|
|
Post by kingkoopa on Nov 20, 2017 20:04:38 GMT
What is with the trend of "the next five will be released through to 2022?"
Is it just me, or is it sort of pompous and presumptuous to announce multiple sequels. Ok, James Cameron, you're making up to "Avatar 5." What happens if "2" sucks? Why bother seeing "2" if I could just wait it out until "5?"
Am I crazy or is this a bungled marketing strategy? Drives me crazy when directors announce multiple sequels. If the first was good, I'll see a second...that doesn't mean I'm hanging with it til part 5. Makes me think part 2 won't be that good if part 5 is already in the can...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 20:05:34 GMT
It doesn't bother me
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Nov 20, 2017 20:16:29 GMT
It means they dont have to worry about markets despite their repeated claims "they are just giving what the public wants!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 20, 2017 21:11:31 GMT
When has this happened other than with AVATAR?
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 20, 2017 21:19:51 GMT
Depends on the franchise. Yeah, I'd expect a sequel or two for a Marvel movie. I can't say the same thing about Cameron's Avatar sequels.
|
|
|
|
Post by kingkoopa on Nov 20, 2017 23:28:22 GMT
When has this happened other than with AVATAR? Marvel gets a pass from me. Not a huge fan of this universe, but they are structuring their cinematic universe a lot like comics (which do come out at fairly regular intervals). Star Wars is planning on releasing a movie every year (spinoff one year, 'episode' the next). Small franchises like "The Conjuring" and "Insidious" had part 3 in the can while part 1 was released. On one hand I can see it as a response to the new way viewers consume media (I'd love to see the analytics on how quickly people binged Netflix's "Stranger Things" second season). The point I raise is that if "Star Wars: A New Hope" came out today and it was immediately announced that there'd be two sequels, would that negatively impact (or raise the stakes beyond reason) "Empire?" Not saying I'm right, just that announcing multiple sequels (to high budget movies) seems like a hell of a gamble. |
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Nov 20, 2017 23:33:37 GMT
They already know people are going to see these films just from the name only.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 21, 2017 9:57:54 GMT
Marvel gets a pass from me. Not a huge fan of this universe, but they are structuring their cinematic universe a lot like comics (which do come out at fairly regular intervals). Star Wars is planning on releasing a movie every year (spinoff one year, 'episode' the next). Small franchises like "The Conjuring" and "Insidious" had part 3 in the can while part 1 was released. Not saying I'm right, just that announcing multiple sequels (to high budget movies) seems like a hell of a gamble. Ah... Well, each example is a different situation. It's common for people to say "We're planning on doing sequels" right before the release and then see how the movie does. Recently, the makers of the POWER RANGERS reboot talked about 5 sequels. However, James Cameron confirmed the sequels and that he would be making them back-to-back. That means that, even if they all flop, they'll all be released anyway. Not to mention that he announced it almost 10 years after the release of the 1st one. Cinematic universes are also different. In order to keep the consistency and arrange cross-overs, they need to pre-plan the whole story. STAR WARS and THE CONJURING are somewhere in between. They have spin-offs in between the main movies, so I you could call them cinematic universes(?) To answer the original question: I don't mind the announcements themselves. What bothers me is when the makers focus so much on the idea of a franchise that they make movies that only serve as set-ups (like the new MUMMY). |
|
|
|
Post by bonerxmas on Nov 21, 2017 10:11:11 GMT
i guess they are not really sequels, just installments of ten hour movies
|
|
