Insanely Awe-dical

Apparently I relish dissecting movie sequels - with the summer of three-quels here (along with the summer of the invention of the word three-quel), Romes and I naturally began a discussion about how some series retain charm and life to some extent (how many superman or batman movies have their been?) and others seem to wane (matrix, pirates). Kate even told me that she only likes the first Pirates now. I felt that serial movie sequels only seem to do well when they are all made knowing the other episodes exist (LOTR, Star Wars). Supposedly Pirates and Matrix were "originally designed" to be three parts - if so why did you make the first parts way more awesome than the other two?

I felt that comic adaptations did fairly well as series because a hero will have more and more adventures, while the hero doesn't have to necessarily change. Peter Parker's troubles in Spider-man 1 and 2 do add character and flavor to the movie; but it wouldn't be necessary information when you watch Spider-man 3.

In our conversation, Romes does believe that as the series goes on, there are some continuity - of course, I ask him for evidence to support his claim and here's what happened:

Romes: like things that have happened to the hero/main char are more pertinent in the sequels
Me: example
Romes: you know what i lost all examples as soon as i typed out that sentence
Romes: and the rest of that train of thought just derailed
Me: haha
Me: DERAILED
Me: sorry
Romes: so my argument is null and void
Romes: haha
Me: the romes express has been derailed
Me: casualties: rome's argument
Me: we're saddened by the loss, only to realize brian remains awesome
Romes: {shakes head}

Labels: ims