If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Den Of Geek) Followup As Paramount considers making Transformers 4 and 5 together, does shooting films back to back ever actually work?   (denofgeek.com) divider line 73
More: Followup, Transformers, Kill Bill, Dead Man's Chest, Lone Ranger, Robert Zemeckis, film production, Men in Black, Letters from Iwo Jima  
•       •       •

2559 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 19 Oct 2011 at 12:17 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



73 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-10-19 08:29:30 AM
Back To The Future II & III


/although somebody will come in and disagree with me
//this is the internet after-all
///and FARK!
 
2011-10-19 08:36:07 AM
superman i & ii were shot at the same time, IIRC.
 
2011-10-19 08:42:55 AM
Lord of the Rings Trilogy...

/Although, I suppose those were filmed concurrently.
 
2011-10-19 08:48:42 AM
spidermann: Back To The Future II & III


/although somebody will come in and disagree with me
//this is the internet after-all
///and FARK!


I do indeed disagree with you. They were watchable but in my opinion are inferior to the first movie.
 
2011-10-19 08:59:34 AM
Harry Potter 7 and 8. Then again, that depends on if you like Harry Potter. If the question is "Does it work financially?" The second one brought in $1 billion at the box office, while the first one brought in $955 million.
 
2011-10-19 09:22:19 AM
All correct answers above.

Short: yes.
 
2011-10-19 09:31:36 AM
Weren't some of the Police academy sequels shot concurrently?
 
2011-10-19 09:31:40 AM
Yeah, I'd hate to see the noted quality of Transformers movies suffer because they're rushing them, submitter.
 
2011-10-19 10:01:31 AM
i386.photobucket.com

I don't know about back to back, but ass to ass always works.
 
2011-10-19 10:18:41 AM
Dr J Zoidberg: If the question is "Does it work financially?"

Considering that quality of the film doesn't matter anymore, just the income from it, then yes that is the actual question.
 
2011-10-19 10:37:54 AM
spidermann: Back To The Future II & III


/although somebody will come in and disagree with me
//this is the internet after-all
///and FARK!


Michael J. Fox showed his naked butt cheek in Back to the Future III. This was before it got all jiggly too.
 
2011-10-19 10:47:43 AM
The article is pretty good, but does not mention the Salkind's first attempt to shoot 2
films back-to-back: The THREE and FOUR MUSKETEERS. The first film is, unarguably,
the best swashbuckler film made since the heyday of Errol Flynn (and arguably the best
swashbuckler film ever), but the second film just doesn't have the fire of the first, though
taken together they are also a fairly faithful adaptation of their source material.

The reason it has bearing on SUPERMAN and SUPERMAN II is that, aside from the valid
reasons mentioned in the article, the Salkind's also got into a lot of legal trouble because
they tried to get away with paying the actors for just one movie given that their original
stated intent was that both MUSKETEER movies were, in fact, just one story that they
had intended to show together. That may have had some influence on their decision
to ultimately refilm most of SUPERMAN II.
 
2011-10-19 11:12:51 AM
Wow. Another article from Den of Geek that doesn't have a point. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Profound. I think it works when they have a complete script and doesn't work when they don't. Lord of the Rings wasn't exactly filmed back to back, it was shot as one movie with parts of each film shot non-linearly.

Why does The Hobbit need to be 2 movies? Peter Jackson seriously needs to hire an editor.
 
2011-10-19 12:19:17 PM
So that would be like having 2 guys outside a bar in Vancouver punching the shiat out of LaBeef?
 
2011-10-19 12:22:02 PM
Mugato: Wow. Another article from Den of Geek that doesn't have a point.

You expected otherwise?
 
2011-10-19 12:23:59 PM
Mugato: Wow. Another article from Den of Geek that doesn't have a point. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Profound. I think it works when they have a complete script and doesn't work when they don't. Lord of the Rings wasn't exactly filmed back to back, it was shot as one movie with parts of each film shot non-linearly.

Why does The Hobbit need to be 2 movies? Peter Jackson seriously needs to hire an editor.


Jackson wants to mangle this book with his inserted bullshiat like he did the last two. I expect the battle of five armies to last about an hour and a half.
 
2011-10-19 12:24:49 PM
Dr J Zoidberg: Harry Potter 7 and 8. Then again, that depends on if you like Harry Potter. If the question is "Does it work financially?" The second one brought in $1 billion at the box office, while the first one brought in $955 million.

Harry Potter was one movie in two parts. That's why it was shot like it was. Hence Part I and Part II.
 
