Perhaps I'm alone on this, but I for one am plain fed up with it.    I know that it's been like this since the early 1970's and nothing is going to change, but let me get on my high horse for just a moment and complain.  I realize that complaining won't solve anything and the only positive thing that it might do is to show myself that I'm not alone in my feelings. 

I just saw that the Punisher II is coming out.  When I first heard the possibility of the film coming out, I was exited and anxious to see the film.  Then I learned the facts and my exitement soon turned to dissappointment.  I'm more anxious for the film to hurry up, come out in theatres, hopefully flop and then go quickly to DVD to hopefully be soon forgotten.

Why am I so negative about a film that I haven't even seen yet?  Because I have very stricht beliefs on what a sequel should be. 

A - A Sequel should have continuity.  For those of you that don't know continuity is consistency of the characteristics of persons, plot, objects, places and events seen by the viewer of a film.  Occording to what I've read and what I've heard, this sequel of the punisher will not have Thomas Jayne playing the part of Frank Castle.  There goes having returning actors to play the parts of the characters.  This bothers me a lot because as an enagaging audience member, I got to know who Frank Castle was, by the way Thomas Jayne played him.  His personality, his mannorisms.  When I think of Frank Castle I picture Thomas Jayne.  (Well, actually I picture Dolph Lundgren too, but that's another topic for another day).    I don't want to see a new film with someone else playing the part.  No matter how good of an actor he is, and no matter how good of a job he does, he won't be able to live up to playing Frank Castle, because I have it in my mind that Thomas Jayne is Frank Castle. 
      Secondly, I heard that this film won't even acknowledge the events of the first film.  It will be a brand new story, with not even a hint that "Part I" was even made.    Why call it a "sequel" if it doesn't relate to the first film, or the film made before it?  I don't get that.    I'm not saying to be redudant and boring and just reliterate the foundations of part I, but you can have returning characters, a continuation of the story and linkage while at the same time having new fresh ideas.  It is possible, I've seen it.  Watch Back to the Future I-II-II or Superman I-II-II-IV,  perfect examples of films that actually did this.

B- A Sequel should have linkage.  Linkage is nothing more than A connection or relation between things or ideas.  You SHOULD have to watch Part I in order to fully understand the concepts and ideas of part II.  It should not be possible to fully understand that story, the background of the story and the details of the story of Part II without first watching part I.  I'm still on my high horse here, and I'll get off in a minute, but I'll stand firm to my belief that watching part I should be a prerequisite before watching part II. 

C - When making a sequel, longevity should be taken into consideration.  Longevity, simply put is defined as, "Length of life."  I suppose in Hollywood today, the here and right now, making the big buck and partying it up is the incentive now.  I'm glad to see that some film makers, care more about good story telling and good film making, than they do that.  They won't allow there creations, there masterpieces to be innialated with crappy sequels in order to make a quick $$.  Instead they put the time and effort needed to make mesmorizing, magical sequels to perhaps not duplicate their original work, but at least keep it respectable and honorable.

I hope that you excuse me for being on my high horse about this.  I take films very seriously, as it has been my dream to one day be a Hollywood Screenplay writer, and that has been one of my dreams for almost 10  years now.

Feel free to elaborate your own ideas, whether you agree or disagree.

see "Batman".

I just wish they would get Porky's 4 into production.  I want to know what the kids at Angel Beach High have been up to lately.

I just wish they would get Porky's 4 into production.  I want to know what the kids at Angel Beach High have been up to lately.
That could be their grandkids,it's been so long since the last one! :D

The problem with sequels is they are too commonly made.

see "Batman".


The new one's or the Tim Burton started ones?

The problem with sequels is they are too commonly made.


While I agree, I don't think you'd be as hot to trot is the sequels were actually good.

  Some old favorites are sequels, some examples - The Empire Strikes Back, The Road Warrior, Star Trek II, Indiana Jones II.  Arguably better then their predecessors, some say.  Some imaginative writing and directing can do justice to the original they're based upon, add depth to established characters and take stories in wonderful new directions...

  Some stories are begging for a sequel.  If there's more story and further adventures to experience, then let me see it.  However I don't think all stories are in need of, or can tolerate, a sequel without feeling contrived...


   

Perhaps I'm alone on this, but I for one am plain fed up with it.    I know that it's been like this since the early 1970's and nothing is going to change, but let me get on my high horse for just a moment and complain.  I realize that complaining won't solve anything and the only positive thing that it might do is to show myself that I'm not alone in my feelings. 

I just saw that the Punisher II is coming out.  When I first heard the possibility of the film coming out, I was exited and anxious to see the film.  Then I learned the facts and my exitement soon turned to dissappointment.   I'm more anxious for the film to hurry up, come out in theatres, hopefully flop and then go quickly to DVD to hopefully be soon forgotten.

Why am I so negative about a film that I haven't even seen yet?  Because I have very stricht beliefs on what a sequel should be. 

