Sucky sequel disease...

Posted by ROB T. from 162.10.138.28 on May 25, 1999 at 22:45:58:

I've only been on this site for about two weeks so I need to preface this post by saying that I'm really into "Raiders" and not so much into "Temple of Doom" or "Last Crusade." For example I saw all three movies on their opening weekends but I've seen "Raiders" more than the other two combined. I've seen "Raiders" on the big screen at least 20 times plus reading the novel 10 times and seeing the video probably ten times. In comparison, I've seen "Temple of Doom" only once (opening day) and "Last Crusade" seven or eight times (and that only because I was working at the theatre when it was out)
I think of "Raiders" as a masterpiece and the other two as just a "shadowy reflection" of the first.
My question is twofold. First, I know from reading this forum that a lot of you disagree that "Raiders" is the best of the three but I'd be interested in hearing why you like the others better.
Second, since Spielberg directed all three as well as "Lost World" which is a subpar sequel to "Jurassic Park" and Lucas directed "Phantom Menace" (another substandard sequel IMHO) and many other directors have dropped the ball when directing sequels to their earlier works, why is this the case? When a movie gets a sequel they usually throw more money at it and if they get the same director shouldn't the sequel be better than the original?
Do they just use up all their talents with the first one and have nothing left for the second?

Just asking...

ROB T.

Follow Ups:

Re: Sucky sequel disease... Mack 12:29:32 5/26/99 (2)
- Agreed! Brett (Yasim) Lambert 14:29:02 5/26/99 (1)
  - Re: Agreed! Agreed! sajnu 19:10:41 5/26/99 (0)
Re: Sucky sequel disease... Hans Christian van Nijkerk 09:35:38 5/26/99 (3)
- Agreed on LC. Aragorn 12:37:24 5/26/99 (2)
  - Suckquels? Abner 13:19:26 5/26/99 (0)
  - Re: Agreed on LC. sajnu 13:10:01 5/26/99 (0)
Re: Sucky sequel disease... sajnu 00:26:52 5/26/99 (1)
- Re: Temple of Doom ROB T. 01:59:45 5/26/99 (0)

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: I've only been on this site for about two weeks so I need to preface this post by saying that I'm really into "Raiders" and not so much into "Temple of Doom" or "Last Crusade." For example I saw all three movies on their opening weekends but I've seen "Raiders" more than the other two combined. I've seen "Raiders" on the big screen at least 20 times plus reading the novel 10 times and seeing the video probably ten times. In comparison, I've seen "Temple of Doom" only once (opening day) and "Last Crusade" seven or eight times (and that only because I was working at the theatre when it was out)
: I think of "Raiders" as a masterpiece and the other two as just a "shadowy reflection" of the first.
: My question is twofold. First, I know from reading this forum that a lot of you disagree that "Raiders" is the best of the three but I'd be interested in hearing why you like the others better.
: Second, since Spielberg directed all three as well as "Lost World" which is a subpar sequel to "Jurassic Park" and Lucas directed "Phantom Menace" (another substandard sequel IMHO) and many other directors have dropped the ball when directing sequels to their earlier works, why is this the case? When a movie gets a sequel they usually throw more money at it and if they get the same director shouldn't the sequel be better than the original?
: Do they just use up all their talents with the first one and have nothing left for the second?

: Just asking...

: ROB T.

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]