>Why? I'd much rather have a trilogy of movies that was conceived that way from the start, than two sequels made to cash in on the unexpected success of a hit.

With that, I was going more to the sight of the directors and writers and so on. They're not gonna know if that first movie is going to be good enough to attract enough attention for the other two to be just as good. In that light I think that no original screenplay, unless the directors know for a fact, somehow, that it's gonna be a big success, should either end like the lord of the ring movies, just leaving you hanging, nor be filmed concurrently. I'm not saying that they should never do this, but it would be a better idea for them to let the first one go and see how it does then work off of it. That way they'll kind of know.

Now, I do agree with what you said, Sam. I would rather them come out in a trilogy than just two sequels. If it's a screenplay written for a trilogy they should come out with a trilogy, but if it's written more for sequels, they shouldn't strech it out to 3 movies. I like movies that stay either action packed/suspensful throughout or just interesting. As long as it's consistant, then it's cool.

I'm sorry I didn't really point this out in my original post, (one that I originally renamed to just say "trilogies" in the subject, but I guess I messed that up) but I was really leaning more toward the maker's standpoint.

Wedge "if you can't understand me just remember... that makes two of us" Antilles




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------