thealiasman2000 said:
I think the problem with movie series nowadays is that too people are like Kroc1138.
Ok lets hear what you have to say. Even though you wrongly assume that I'm some whiny little fanboy.
Six or seven movies!? That's in sane. Who the hell would have the patience to stand SEVEN movies about the damn X-Men?
It takes one simple thing. Good, consistent writing. Look at the Harry Potter movies. So far they are all going strong and it's up to four movies. Fans are eagerly awaiting the fifth one. I can list many movies that have Lots of movies that the fans love.
Star Trek For example has 10 films.
James Bond (enough said) Has another film coming after 40+ years.
Granted some of the films the either series vary in quality they are still hugely popular and fan still eagerly await whats coming next. Star Trek main problem was not that it had 10 films, it was the fact that the Producers at the time (esp of the TNG films) had a vision that differed from what the fans wanted and diverged from the vision of Star Trek. Second, it became a One Dimension Shadow of it's former self. The TNG era Films fizzled after four films with Nemesis ending the series with a wimper and not with a bang. Whereas, under different producers, the TOS era film were of better quality (they also vary) but whern you look at Star Trek 6 you see a satisfying conclusion to a series that had it's ups and downs. (To me that is the best of the series)
The notion that people will get tired of a film series is only correct when you look at it from a deeper perpective. Mainly, is the integrity of the series staying strong or is it being compromised. Otherwise, you poorly explained your point.
All good series end with a fourth movie. After that, it's just overkill.
Not really. For starters your whole premise is off. Generally, sequels are both something fans look forward to and dread at the same time. They are loved because the fans like to see their favorite characters grow and develop plus see the story continue. The main reason people dread them is the execution of the sequel. Whether or not they will be
consistent with the preceding movie in all aspects. (especially in character development)
Change of Directors, writers and producers is also another sign of a possible bad sequel.
Ultimately, what kills big movie series is partially how many movies b/c it is a BIG commitment. But if you actors/writers/directors/producers are committed to making sure that the movie series stays strong the it is not a problem. Fan don't get bored by a movie series of 6-7 films, they get angry that the movies they loved went in the wrong direction or they became One dimensional, or even worse it started to parody itself with campy, cynical jokes. All these are symptoms of a change in creative control, which goes to the changing of Directors/writers/Producers.
And I don't care if the comics spanned five decades, that doesn't mean that the movie series should be endless.
Who the Hell is asking for an endless series?? I just wanted a satisfying series with a satisfying conclusion. What I got was an anticlimactic conclusion and pointless movie. There is more stories that could have been told since there are numerous Xmen Characters. That doesn't mean that every story should be told just that if you are to plan an X-Men series, you have to look at it Like this: (and ask these questions)
-What are the Comic Storylines (sagas) that we can adapt?
-How can we develop each character equally? Can we even develop all the characters?
Which would lead to:
-How many movies should be in the series?
-How Many character should be in the main cast?
-How characters (heroes/villains) can we intro throughout the series.
-How should the series end.
If you adapt a book saga with 40 books in it to the big screen, you make 40 movies? That's just stupid.
I think you are forgetting another option. Don't do it at all. But then who's to say that making 40 movies isn't the best thing to do. Sometimes you need to take big risks in filmaking. Look at LOTR, Filming Three movies at the same time is a HUGE risk that paid off in spades. Bigger and bolder risks are always occuring. The next one could be what you suggested.
I don't care how bad "The Last Stand" was, it's best to quit while they are ahead.
Thus Disappointing fans and nonfans alike. (at least those with good taste in movies)
And how the hell can you cram Apocalypse and the Shi'ar into the convoluted plot of "The Last Stand"?
You don't throw them into one movie!!! Are you that stupid?!? That's why I suggesting a longer series with longer movies.
For that matter, how the hell do you have the budget to portray them?
That is the only Small problem. Money. It can be pulled off depending on the vision of the Director and whether or not the Producers trust that vision. It's a gamble, that's what making movies are.
