The making of a good sequel (IE: Transformers 2 is going to be rad)

I usually am very apprehensive about movie sequels as they more often then not are always awful.

But it seems there is a longstanding trend, especially recently with comic book movies that when the original director stays on board its almost always of equal or better quality.

Examples
Godfather
Tim Burton's batman
Spiderman
x-men
C. Nolan's Batman



Typically with a director switch mid series, it totally ruins the franchise. (Ahem Batman Forever, jaws )

This leads me to believe Transformer's 2 under the control of Mr. Bay is going to be rad as hell. That and the trailers look amazing and devastator.

Anyone else notice this?

Heh, people actually still use the word 'rad'?

__________________

better then "sick"

Believe it or not, I'm going to kinda-sorta agree here. I think a director can become more comfortable with a universe/group of characters over time, and that many of them, in a sequel, are unhampered by having to introduce certain characters, ideas, or origins. They can focus on telling a story, and don't have to spend as much time situating us. Add in the basic fact that practice tends to make you better at something, and I think there's something to the idea.

And, of course, if a film is good enough to spawn a sequel, the director usually has an even larger budget at their command, and probably has a bit less studio skepticism/interference at some point, too.

I can think of many-a sequel, even with the same director, that did badly or weren't up to par with the original.

That being said, I think sequels (especially super-hero/ comic type movies) more often then not turn out better to some degree or another. A first movie is usually an introductory type of deal, with the sequal ramping everything up to the next level. (spiderman 1/ 2 and batman begins/ Dark Knight being prime examples)

If you are interested, an early review from IGN UK is out now
I'm not going to say too much, but this review pretty much sums up all the doubts and fears I had about this movie. The scope is too big and it has way too much action and not enough human connection. But it is still a bad-ass movie in it's own right, but in this case, based on the review, seems like it doesn't really live up to the original

that my friends, is totally Tubular

__________________
One day you will ask me, what's more important...me or your life. I will answer my life and you will walk away not knowing that you are my life

If the first movie is trash as I believe the first Transformers was. I have huge doubts as to whether or not the second one will be any good.

It's very, very unlikely if you want my opinion.

I don't think he's really asking whether or not you liked Transformers (though I, for one, thought it was good fun. It's only "trash" if you convince yourself that all films ought to aspire to something more than simple entertainment). Obviously the principle being discussed is a relative one, and wouldn't really apply if you don't like the original film at all.

You know what, you're right. I missread the original post and I'll retract my statement.

On the topic that directors who stay on who invariably make good second movies, I would agree somewhat with that statement. I think when there is talk of a statement by the studio the original director has a rather large protective instict of it and will probably (not always) stay on and do the sequel because they do not feel that another director will be ale to fill the boots of the one that came before him in terms of knowledge of the characters etc. It probably also depends on the mentality of the studio as well, if they just want a quick cash in sequel to appease fans and make as much money as possible then I'm guessing the director who put so much effort might lose interest and move onto other things.

Will Mr Bay carry on in this tradition, well only time will tell on that. I'm sure there will be plenty of explosions and very little plot like the last one. But here's my cynicism coming out again.

Dont you think films should aspire to be more than simple entertainment? Yes of course you can make action movies with plenty of explosions and gun fights etc but those action movies can also have interesting plots or engaging characters that we can as an audience like and root for, or even both. These type of movies can be made and have been made, movies that are entertaining but also have something for the audience to take away from it. Whether it be a plot twist or an interesting character arc. And not just mindnumbing, and thats all Transformers was in my opinion.

But this discussion is for another thread.

I would agree when a good director is attached to the project, but Bay is a jack wad, so this film should be about par for the course with his other stuff, which is crap.

__________________

this movie will rule all movies.

actually i saw the trailer for the movie and i was laughing at how fake the whole thing looks...

__________________
My 100 ALL-TIME FAVE Movies

Well, it's about giant robots. It can look real and still look fake, if you follow.

I am talking about the effects...if you follow

You think the effects look bad? Compared to what? They're easily some of the best-looking effects I've ever seen. I'm not saying CGI-fests are necessarily good, but on a purely technical level it looks very impressive.

They're at least as good as the ones in the first Transformers, which was nominated for a Best Visual Effects Oscar.

Compared to movies they used to make 30 years ago without the great technology we've got today. Back then it was a work of art from start to finish..Some might have dated today , but that;s only because we compare it with today's technology. The trick is not to tell when a scene is CGI and when not. With today's technology you can imediatelly spot when somethnig is CGI and when not...with very few exceptions..the LOTR trilogy IMO is the greatest work achieved nowdays with CGI.

That sounds a bit like a separate issue to me, then; whether or not CGI has made for lazier stories is another matter.

Transformers quite plainly utilizes some very sophisticated, realistic-looking effects, as evidenced by the honors bestowed upon it by others in the industry, as well as what I'm sure is the vast majority of moviegoers. Giant robots have no business looking real at all, and that they do is quite an achievement.

Regarding the LOTR trilogy; I adore it to an unreasonable degree, but I still know when I'm looking at CGI most of the time. The fact that it uses it for somewhat more modest goals than giant robots might make it seem fundamentally different, but from a purely technical perspective I don't think it looks any better. It's just a better movie. Perhaps the quality of the Transformers films (or, to some, the lack thereof) is coloring this discussion a bit.

...with the amount of movies our eyes have been exposed to the last 20 years and with the advanced technology nowdays it surely is possible to tell when you're watching an effect and when not. on the other hand regarding CGIs: A CGI effect that looks realistic is a bonus.

In order for the sequel to live up to the standard of the first or others in the series, the writer should have a really good understanding of the characters he's working with. Some writers, I wonder if they were thinking of the same characters and movie series.

__________________

I agree.
Yes.
As I sat there in the theater watching the trailer, I felt stimulated.

__________________
"If you can't be funny be interesting."
Harold Ross

LOL! I could never make a post so short yet so money. Im counting the days to Fantasy Football Sluggo!
__________________

What makes a good sequel Top 10

10. If the story was told in the first one dont contrive a continuation of it. Tell a fresh story with same characters.

9. Hire the same writing crew or better! No exceptions! The #1 reason sequels suck is the story's crap.

8. Be smarter. Be like QT! Make a real good long movie then split it in two parts. Though try and sound fancy and say "Volumes".

7. Never hire a new director unless theyre alot better. The most noticable thing about Bryan Singers talent/ability was his absence in X-Men 3.

6. Dont lie! Thats funny but dont promise one thing in the trailer then give something else. Thats bait n switch and youre coming from a position of weakness everytime.

5. If based on an original novel DONT CHANGE THE STORY! Yes even in Hollywood where a screenplay goes thru more metemorphisis than anything the insect kingdom could ever dream of. Dont EVAH make a contrived sequel to a known one shot story Titanic Moby Dick it dont matter! I know they havent but ya never know sometimes.

4. Dont bring back dead characters. Just dont. I saw comic books (Dont laugh. The difference between a comic book and a directorial sketchpad is nothing.) delute the death of characters by just bringing them back. It oozes of pro wrestling where the retirement match is like a 2 month vacation.

3. If the original actors dont sign on then get better ones. Sorry Julliane Moore isnt Jodie Foster, and sure as hell wasnt a better Clarice Starling.

2. If you know itll go straight to DVD....actually I dont know what to say to that.

1. If you must do a sequel consider TV. Maybe we need more shows like M.A.S.H. yknow. I like seeing great film actors that dont get their deserved share of work on TV.

"whew"