MAMEWorld Forums - The Loony Bin - Re: The middle of the trilogies

> I think there's a good reason for that in a lot of cases. The second movie of a trilogy doesn't have any of the constraints of the first and third. The first is saddled with backstory. You have to explain the world, the hero, the villain, and everything else. The third is saddled with wrapping everything up, which in most cases means building to the mega-happy ending. Second movies have none of that. The audience is already familiar with the bulk of the characters and setting, so you don't need more than a brief recap, if anything. And you have the entire third movie to resolve any tension, so there are no preset requirements for the story to get to a particular place. As a result, second movies are free to focus on pure storytelling, and tend to be better overall as a result.

Um, no, that argues that they're not as good. And, like Pi was saying, they typically aren't - unless they're that different that the first one almost didn't need to exist.

But, the problem really comes down to story-telling. And if there are actual successions, then they need to be written as one story in however many parts. Volumes.

Back to the Future II actually wasn't a bad movie. It just was so outlandish, the humour a little forced at times, and the near-end so dark that it almost jumped the shark. Audiences didn't quite buy it. They lauged at it more than with it as I recall.

Also, the cliff hanger wasn't the same, and in fact there was no real love story. They re-introduced that in the third. I remember, when one came out, that there were four planned. I have to re-read Wiki on this, but given everything I'd bet the successor stories weren't really fleshed out (and we know how how much shit can change, right on the set, with scripts), so their relation was tenuous.

Scifi frauds. SF illuminates.
_________________

Culture General Contact Unit (Eccentric)