It's the first thing out of your mouth when you walk out of the movie theater. "Well it just wasn't as good as the first one."
If this is the typical result from watching a movie sequel, why do people still go to see them? And better yet why do producers continue to make them if their audiences aren't that pleased with them?
One reason why is because we want to see what happens next. This is especially true for the superhero movies because the common formula that has been used as of late.
The first movie is the origin story, the sequel is where the character has some form of internal conflict and then the third is the hero triumphantly mastering the balance between civilian life and being a vigilante.
An example of a superhero trilogy that made an excellent sequel is "The Dark Knight," but this is the exception.
The "Iron Man" movies are an example of a lackluster sequel. The first movie shows Tony Stark building and developing his suit and fans anticipate the sequel to show off his suit in full form, but they are quickly disappointed.
While the third movie revives this trilogy, the second one is so forgettable a person is better off watching "The Avengers" in its place because "Iron Man 3" references "The Avengers" more than it mentions "Iron Man 2."
Producers continue to make sequels because they want more money. It is simple as that. They have established a fan base that is fond of the characters from the first movie and capitalize on our hopes that they will make a good sequel even though survey says they will not.
Filmmakers have recently taken to breaking longer books into two or three separate movies, claiming there is too much content to cover in one film, but even when they do create part one and two movies plenty of things are still left out.
This raises the question of were the movie makers actually trying to cover more of the story in these book-to-movie adaptions or were they just out to rack up some more cash?
It is a vicious cycle because we will never stop seeing sequels, because they are a continuation of the stories we love, and producers will never stop making sequels because it is guaranteed money for them, at least for the first weekend and then word gets around of how awful the second movie is)
Below is a video of me talking about most of the same thing about movie sequels, just citing more examples. Warning the quality is very low so please bear with me.
Click here to watch the video of me talking about movie sequels
Showing posts with label The Avengers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Avengers. Show all posts
Monday, November 4, 2013
Monday, October 14, 2013
Two types of actors: diverse and stock character
There are many actors and actresses out there, but a simple dichotomy that I like to use is the diverse or stock character actors.
To define a "diverse" actor, it is someone who can play just about any part and do a fantastic job in any role they assume. The key is whether or not they are actually good at it because there are plenty of actors out there who try to partake in roles that aren't suited for them and the film suffers in result.
This leads to the other side of the coin, the "stock character" actors. These are the actors who are really good at playing a certain character type and always perform in that one niche. When they do try to depart from what they are naturally good at, it can sometimes seem awkward or forced.
Types of stock characters vary from the goofy sidekick, the bad guy you love to hate, the charming hero, the beautiful babe, and so on. There are many different categories that can be further broken down, but just think of the typical microcosm that you find in a movie (hero, bad guy, damsel, comic relief, etc) and draw from that.
Sometimes new actors or actresses who are trying to find their stock character role will try his or her hand at a variety of different parts to see which suits them best. For those who tend to be successful in each of their positions will typically continue on to remain a diverse actor or actress and never settle for one particular kind of character.
An example of an actor who is diverse is Johnny Depp. Depp has been a pirate, a gangster, a mad hatter, a greaser, a barber, a tourist, a chocolate maker, and lately the Native American, Tonto in "The Lone Ranger." These are only a few of the many roles he has immersed himself in, but every single part Depp is able to fully become that character and his versatility shows.
An actress who could be just trying to find her niche, but is doing a great job so far at being varied in the roles she chooses is Anne Hathaway. Starting out as a sweet and innocent nice girl in "The Princess Diaries," Hathaway has moved on to playing a personal assistant in "The Devil Wears Prada," a spy, a competing bride, the White Queen, Catwoman, and most recently Fantine from "Les Miserables." It is obvious that Hathaway is trying to prove a point that she can play gritter parts than just the pretty girl-next-door type.
Christoph Waltz, though only starting his fame in 2009, is a stock character actor. It was his part in "Inglorious Bastards" as the dreaded Jew Hunter that caused him to become well-known and be a perfect bad guy for several other movies. Waltz is able to repulse the audience when in character in such a way they will always despise him. He is the antagonist in several films such as "Water For Elephants," "The Green Hornet," and "The Three Musketeers."
Scarlett Johansson's stock character is the beautiful girl. She always plays an attractive woman who uses her looks for various reasons. In "Iron Man 2" and "The Avengers" Johansson is the seductive spy, Black Widow, who uses her looks to get her in the right places to snoop. In "The Prestige" she is the magician's assistant and helps double cross one for the other with her looks again. The point is that most characters that Johansson plays focus on their looks and that is what she is able to bring to the table.
Now keep in mind there is nothing wrong with either one of the types of actors. This is simply a way that I categorize them in my mind for simplicity's sake.
To define a "diverse" actor, it is someone who can play just about any part and do a fantastic job in any role they assume. The key is whether or not they are actually good at it because there are plenty of actors out there who try to partake in roles that aren't suited for them and the film suffers in result.
This leads to the other side of the coin, the "stock character" actors. These are the actors who are really good at playing a certain character type and always perform in that one niche. When they do try to depart from what they are naturally good at, it can sometimes seem awkward or forced.
Types of stock characters vary from the goofy sidekick, the bad guy you love to hate, the charming hero, the beautiful babe, and so on. There are many different categories that can be further broken down, but just think of the typical microcosm that you find in a movie (hero, bad guy, damsel, comic relief, etc) and draw from that.
Sometimes new actors or actresses who are trying to find their stock character role will try his or her hand at a variety of different parts to see which suits them best. For those who tend to be successful in each of their positions will typically continue on to remain a diverse actor or actress and never settle for one particular kind of character.
An example of an actor who is diverse is Johnny Depp. Depp has been a pirate, a gangster, a mad hatter, a greaser, a barber, a tourist, a chocolate maker, and lately the Native American, Tonto in "The Lone Ranger." These are only a few of the many roles he has immersed himself in, but every single part Depp is able to fully become that character and his versatility shows.
 |
| A few of the many faces of Johnny Depp |
An actress who could be just trying to find her niche, but is doing a great job so far at being varied in the roles she chooses is Anne Hathaway. Starting out as a sweet and innocent nice girl in "The Princess Diaries," Hathaway has moved on to playing a personal assistant in "The Devil Wears Prada," a spy, a competing bride, the White Queen, Catwoman, and most recently Fantine from "Les Miserables." It is obvious that Hathaway is trying to prove a point that she can play gritter parts than just the pretty girl-next-door type.
Christoph Waltz, though only starting his fame in 2009, is a stock character actor. It was his part in "Inglorious Bastards" as the dreaded Jew Hunter that caused him to become well-known and be a perfect bad guy for several other movies. Waltz is able to repulse the audience when in character in such a way they will always despise him. He is the antagonist in several films such as "Water For Elephants," "The Green Hornet," and "The Three Musketeers."
Scarlett Johansson's stock character is the beautiful girl. She always plays an attractive woman who uses her looks for various reasons. In "Iron Man 2" and "The Avengers" Johansson is the seductive spy, Black Widow, who uses her looks to get her in the right places to snoop. In "The Prestige" she is the magician's assistant and helps double cross one for the other with her looks again. The point is that most characters that Johansson plays focus on their looks and that is what she is able to bring to the table.
Now keep in mind there is nothing wrong with either one of the types of actors. This is simply a way that I categorize them in my mind for simplicity's sake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)