xhonzi said:

TheBoost said:

This thread is odd to me.

Isn't the idea of a 'perfect' film series, really just a way of saying 'Sequals are almost always not as good as the originals." In almost every case people mention here, they just eliminate the later entries in the series (with the exception of Temple of Doom).

Isn't that the nature of sequals; not to be as good as the original?

Most movies are not very good. So the fact that a lot of sequels are not very good, I think, is more an extension of the fact that most movies suck- and sequels are movies.

Honestly- I think sequels have the potential to be the best kind of movies. They are unsadled by the burden of establishing milieu, or establishing character... They can focus on plot development (and twists!) and character development, arguably the better parts of story telling.

Sequels...

Do you think the LotR could be as epic if they had crammed it into one film?

I don't think the LOTR films count as sequals. FOTR wasn't a complete film. The three were designed to go together. No one said "Wow, this compelte story sure made a lot of money, let's find a way to continue it!"

(which brings up the issue that every filmamker ever is now pulling a Lucas and saying "No, I had a trilogy in mind when I first started writing the first successful film")