Post by Vits on Nov 17, 2018 12:02:24 GMT
ck100 jamesbamesy politicidal
I get that filming more scenes costs more money. The thing is that, if a movie doesn't start the franchise as intended, it's because it wasn't profitable enough (or at all) at the box office. If if wasn't profitable, it's most likely due to bad word of mouth caused by audiences being against sequel-baiting. With that in mind, it seems like filming back-to-back seems less risky. In fact, in most cases, these are planned to have maximum 3 installments (I don't know why the concept of a trilogy seems to be more popular), so it wouldn't be that much more to film. We're not talking about AVATAR (4 sequels back-to-back) or last year's POWER RANGERS (before the release, they said it's going to have 5 sequels).
The Hobbit was also shot back-to-back, too.Ah, yes. I didn't mention them because they're prequels.
I get that filming more scenes costs more money. The thing is that, if a movie doesn't start the franchise as intended, it's because it wasn't profitable enough (or at all) at the box office. If if wasn't profitable, it's most likely due to bad word of mouth caused by audiences being against sequel-baiting. With that in mind, it seems like filming back-to-back seems less risky. In fact, in most cases, these are planned to have maximum 3 installments (I don't know why the concept of a trilogy seems to be more popular), so it wouldn't be that much more to film. We're not talking about AVATAR (4 sequels back-to-back) or last year's POWER RANGERS (before the release, they said it's going to have 5 sequels).
