A new post on The Guardian's film blog jokingly outlines the premise for perhaps the worst idea for a sequel (other than Jumper 2, of course): There Will Be Blood 2. For those who haven't seen the film, there may be spoilers in the post, so be warned:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/02/coming_soon_there_will_be_bloo.html
The post is pretty funny, and I thought it was a good example of some of the poor, rushed thinking that often goes into creating sequels or attempts at co-opting the success of others. The comments section reminds me of our stab at the Producer's Game, everyone contributing an idea for sequel ideas, many of which I wouldn't be surprised if they were actually considered at some point in time.
And keeping with the idea of sequels...
I wasn't lying about a Jumper 2. Jumper did top the box office, after all (we'll see what happens in the second weekend). Again, light spoilers lie ahead:
http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/02/18/director-doug-liman-talks-time-travel-intergalactic-plot-for-jumper-2/
I think this is a good example of how producers and filmmakers always keep the future in mind, and what marketing possibilities it holds. And while it's not a direct example of the Producer's Game (Jumper is based on a novel, Reflex the second in the series), it's still a good example of the thinking that goes into making a film and its potential sequel, and taking a look at next week's B.O. figures should be a good testament to the strength of word of mouth marketing (if the film has a huge drop off, we'll know it fell victim to bad worth of mouth). Also, Jumper is a good example of the detriments of looking too far ahead, Liman admittedly "teasing" some ideas in the first film, in the hopes of having a sequel, these teased ideas turning into gaping plot holes or loose ends, a pitfall that affected The Golden Compass, as well (for those who've seen it).
Enjoy.
8 comments:
I'd definitely have to agree with a stance against There Will Be Blood 2. It is the "worst sequel idea ever."
There are some films which natural lend themselves to sequels and are inherently made as franchises (ie-The Harry Potter series.) However, every producer and production company in this town is so desperately seeking out "franchise-worthy" material that they often force the issue with something that comes to a fulfilling conclusion.
There will Be Blood is clearly something which was written as a stand-alone piece and should be left alone as the masterpiece that it is. It's not often that a best picture nominee needs an extension or leaves you wondering about its conclusion. Often, it seems the very conclusive nature of a film and its meaningful, kathartic resolution is what makes the film so great. This is again the case with another of the best picture nominees - Michael Clayton. A great film which doesn't really lend itself to a sequel. Sure, we all want to know what happens after Michael gets in the cab and just drives, but do we really want to spoil the memory of his screaming "I'M SHIVA, THE GOD OF DEATH!" before he exits victoriously?
Some films aren't made for sequels, prequels, or any extension, but hollywood is such that most big hits are going to be forced into resurrection and sequel status regardless.
This was really funny. I agree that some of the comments on that blog post are reasonably viable; others are more laughable than There Will Be Blood 2--which could also be called something cornier like "There Will Be More Blood" or "TWBB2: The Reckoning."
I agree with Tom. Some films certainly lend themselves to sequels. Other times, sequels are seemingly forced out when there's money to be made from concept, even if there's not really a fresh direction. (Pirates 2 and 3...)
I would add that Juno is pretty much a closed story. Though it's past $120 million at the box office. Perhaps, she and Michael Cera are still not using protection. I wouldn't put it past them. Or maybe this time it's Jason Bateman's...
Atonement seems absolutely impossible to sequel-ize. It covers decades in scope. A sequel to "No Country" is possible, but I think to even revisit the subject would tarnish the meaning of the original film.
I feel like what Tom said applies to many Oscar nominated films: "Often, it seems the very conclusive nature of a film and its meaningful, cathartic resolution is what makes the film so great." There was, however, very legit talk of a sequel to "The Departed" centered around Mark Wahlberg's character and possibly featuring Robert DeNiro who was almost a part of the original film. I'm pretty sure that's gonna be a no go, although there's definitely a market for it.
I agree with all of this BUT one might have thought that Godfather was a perfect film and making Part II was heresy. And yet, as good as GF I is, Part II was the absolute masterpiece. Mad Max is a minor film, but Road Warrior is brilliant. Night of the Living Dead seemed to cover everything, but then Dawn was revelatory.
And as for worst sequel idea, what about the Sting II, with Jackie Gleason instead of Paul Newman? Actually, there's a lot of contender.
As ya'll know, Departed is based upon a Chinese film called Infernal Affairs, that had 2 very successful sequels. Therefore a sequel for Departed is not impossible. Also Scorsese did a sequel once before. Anyone know what it was?
You beat me to the punch on the Infernal Affairs post.
Scorcese sequel? For some reason, I'm thinking Casino.
Guess you could argue that Shine A Light is a sequel to The Last Waltz, but I know that's not the answer.
Yeah I'm completely wrong. Never knew that was Scorcese...
Paul Newman starred in the greatest film ever made about pool -- The Hustler. Decades later, Scorsese made a sequel with Newman and Cruise -- The Color of Money. It made more money than any prior Scorcese film.
Post a Comment