• Hello!

    Please be aware that our content warnings system has recently been updated! Please refer to this thread for more information, or if you're unsure, feel free to contact a Workshop staff member!

    Thank you all for helping us ensure our community is a safe and healthy one, and for your continued patronage in our Library and Workshop.
  • Forum Moderator applications are now open! If you're interested in joining an active team of moderators for one of the biggest Pokémon forums on the internet, click here for info.

DISCUSSION: Sequels and Prequels: Love'em or Lose'em?

Depends on why a sequel/prequel is being released, and the content, of course. It's usually pretty obvious when a movie shouldn't have had any more stories after it, such as the 'Marley and Me' movies. The original movie was fine, as it was based on the book. But then they had to go and make two movies about a small portion of their lives.

I never watched them because I could clearly tell they were made sheerly because the original was popular. I refuse to watch movies made exclusively for cashing on a popular name. Especially sequels or prequels.
 
When it comes to something like (non-adaptation) movies that are very much made with the original intent of only having that one movie, sequels usually range from "eh" to "what the actual hell is this". It's because the world, plot and characters were likely designed only with one story in mind, so adding to that will either have to change or add a lot (different setting, new characters, new mechanics), or require the original to have enough loose ends to go from. Otherwise it'll likely just feel tacked on or a cheaper, worse copy of the original. And if the writers do have ideas for sequels from the get-go, they can't count on them being made, as the first movie needs to be successful enough to get enough want for more - movies far more expensive to make than books, you know.

However, when it comes to stories, you can write as many sequels as you want and if they don't take off, really all you'll lose is time (which is money, sure, but you won't end up shoulders deep in debt for set pieces and actors and advertising and whatnot). Literature also tends to flesh out the characters and the world way more, as it's not bound to a 2-hour time frame or the limitations of only audio and video to tell your story. This makes them stand more on their own rather than in film, where they're more likely to lean on archetypes in order to establish the characters faster so that the plot can happen. When characters (or a setting, for that matter) are given more attention and more dimension, the audience will be willing to see them in more scenarios as they're curious how that'll play out, or they just want to see more of their fave.

On a more convenience-based note, sequels are good for the author as they don't have to come up with an entirely new cast and setting. As someone who has trouble coming up with stuff out of nothing but gets lots of ideas from speculation and extrapolation of existing stuff (started off from fanon and have been building on top of it and my older stories since), that's a lifesaver.
 
lucarioknight56 said:
Depends on why a sequel/prequel is being released, and the content, of course. It's usually pretty obvious when a movie shouldn't have had any more stories after it, such as the 'Marley and Me' movies. The original movie was fine, as it was based on the book. But then they had to go and make two movies about a small portion of their lives.
Click to expand...

Haven't seen them, but they might've done something small-esque like that because the audience seemed so receptive to the characters.

canisaries said:
However, when it comes to stories, you can write as many sequels as you want and if they don't take off, really all you'll lose is time (which is money, sure, but you won't end up shoulders deep in debt for set pieces and actors and advertising and whatnot). Literature also tends to flesh out the characters and the world way more, as it's not bound to a 2-hour time frame or the limitations of only audio and video to tell your story. This makes them stand more on their own rather than in film, where they're more likely to lean on archetypes in order to establish the characters faster so that the plot can happen. When characters (or a setting, for that matter) are given more attention and more dimension, the audience will be willing to see them in more scenarios as they're curious how that'll play out, or they just want to see more of their fave.
Click to expand...

Interesting... and just the very act of writing helps you improve, so! :P You're steps ahead for your next project if you drop one. I guess you can say the same with directors and actresses, etc, but people are more likely to focus on outside factors to blame for the failure rather than internal ones.

Phantom Project is a fic I'm writing and is the sequel to Survival Project... I can't say I ever had a sequel in mind until a year after I finished the original. All the plot ideas were sudden and hit like a truck, let me tell you. And I knew I had to write it because I love my characters so much and want to see them through everything that's gonna happen. And my writing style's changed so much as well as my writing process that I think I can make it 100x better than the original. Of course, I also started Survival Project when I was, oh, 14 years old or so... :P And I've gotten a lot more life under my belt since then.
 
I'd like to think I'd be able to write the sequel I have in mind for The Long Walk, but realistically I'm never going to get to it.

I think there's a reason why so many great films tend to have lukewarm sequels, and it's because they were always intended to be standalone stories. When a great story has a great ending it's hard to really turn it into a longer story. Hollywood being Hollywood, the draw of a successful name matters more than the artistic merit of reheating the original story
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom