At 02:15 AM 4/22/06 -0400, JR wrote:
>I didn't mean to say all the Star Trek movies were "crappy sequels". I
liked several of them, but like the recent Bond films, they have been
declining badly and NEMESIS was terrible. Same goes for MISSION IMPOSSIBLE
II. The first wasn't bad, but the second was atrocious, even if it made
tons of money, it was still crappy. And yet the studio seems to feel that
they can "regain their luster" by making more sequels to these specific
crappy sequels. How do I know the new attempts be crappy? I don't for sure,
but the law of averages, Hollywood tradition and their choice for the
director makes it a pretty good bet. Heck, even decent sequels aren't
really the way for a studio to regain their luster. Sequels are what you do
when you can't come up with anything else. It's a TV mentality at work.
>
Studios aren't interested in "their luster". Their interested
in their lucre. If a movie makes a lot of money, is "popular",
people tend to go back for a second helping. Occasionally
sequels make more money than the original. Usually they
make less. As long as they're profitable, studios will
continue making sequel after sequel to a given picture.
Each one tends to make less than the one before. But as
long as it's more than the picture costs...
Studios do have an interest in their luster. But for that they
make "prestige pictures". Films with more of an art house
feel. Brokeback Mountain, Walk The Line, etc. were for
that. Sequels have no relationship here.
Craig.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Craig Miller Wolfmill Entertainment [EMAIL PROTECTED]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
