Comments on: Two Transformers Sequels Already Given The Go Ahead

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 31 May 2007 00:54:12 +0000

Edward Norton’s doing the new Hulk, so I think it’s been “re-tooled.”

By: Henrik

Henrik — Wed, 30 May 2007 23:08:41 +0000

Oh yeah, Lost in Space was canned as well.

And Hulk too.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 30 May 2007 22:21:58 +0000

@ Rian

I read that the Serenity actors all signed on for three movies. Serenity bombed in theaters and as far as I know they scrapped the other two.

By: Henrik

Henrik — Wed, 30 May 2007 21:16:15 +0000

That’s a good point. I think that’s definitely the consensus with The Matrix and to a lesser degree lord of the rings.

I think the double-sequel thing is just to cash in the most money possible though. It’s cheaper to shoot it, and especially when they’re released months apart like The Matrix, you get the most bang for your advertising bucks.

By: Sean

Sean — Wed, 30 May 2007 20:56:58 +0000

I think three movies is just how long it takes before the general public starts to realize they’ve been swindled. Well, more specifically, two sequels. People will go see two crappy sequels because hey, the first sequel might have been an accident. But after two bad movies in a row, most people are ready to throw in the towel.

By: Rian

Rian — Wed, 30 May 2007 20:47:14 +0000

I for one don’t understand the draw behind the trilogy. Why is three the magic number? I completely agree that if a movie does well, a sequel should be planned which, if it performs well also, should then warrant a second sequel. The Lord Of The Rings series made total sense because of the fact that there were three books, but what reason have any of the other trilogies out there had to announce two additional sequels at once? My real question, though, is has there ever been a movie or movies announced as a trilogy that performed so badly that the sequels were canned? I can’t think of an instance, but it seems like it should have happened by now with some of the garbage that ends up in theaters at the behest of the “trilogy rule”.

By: Henrik

Henrik — Wed, 30 May 2007 16:15:07 +0000

The worst thing about it is that it makes the series feel terribly unbalanced. It really started with the original Star Wars trilogy though.

All these 3-movies series where the first one has beginning, middle and end, but then the 2 sequels are interconnected like a soap opera, usually with a radically different storyline and with tons of pathetic leaps of faith to connect it with the original (Darth Vader reappears, Agent Smith survives, Barbossa reappears etc. and that’s just the obvious ones).