A - A Sequel should have continuity.  For those of you that don't know continuity is consistency of the characteristics of persons, plot, objects, places and events seen by the viewer of a film.   Occording to what I've read and what I've heard, this sequel of the punisher will not have Thomas Jayne playing the part of Frank Castle.   There goes having returning actors to play the parts of the characters.  This bothers me a lot because as an enagaging audience member, I got to know who Frank Castle was, by the way Thomas Jayne played him.  His personality, his mannorisms.  When I think of Frank Castle I picture Thomas Jayne.  (Well, actually I picture Dolph Lundgren too, but that's another topic for another day).    I don't want to see a new film with someone else playing the part.  No matter how good of an actor he is, and no matter how good of a job he does, he won't be able to live up to playing Frank Castle, because I have it in my mind that Thomas Jayne is Frank Castle. 
       Secondly, I heard that this film won't even acknowledge the events of the first film.   It will be a brand new story, with not even a hint that "Part I" was even made.    Why call it a "sequel" if it doesn't relate to the first film, or the film made before it?  I don't get that.    I'm not saying to be redudant and boring and just reliterate the foundations of part I, but you can have returning characters, a continuation of the story and linkage while at the same time having new fresh ideas.  It is possible, I've seen it.  Watch Back to the Future I-II-II or Superman I-II-II-IV,  perfect examples of films that actually did this.

B- A Sequel should have linkage.  Linkage is nothing more than A connection or relation between things or ideas.  You SHOULD have to watch Part I in order to fully understand the concepts and ideas of part II.  It should not be possible to fully understand that story, the background of the story and the details of the story of Part II without first watching part I.   I'm still on my high horse here, and I'll get off in a minute, but I'll stand firm to my belief that watching part I should be a prerequisite before watching part II.   

C - When making a sequel, longevity should be taken into consideration.   Longevity, simply put is defined as, "Length of life."   I suppose in Hollywood today, the here and right now, making the big buck and partying it up is the incentive now.  I'm glad to see that some film makers, care more about good story telling and good film making, than they do that.   They won't allow there creations, there masterpieces to be innialated with crappy sequels in order to make a quick $$.   Instead they put the time and effort needed to make mesmorizing, magical sequels to perhaps not duplicate their original work, but at least keep it respectable and honorable.

I hope that you excuse me for being on my high horse about this.   I take films very seriously, as it has been my dream to one day be a Hollywood Screenplay writer, and that has been one of my dreams for almost 10  years now.

Feel free to elaborate your own ideas, whether you agree or disagree.



  I disagree.  If the character/characters are engaging and the plots intriguing, the sequel won't need to lean on it's predecessor for legitimacy.  After all, if the original is that good, everyone already knows about it anyway...

   I disagree.  If the character/characters are engaging and the plots intriguing, the sequel won't need to lean on it's predecessor for legitimacy.  After all, if the original is that good, everyone already knows about it anyway...


So you're telling me that it's ok to completely ignore the movie that came before?  Isn't that within itself the very definition of a sequel?  If you're going to have brand new characters, brand new plot line, and a brand new everything else, why not call the movie something brand new?  Why does it have to have the "name"?  If everything else about it is different, then why is the name the same?

I disagree with you 100%.

I think that Davester might have been disagreeing with your comment about people needing to have seen the first film to be able to understand the second film.  At least that's how i interpreted his comment.  :-\\

So you're telling me that it's ok to completely ignore the movie that came before?  Isn't that within itself the very definition of a sequel?  If you're going to have brand new characters, brand new plot line, and a brand new everything else, why not call the movie something brand new?  Why does it have to have the "name"?   If everything else about it is different, then why is the name the same?

I disagree with you 100%.


  I'm saying that the sequel/s should stand on their own rather than use the previous iteration as a crutch...

  You don't completely ignore the original.  You enjoy it for what it was and then move on to the next adventure...

  It's quite possible that I have no idea what I'm talking about.  Sequel?  Prequel?  Serial?  Series?  Franchise?  Companion..?

  If we're talking trilogies, then I agree with you.  Trilogies are the exception to the sequel factor as long as it's not tagged together.  Like LOTR, for example, being filmed together, with the intention of splitting it up across three.  Would have been interesting to see how many people would have sat through a 9-10 hour movie... :P

 

   

   I'm saying that the sequel/s should stand on their own rather than use the previous iteration as a crutch...

   You don't completely ignore the original.  You enjoy it for what it was and then move on to the next adventure...

   It's quite possible that I have no idea what I'm talking about.  Sequel?  Prequel?  Serial?  Series?  Franchise?  Companion..?

   If we're talking trilogies, then I agree with you.  Trilogies are the exception to the sequel factor as long as it's not tagged together.  Like LOTR, for example, being filmed together, with the intention of splitting it up across three.  Would have been interesting to see how many people would have sat through a 9-10 hour movie... :P

   

   




As many LOTR fans are there are, I'd say more than you'd think.

As many LOTR fans are there are, I'd say more than you'd think.


  I'll take your word for it.  I don't even like LOTR...