise summaries of every movie that has ever existed from our phones.
|
|
|
Post by Grennel on Jan 5, 2014 11:23:38 GMT -5
It's nice to get a wink wink finger in the ass from the previous film, but it's not totally necessary.
|
|
|
Post by mcmahonfan85 on Jan 5, 2014 11:29:43 GMT -5
it depends on the story they're trying to tell with the franchise as well as how big the franchise is
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 5, 2014 11:47:46 GMT -5
I think each movie should have it's own arc that you follow through, even in a series. I don't find myself enjoying movies that exist solely to set up the next movie. I think the LotR series combined these things fairly well, advancing the overall arcing story while giving each movie it's own identity and arc, compared to the Hobbit trilogy thus far, where it doesn't feel like that.
|
|
|
Post by Ryback on a Pole! on Jan 5, 2014 12:01:42 GMT -5
I don't mind both. But, I do think a sequel that continues should have a 5 minutes "previously" recap thing so new viewers can go to see it and get the general gist of what's happened.
In fact I've no idea why no movie trilogies do that. Seems like a decent idea and allows people to watch the sequel who might not have seen the first one.
|
|
|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on Jan 5, 2014 13:38:58 GMT -5
They should definitely work on their own, but they can have an overarching storyline. If the movie requires you to have seen another one to understand it, or at least its main story, you're just alienating anyone who hasn't seen it.
The thing to always remember is that films, and art in general is made for an audience and the artist should not expect the public to have the same frame of reference as them.
Of course, the thing about sequels is that to make a good one, you need to recreate the feel of the original while also expending on what made it work in order to create novelty. And yes, finding that sweet spot between continuity and novelty IS extremely difficult, which is why few sequels equal, let alone surpass the original work, and why so many franchises end up sucking worse and worse as more sequels are produced.
A good example of one that did right in my book is Hellbound: Hellraiser 2. It's easy to follow as its own story, but if you've seen the first you will remember elements that bring even more weight to the story. The atmosphere of the original is still here, but it expands on what made it work and adds to its mythos by, among other things, showing more of Hell and its inner workings as well as going crazier with the visuals. Of course, the rest of the sequels are good examples of how NOT to do it.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Jan 5, 2014 14:11:50 GMT -5
I think Spider-Man 2 pulled it off better than any other sequel I've seen. Opening titled run down all the major story elements from the first film, then the story starts up from there.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Jan 5, 2014 14:16:55 GMT -5
I don't mind both. But, I do think a sequel that continues should have a 5 minutes "previously" recap thing so new viewers can go to see it and get the general gist of what's happened. In fact I've no idea why no movie trilogies do that. Seems like a decent idea and allows people to watch the sequel who might not have seen the first one. The Rocky movies do that.
|
|
|
Post by Rumble McSkirmish on Jan 5, 2014 14:22:21 GMT -5
The Rocky sequels also did a good job with catching up viewers to the story by showing the final bout from the previous film. (I could be wrong, but I think they were one of the first feature film franchises to do something like that.) GAH beaten to it. ^^
|
|
|
Post by wildojinx on Jan 5, 2014 14:22:55 GMT -5
I don't mind both. But, I do think a sequel that continues should have a 5 minutes "previously" recap thing so new viewers can go to see it and get the general gist of what's happened. In fact I've no idea why no movie trilogies do that. Seems like a decent idea and allows people to watch the sequel who might not have seen the first one. The Rocky movies do that. As did Spider-man 2 and Superman 2.
|
|
|
Post by bibboid on Jan 5, 2014 21:55:45 GMT -5
You can watch the Mad Max movies in any order you want and they still all make sense.
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Jan 5, 2014 22:24:09 GMT -5
I think either works fine as long as there's a balance of new story vs. flashbacks/adding to existing story. You look at something like The Avengers where you could go in blind and be fairly okay with all of it without seeing the previous films as long as you have at least a grasp on who everyone is. Then you look at a series like Saw where you're pretty much screwed if you don't watch all the films in order since each one adds to the previous so heavily.
|
|