Do people prefer new ideas, or is the anticipation built up by films in a trilogy (or more) more than enough for subsequent offerings to bedazzle you?
There also appears to be more to come in some of these franchises, with: Shrek , Sin City and Spiderman looking like eeking out every last penny of their potential.
Add to those the ever returners, like Bond, Harry Potter (for 2 more at least) and Superman, as well no doubt, as lists of stuff from recent hits, and there’s not a lot of different stuff to look forward to.
For those thinking that this doesn’t seem all that bad, there’s also Terminator 4 , Harold and Kumar 2 , The Ring 3 , Scary Movie 5 and the imaginatively named: The Brazilian Job to fill our screen with… oh dear
Hmmm, the trilogies/sequel thing tends to draw people in, although the recurring theme seems to be that they get worse (possibly with the exception of Harry Potter; which seems to be getting better)
I enjoy the original films more, and theres something a bit depressing about there not being anything new to watch. Its also pretty lazy on the part of the film makers … I think we’re in an interesting position tho, in that we’re slightly less dependant on having really good big blockbusters - they help, but we also make more on the smaller films than other commercial cinemas, so even when they can’t be bothered to make new blockbusters, we have a wider range to choose from.
Wow, that was rambling!
[quote=“Beautiful_Creep”]Hmmm, the trilogies/sequel thing tends to draw people in, although the recurring theme seems to be that they get worse (possibly with the exception of Harry Potter; which seems to be getting better)
Is that actually better, or more because Daniel Radcliffe is now cute (and legal!)
[You would not [b]believe how tongue-in-cheek this posting is!]
I actually meant better - the later books are more grown up, and though JK Rowling writes in a way which can appeal to grown ups in the early books, that quality didn’t translate to the screen so well; whereas the later, darker ones seem better.
And although Daniel Radcliff is quite hot, i’m afraid my heart belongs to Ron … always and forever sighs
I think Harry Potter will do the best, is there a Warwick Student who hasn’t read Harry Potter? (apart from me)
raises hand Right here. I’ve tried several times, thought they were bollocks. His Dark Meterials trilogy ftw
I had to read The Prisoner of Azkaban for a book award, but I’ve never finished any of the others.
Just out of interest, do you non HP reading types read anything else ? …
Tom Clancy and Dan Brown…only the very best trash. I’ve also read Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Ooo, and I’ve listened to Dune on audio book, much more efficient than reading it.
When I started my history degree I kinda had to give up reading-for-fun and instead concentrate on reading-for-work.
Red Dwarf, Hitchhiker’s Guide…, some of the Discworld novels, …Cuckoo’s Nest and 1984 are some of the things I remember enjoying reading back in the day. Hopefully I’ll be able to start reading-for-fun again from this summer.
I also thought that, whilst a fun story, The Da Vinci Code was horrifically written. Like JK Rowling, Dan Brown managed to pique everyone’s curiosity and so fair play to them both. However, in my opinion, that does not make them good writers, or their work particularly good books.
ok, this is a turn-up for the books… i mean, i don’t want to offend, but seriously, the people who think die hard will do better than spiderman? and shrek? and cin city? hmm… how many accounts does george have :?: :!:
Only one. Honest. Evidently there are many more Die Hard fanatics out there… well 3 others at least.
Die hard is a classic … and by the time we get to show it, everyone will have heard how terrible spidey is!
Shrek should be awesome tho … not sure about sin city :S
Die Hard is great. All hail Die Hard.