Comic book movie sequels-informal poll

[Chris Wallace]

Which do you prefer-a sense of continuity from one movie to the next, or a sense of freshness?
By this I mean, the X- & Spider-sequels all have a followup mentality, picking up more or less where the last one left off, whereas a movie like "Batman Returns" is more of a "Down the road" kind of sequel.

 

[COME ON !]

Continuity.

 

[Knightsaber Priss]

Hey. There's no poll.

 

[blind_fury]

Continuity unless the original sucks.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Hey. There's no poll.

Hence, "informal".

 

[Chris Wallace]

Continuity unless the original sucks.

What if the original is so-so?

 

[blind_fury]

I would say try something different unless the original is outstanding. Otherwise it's pretty much a waste of potential.

 

[Mrh7448]

It depends, because with the X movies it was part of an actual story arc that was being developed.

I think it's dependent on the way the movie is set up or ends.

For example: At the end of Batman Begins, it would be stupid to do it months/years down the line, because they've already set up his next story arc with the joker.

 

[Chris Wallace]

But that was a deliberate loose end; you HAVE to pick up where you left off in that case.

 

[Mrh7448]

Yes I know, that's what I'm saying it's dependent on the film, story arc etc.

If you leave something open ended you can't very well start something fresh and reinvent it in the next movie if there are loose ends.

If it's something like DD/Batman/Batman Returns/Hulk a self contained story in a single movie then for the next one you could do whatever you want.

 

[Chris Wallace]

DD-Kingpin can plot his revenge from prison.
Hulk-the government tracks him to South America.
Those aren't open-ended & they're not self-contained. Just depends on your point of view. It's a loose end that they can tie up or leave alone to pursue something else.

 

[blind_fury]

Most first Marvel movies are self-contained stories unlike LOTR or Star Wars. It would be easy to have an unrelated sequel with a completely diferent tone.

For example it would be perfectly fine to go from Batman Returns to Batman Forever(different cast, costume, tone) if the next movie is actually an improvement.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I feel that in general I'd rather have the sense of continuity; same cast whenever possible, same tone, & a continuation of the same story. The characters should progress, mature & evolve, but still remain basically the same people. Even if the first one wasn't so great, fix what you did wrong & keep moving on. Just like the comics themselves. You don't scrap the entire comic history b/c the last story arc sucked. (Well, DC has done it a time or two but still) Taking the movies in a new direction often results in things like "Superman III" and "Batman & Robin".

 

[Mrh7448]

DD-Kingpin can plot his revenge from prison.
Hulk-the government tracks him to South America.
Those aren't open-ended & they're not self-contained. Just depends on your point of view. It's a loose end that they can tie up or leave alone to pursue something else.

I'm not saying you couldn't continue with those stories for DD or Hulk, just that you don't really have to...it would be easy enough to switch it up and not deal with those issues, since the movies had a resolution at the end. With something like the BB ending, you have to deal with Joker next or people are going to be wondering what the hell happened. Like the end of X-2 with the phoenix image. If you don't deal with that in the next movie people are going to be wondering what the hell went on.

DD and Hulk were self contained stories. They had resolutions. Kingpin went to prison there's no necessity to carry on with that character. Same with the Hulk, yes the military is still after him etc. plus the Absorbing man died anyway...it's a self contained story that had a definite ending. It still has the possiblity of the sequel but the same story line doesn't have to be continued.

Punisher is another example. Saint died, you can move on with different characters, the next one doesn't have to be related back to the first.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I wasn't disagreeing with you; like you said, you can move on w/it but you don't have to. And events don't have to tie in to the previous film for there to be continuity. Just keep it on the same path.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Which do you prefer-a sense of continuity from one movie to the next, or a sense of freshness?
By this I mean, the X- & Spider-sequels all have a followup mentality, picking up more or less where the last one left off, whereas a movie like "Batman Returns" is more of a "Down the road" kind of sequel.

I like both.

I like the James Bond approach, and I like the Star Wars approach. The latter gets you more excited about the next movie, though.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Sometimes. But it doesn't have to be an obvious "To Be Continued" to generate excitement. I must admit, seeing Batman turn over the card Gordon gave him got my blood pumping. But when Blade told Karen, "I have a job to do", the entire audience went nuts.