Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Darrell" data-source="post: 3240114" data-attributes="member: 680">Actually, I consider The Lord of the Rings to be only one (bloody long) movie, as it was created from one already collective literary work, and all three flicks were filmed at the same time; unlike Star Wars, which (despite Lucas' often contradictory claims) would never have been a 'continued' work if the first one hadn't done well.  Now, if they ever get around to actually making a film of The Hobbit, I would judge it on its own merits, without comparison to LotR.  If you want to judge them as three distinct movies, however, then, yes, TT would be a weak movie, because it's too heavily tied to FotR and RotK, and lacks a distinct beginning and ending. Actually, there are a good many sequels that don't require you to have seen the original.  A recent example would be Superman Returns, which I was somewhat surprised to have actually enjoyed (especially considering how much I hate the four Chris Reeve movies, and how much the producers/directors fawned over those flicks...or, rather, the first two of them...in the time preceding the SR release).  The origin of Superman, who he was, and the fact that he had 'left' was covered in a simple explanation paragraph before the opening credits.  It wasn't necessary to see any other film in order to understand or enjoy it.  In a similar vein, Silence of the Lambs was a sequel to Manhunter, and it was entirely unnecessary to have seen Manhunter to enjoy SotL, as the only character they really had in common was Lecter (well, and a few side characters), and they quite easily let the viewer know who he was.Considering how much I disliked Eragon, I'm not likely to see any sequel...at least not for a long time.  I'll make a value judgment on it at that time.Regards,Darrell King</blockquote>

Verification