Quote:
El_Phil said:
She is indeed easy on the eye, which is never a bad thing. 
Starhawk, me old matey, cynicism is good for the soul. It's also normally always right with the advantage that when you are wrong it's normally a nice change.
Case in point: Serenity. A series of joy that was cancelled and a movie that just broke even. It'll be a brave movie exec who makes a sequel. Compare with, say, Lethal Weapon 4. One of the most derivate, predictable films ever made and the only thing stopping part 5 is Mel Gibson has gone barking mad and is making films in Mayan about ancient Mexico.
Hell Rocky VI is in the can and Rambo 4 is on it's way. No brain formulaic movies make money, as do their sequels.
That ain't being negative, it's fact.
|
If you say so, but please consider:
* Is there any reason why even derivative sequels _have_ to be so badly made, either for games or for films? Surely with the huge budgets invested, someone could invest some more taste, talent, or other qualities? Do the _have_ to be so bad to make money? Wouldn't they make more money if they were better derivative sequels than they generally are?
* Just because some crappy business practice makes money, doesn't mean I or you or anyone _has_ to care, purchase, or pay any attention to the crappy products. For example, we're still here playing Space Empires IV, a _good_ sequel, and I never even bothered with MOO3, a crappy sequel, or most other low-gameplay megacorp releases, or most Hollywood (i.e. crappy) films.
* By paying for, paying attention to, and mentioning acceptance of such crappy practices, one becomes part of the problem.
PvK