Reaper
|
2008 FilmsApparently the release schedule for this year has a distinct lack of sequels onboard, in fact the lowest average since 2003. This isn't much of a surprise as most of the sequels possible were released last year but there are still a few out there, well 16 to be exact at this time.
The Weinsteins have commented on trying to release films this year with less blood in them as they believe that, that has negatively impacted their film takings.
So do you think there are too many sequels?
Is there too much blood in films these days?
|
CyNic
|
Re: 2008 Films | Reaper wrote: |
So do you think there are too many sequels? |
I have to say, sequels don't generally bother me all that much. If I liked part one and thought that the story logically supported a sequel, then I probably won't complain if they put one out. That said, throwing out a sequel when it doesn't flow naturally from the previous film, or jamming an artificially open ending onto a film in hopes of a sequel - that's not cricket, in my opinion.
| Reaper wrote: |
Is there too much blood in films these days? |
Nope. Eight pints per victim seems about right. 
|
Web of Fear
|
Re: 2008 Films | Reaper wrote: | So do you think there are too many sequels?
Is there too much blood in films these days? |
Sequels don't bother me as long as they're well done, Spidey 2 good; Spidey 3 bad.
As for blood, I'll get back to you after I've seen Sweeney Todd. 
|
waffle
|
Seeing it on Friday - pretty psyched about it cos there's a press conference with the whole cast afterwards.
|
CatFang
|
Personally I would pay more to see more blood, but then I was weaned on bootleg horror videos 
|
|
|
