Should Back to the Future Sequels be Done Back to Back?
if there is to be any more sequels i think part 4 should be back to back with part 5 just like they did with parts 2 and 3 , it can be done and should be done !
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
I really don't think shooting sequels back to back effects the quality of the films at all. Some are good (BttF II and III, the Lord of the Rings films), some are bad (the Matrix sequels) but that's all because of the quality of the stories they are telling, not because of the method in which they were filmed.
Curse of the Black Pearl - 2003 (not bad but could have been much better)
Dead Man's Chest - 2006
At World's End - 2007
Back to the Future - 1985(admittedly the only perfect one to do it back to back)
Part II - 1989
Part III - 1990
Raiders of the Lost Ark - 1981
Temple of Doom - 1984
The Last Crusade - 1989
Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - 2008
Batman Begins - 2005
The Dark Knight - 2008
Batman 3 - 2012
Do you have a source for these speculations? I personally cant imagine them making a 4th and 5th chapter since iirc the story wrapped up nicely at the end and also it's been over TWENTY YEARS since PIII...
Concerning back-to-back filming of a triology: Let's not forget "The Lord of the Rings" - probably one of the most extreme example of this. In 2000, Bob Gale was even asked in an interview if he has any tips for Peter Jackson (IIRC - it's been some time
The Matrix - 1999
The Matrix Reloaded - 2003
The Matrix Revolutions - 2003
It usually just depends on the type of movie. The Nolan Batman flicks aren't the greatest example because Nolan always does a film in between the Batman movies to not get burnt out on the characters..... Something Sam Raimi should have done when he was doing Spiderman.
At this point, TTG's BttF Game is the closest we'll ever see to a BttF 4 or 5. There's probably a better chance of BttF getting rebooted/remade by Universal.
A modern reboot would be amusing... I can just see the "Doc's intro" scene where he's controlling the new delorean using his iPhone!
That gives me an interesting idea for a thread....
Is this supposed to prove that filming movies with a long gap between them is equally detrimental to the film's quality?
I agree, I wouldn't want them to pull an "Episode One" screw up like Lucas did with Star Wars and that annoying Jar Jar Binks... I quite like my perfect trilogy the way it is.
No comment.
Nah:
Lethal Weapon (1987)
Lethal Weapon 2 (1989)
Lethal Weapon 3 (1992)
Lethal Weapon 4 (1998)
And even the 4th one is good. But, we'll see if this goes for a possible 5th one as well (if it happens... now that Gibson basically has to do it to save his career)
I found myself out of nowhere wondering if this may ever happen yesterday, probably because there's gonna be a Beverly Hills Cop IV.
You can argue that, just like the book is one big novel which was divided into three parts, so is the movie - one big movie divided into three parts and not really a trilogy
New Moon (2009)
Eclipse (2010)
Breaking Dawn pt 1 (2011)
Breaking Dawn pt 2 (2012)
Those movies are easy as hell to shoot though. The script is basically already written for them save for a few edits to make them work as a movie, so there's absolutely no idea creating. It's mostly all dialog and what little CG they have is TV-Grade at best. So it's pretty easy for them to pump that garbage out like water.
No offense, but do you have an how hard it is to transform a work from one artistic medium to another and how everything works? To put it simply: IT'S HARD. And it's very easy to mess everything up. Books, movies, video games, they're very different mediums, and let's not forget about the paradox that, sometimes, to keep things closer to the source, you have to deviate from it.
What you've said it's like saying that to make a good video game out of a movie, let's say, it's enough to just take every scene from the movie and make it interactive. A very easy, winning formula, right? (considering that games tend to be action-packed, and most movies the games are based on are, well, action-packed; like a book being basically a script, right?) Yet lots of movie-games (which kind of tend to follow this pattern) are crap. Wonder why? Because it's not a winning formula, - it's not nearly enough to make a good transformation.
What I'm trying to say, is that it's hard to make a good book out of a movie/game, it's hard to make a good movie out of a book/game, it's hard to make a good game out of a movie/book, not to mention all other artistic mediums I have left out of this post, like theatrical plays, musicals, comics (graphic novels, if someone insists) and other stuff. If you, by chance, will strongly disagree and, let's say, insist to get deeper into this (very interesting, by the way) subject - I suggest either PM'ing or creating another thread, since this would be a bit off-topic, I think.
PS. I'm not defending neither Twilight movie or book, by the way (I dare not to read or watch them, so obviously I have no opinion of them).
I wasn't generalizing every book to movie adaptation, I was talking specifically about the Twilight movies. Those books have amateurish writing, little to no action scenes and very heavy in dialog. Hence, they aren't THAT hard to push out in a years time. That's a simple fact that can be deduced by just looking at how quick of a turnaround there is for the Twilight Saga films.
Now obviously ALL movie projects are difficult to complete. It's silly to suggest that that's what I was trying to say. However, in the world of movie making, movies like Twilight are on the very easy end of the spectrum.
I admit that I misunderstood the generalization aspect of your post, but you have misunderstood mine, so we're even in this matter.
Anyway. Heavy on dialogue + little action does not equal easy transferring stage (and I'm not talking about the whole project, I'm talking about the transformation from one medium to another, which is a part of pre-production). In some aspects it's even harder. Alright, I may go into the generalization aspect again. But, you did say "The script is basically already written for them save for a few edits to make them work as a movie, so there's absolutely no idea creating." which is wrong regardless on how much dialogue or what kind of writing there is in the book. Because, as I said, to make it work in another medium is a very difficult artistic challenge, which, as I said in this post, relies mostly on planning everything out (more than that, thinking that a book, especially if there's many dialogue, is as good as an unedited script - that would be the biggest mistake one would make in the transformation stage I've mentioned). I never said a thing about shooting the movie itself, or making the props, or, basically, the production itself. They're quite essential (since every work is a combination of things and it IS silly to make importance only out of one aspect) but it wasn't what I was talking about.
Anyway, the Twilight thing may be crappy books and movies. But you CAN pump good stuff every year, you just have to know what you're doing. You can even pump some good stuff based on bad stuff - same thing. The reason the Twilight movies suck is because... well, they do. I don't know, I haven't watched them, but most people say that, so in this matter I go with the crowd. I don't always go with the crowd without seeing something myself, but I'm ready to in this case.
Well, I don't know if I've made my point clear. I'm pretty sick for the past four or five days, so it's a bit hard for me right now to clearly state my thoughts even if I'm sure in my mind what thoughts they are. But, I want to end my another very heavy post (most likely with lots of unnecessary words) with the fact that I've never meant any disrespect (if some of my sentence formulations may seem to cause one).
With any other adaptation I'd agree with you, but the Twilight producers put very little effort into the screenplays, because they know that it doesn't matter; the slavish fangirls will see the movie anyway. Adapting a Twilight book to screen IS pretty much just a matter of abridging, because in the case of this series, the studio doesn't care what works in different mediums so long as the middle school cheerleaders with the Team Edward/Jacob temporary tattoos hand over the box office dollars.
Now, the producer and director still have to plan out shots and make them work visually, but that's a different part of preproduction than the script writing, which is what we're talking about. And obviously there are screenwriters who work on the series, but I'd be very surprised if they spent more than a month per screenplay. Compared to other film adaptations, there's absolutely no idea creating on a script level.
(In the interest of full disclosure, I haven't actually read the books, but I've seen the first two movies with RiffTrax, and I'm going off of the claims of my friends who have read the books.)
And on topic...The BTTF trilogy is perfect as is, so I wouldn't want another movie to be made. But if it was, I'd see it anyway because I'm a slavish fanboy.