Darren New wrote:

> Another problem is that they weren't really as surprising. The first 
> movie explored a fascinating idea with lots of possibilities. The other 
> two simply continued on. IMO.
> 
> Sort of like how Episodes 1-3 had to have a certain outcome, so it 
> really wasn't possible to make it surprising that Anikan turned, or that 
> the jedi got slaughtered, or whatever.
> 
> IME, when a first movie is good, the second movie sucks because they put 
> in all the parts they thought made the first movie unique instead of all 
> the parts that made it *good*, and by the third movie they've figured 
> out why the second bombed.  With a few notable exceptions, of course.

I like how they managed to make Shrek II *better* than Shrek I. As in, 
geniunely better. Actually, there have been a few films like that. All 
too often, a film comes out, it's a success, they make a sequel - even 
if that doesn't make any sense. But sometimes, they manage to make a 
really good sequel.

Another example would be Back To The Future. Every single episode was cool.

On the other hand, Shrek the third. Oh dear. I mean, it's OK, but it's 
not that great.

Similarly, Pirates of the Caribean. First one was great. Second one was 
great. Third one was... hmm. It all kinda went a bit wrong, eh?

Only vaguely similar: The Mummy. Shallow, pointless, but entertaining. 
The Mummy Returns. Also shallow. Also pointless. And also very 
enjoyable, managing to include a few nice twists (although some of them 
were perhaps a little OTT). Tomb of the Dragon Emporer. Uh... no, I'm 
sorry, it sucks. Sure, lots of big-name actors. But... wuh? No, this is 
lame.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message