Comment on Hollywood’s still relying on sequels at the box office

• tiramichu@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  The implication is whether it’s a standalone story or not.

  As example, Alien 3 is certainly a sequel to Aliens, because at the end of Aliens the story wraps up nicely and is “finished” - we don’t need more.

  Dune 2 is more of a continuation of Dune, however because it’s the next part of the same unfinished story.

  The important part from the planning and development perspectives is that Avengers, Dune, and Lord of the Rings etc were always written to be several parts from the beginning.

  Its the difference between “That movie made loads of money, let’s make another one” and “This story is really long, we need to do it in three parts”

  source

  • pyre@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    let’s not act like they’re always mutually exclusive. the hobbit didn’t need to be more than a single movie.

    source

    • tiramichu@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Oh yeah, for sure.

      It’s undeniable that sometimes producers will intentionally choose to “spread out” an idea into multiple movies when it could be one, specifically because they know it’s a lucrative IP and they figure they can make more money that way.

      I didn’t touch on that because my comment was getting long enough already, but personally I’d consider those as something of a ‘middle ground’ between an unplanned and financially motivated sequel, and a truly planned and needed continuation.

      source
  • ExhaleSmile@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Explained that a hell of a lot better than I could have, thank you.

    source