Quadman2
Lunatic Member
There is a difference between a sequel, a series and a franchise. The franchises like Bond, Bourne, etc have been successful because we because invested in the character. A series is written and designed as such like Star Wars, Hunger Games etc. There is a reason for the second, third or further installment until the end is reached. A sequel seems to come as an afterthought when there is a successful film. It is largely driven by a financial desire to capitalize on the original film. In most cases, they suck.
To a large degree I gotta agree with most of what you think.
You can bet that there's some underling, going through the novel series to see what might be best adapted for either TV, or the big screen. The backers pick one, then publicize the heck outta it before presenting it to Joe Public... throw some big name stars into it, or not to cut costs. See how the numbers went. Then decide whether do to a follow up with a sequel. In a way, if you go back far enough, the orig writers are in the driver's seat.
Some of Steven King's novels put to screen weren't bad... but some were terrible! I've read he'd become a lot more picky how the production went and how it was adapted.
Personally, I'd like to see more "Jack Reacher" movies, but with a better choice of actor for Jack. Maybe Dolf L.? Too old?
Q
Last edited: