Final Destination 4

[Skajo]

Extremely foolish to say that a film that is met with box office success is good. And no, as long as they can milk the cash cow, they will keep on making sequels. Ever heard of Saw? Hollywood horror is dead.

I do agree that the sequels never faced up to the original however, they made them and people kept seeing them and as long as they see a return and more on their money, the distributors/publishers will carry on funding sequels - if they make money, it's a success. They don't do it to provide the audience with the best experience - admittedly it helps but as long as their balance is in the black, they're not bothered. To me, a film that makes money is a success. No necessarily a great film, but a success.

[Misawa]

I do agree that the sequels never faced up to the original however, they made them and people kept seeing them and as long as they see a return and more on their money, the distributors/publishers will carry on funding sequels - if they make money, it's a success. They don't do it to provide the audience with the best experience - admittedly it helps but as long as their balance is in the black, they're not bothered. To me, a film that makes money is a success. No necessarily a great film, but a success.

Yes, films that make a lot of money are financial successes, but in most cases aren't artistic successes.

[Skajo]

Yes, films that make a lot of money are financial successes, but in most cases aren't artistic successes.

Correct, however just because you admire the artistic side to films' narrative etc doesn't mean that it doesn't appeal to anyone. The films have been success and that is why sequels are made. There's a minority that care about artistic success, yourself included, however that's how it will always stay - a minority, unless Hollywood gets disbanded - no chance of such.

[Misawa]

I must disagree. Everyone when they see a film wants to be told a good story. That's almost like saying if they branded a film "The Dark Knight Returns" or whatever, and filled two hours with a black screen, that the audience would go home happy. Storytelling is within the art of film-making. People will see a film because of how it's doing in the box office, but the money it makes has no impact on anyone's opinion. Everybody cares about the quality of a film except for Hollywood execs.

[Skajo]

So if you're saying that Final Destination's narratives and the films as a whole were terrible, how come the audience kept coming, paying for and viewing the sequels? In my view, that indicates that the prequels to said films were obviously good enough in all ways (inc. narrative) to bring the audience back - which is what's going to happen with FD4 as once again it will be a box office smash, I can guarantee you that. It's obviously doing something correct.

Transformers 2 was piss poor and yet was a box office smash - the narrative in that was virtually non-existant however it will manage to get into the green because of the Hollywood-effect of bang bang bang smash bash kill kill. Majority's like that. Minority's don't. It's a fact, unfortunately. I, like you, would prefer to see more films concentrate on the narrative and cater for the minority audience as this, given the publicity it needs, could encourage the oppositional audience to appreciate a minority's representation of a 'good film'.

[Misawa]

So if you're saying that Final Destination's narratives and the films as a whole were terrible, how come the audience kept coming, paying for and viewing the sequels? In my view, that indicates that the prequels to said films were obviously good enough in all ways (inc. narrative) to bring the audience back - which is what's going to happen with FD4 as once again it will be a box office smash, I can guarantee you that. It's obviously doing something correct.

Transformers 2 was piss poor and yet was a box office smash - the narrative in that was virtually non-existant however it will manage to get into the green because of the Hollywood-effect of bang bang bang smash bash kill kill. Majority's like that. Minority's don't. It's a fact, unfortunately. I, like you, would prefer to see more films concentrate on the narrative and cater for the minority audience as this, given the publicity it needs, could encourage the oppositional audience to appreciate a minority's representation of a 'good film'.

You like the word "narrative".

I didn't say that I think the Final Destination films are terrible, I said they have problems. The first has a strong, original story, I just didn't like various elements such as the casting. I haven't seen it in a long time, maybe I'll prefer it the next time I watch it, I have the trilogy on DVD. I like 2, and 3 was just okay, so naturally I do not have high hopes for The Final Destination, but I'm willing to give it a chance as always. As I said, the main problem with the sequels is that they have no story - there's no story to be told - there was in the original, but now it's just a situation that's been replicated in both sequels with different characters, deaths and locations. Sure, the deaths are entertaining - and that's exactly why the series is a draw at the box office, because the gimmick of the films is the death scenes, people go because they want to see people die on-screen.

I have no doubt that The Final Destination will be a monetary success, but a box office smash? I can tell you it's certainly not going to break any records, else it'll be a cold day in Hell. The fanbase isn't that strong.

[Art]

Transformers 2 was piss poor and yet was a box office smash - the narrative in that was virtually non-existant however it will manage to get into the green because of the Hollywood-effect of bang bang bang smash bash kill kill.

Id say T2's success was more due to the fact that the first film had so many fans...

[Misawa]

And was already an exiting franchise.

[Skajo]

Id say T2's success was more due to the fact that the first film had so many fans...

And was already an exiting franchise.

Of course, both major contributors.

We'll see. I class #1 at the box office as a box office smash if that makes it any clearer to you. I didn't mean record breaking because I don't expect it to get anywhere close.

However, the same thing happens in sequels. It's a sequel. Jurrassic Park (excuse the Lost World because that was God awful) but both went to an island, dinosaurs chase and kill, they escape, some people die. Harry Potter - one of the main characters wants to be a rebel, Harry uses his magic on the opposition, he wins opposition. There's only so far you can go with NARRATIVES and what's not broken, don't fix (is the idea of the producers/distributors for major companies). Layer Cake wasn't as big as it could've been because of this - it broke the usual NARRATIVE and people didn't like it (because they couldn't understand it - morons). Same as Brick (although other contributions made it unsuccessful ) but it was a good film with a complex NARRATIVE and people didn't like it.

[Misawa]

Yes, those sequels are limited in their use of expansion, but not totally constricted. They are at least able to expand moreso than the Final Destination sequels. I haven't seen Layer Cake so can't offer an opinion. And yes, a lot of sequels do mimic the situation of the original rather than further develop the story.