2011-10-19 12:26:41 PM
Dr J Zoidberg: Harry Potter 7 and 8. Then again, that depends on if you like Harry Potter. If the question is "Does it work financially?" The second one brought in $1 billion at the box office, while the first one brought in $955 million.

1&2 were shot at the same time. 1 is ok, and 2 is pretty crappy. Harry Potter 8 went too far in the transformers direction if you ask me. Harry wasnt meant to be any kind of match for voldemort, but their fight lasts like 45 minutes.
 
2011-10-19 12:28:54 PM
moothemagiccow: Why does The Hobbit need to be 2 movies? Peter Jackson seriously needs to hire an editor.

Jackson wants to mangle this book with his inserted bullshiat like he did the last two. I expect the battle of five armies to last about an hour and a half.


I haven't read it since I was little, does a main character die? Cause that's a half hour right there (see 006 in Fellowship of the Ring, Kong in King Kong).
 
2011-10-19 12:29:42 PM
moothemagiccow: Mugato: Wow. Another article from Den of Geek that doesn't have a point. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Profound. I think it works when they have a complete script and doesn't work when they don't. Lord of the Rings wasn't exactly filmed back to back, it was shot as one movie with parts of each film shot non-linearly.

Why does The Hobbit need to be 2 movies? Peter Jackson seriously needs to hire an editor.

Jackson wants to mangle this book with his inserted bullshiat like he did the last two. I expect the battle of five armies to last about an hour and a half.


I liked Jackson's editing. The best thing the movies did was to cut out all the dancing and songs. I honestly don't know how I made it through those books in high school. Though I think I did skip every poem and song. Actually the Lord of the Rings books are set up so you can skip 10every pages in a row and not really miss anything.
 
2011-10-19 12:31:42 PM
It isn't whether or not shooting back to back or concurrently works, its whether the movies being shot in such a manner are any good. Examples like LoTR and HP 7/8 are examples of movies that really would have had to work hard to fail. However, I can think of movies that suck so bad that shooting back to back won't help or hurt the series because it is already bad enough (Transformers is one for me)
 
2011-10-19 12:33:37 PM
FILM EXPERTS.
 
2011-10-19 12:34:32 PM
moothemagiccow: Dr J Zoidberg: Harry Potter 7 and 8. Then again, that depends on if you like Harry Potter. If the question is "Does it work financially?" The second one brought in $1 billion at the box office, while the first one brought in $955 million.

1&2 were shot at the same time. 1 is ok, and 2 is pretty crappy. Harry Potter 8 went too far in the transformers direction if you ask me. Harry wasnt meant to be any kind of match for voldemort, but their fight lasts like 45 minutes.


IF you have read the books, and aren't a fan of plot progression, then yeah... Deathly Hallows part 1 is a GREEEEAT film... if you didn't read the book, and are a fan of plot progression than part 1 sucks diseased donkey balls.

in answer to Subby's question.... Yes... see The Three Musketeers/The Four Musketeers (1973/74).
 
2011-10-19 12:36:28 PM
FlashHarry: superman i & ii were shot at the same time, IIRC.

I prefer the Donner recut of Part II. Continuity-lacking hairstyles and physical build notwithstanding.

They'll make CGI remakes of the original series eventually. They've already made CyberBrando from stock footage, CyberReeve isn't far behind.
 
2011-10-19 12:41:56 PM
Stratohead: in answer to Subby's question.... Yes... see The Three Musketeers/The Four Musketeers (1973/74).

Yes, that is the correct answer
 
2011-10-19 12:41:57 PM
Mugato: Why does The Hobbit need to be 2 movies?

Apparently because they're including material from other Tolkein works to flesh out the story.

To answer the original question: Richard Donner's Superman I and II would have been excellent films had the producers not completely lost their farking minds and tried to make Superman into a comedy.
 
2011-10-19 12:48:43 PM
Of course it will work. It's Transformers. Tits + explosions = $$$$$$$$
 
2011-10-19 12:50:02 PM
Rapmaster2000: Of course it will work. It's Transformers. Tits + explosions = $$$$$$$$

I don't remember any tits in the second one, only a giant boob.
 
2011-10-19 12:50:33 PM
Dwight_Yeast: Mugato: Why does The Hobbit need to be 2 movies?

Apparently because they're including material from other Tolkein works to flesh out the story.


I thought they didn't have the rights to any of the other material.
 
2011-10-19 12:52:07 PM
jchic: I do indeed disagree with you. They were watchable but in my opinion are inferior to the first movie.

Thing is, in almost all cases sequels are inferior to the original. (I favor The Godfather Part 2 over the first, and Empire over Star Wars, but can't think of many other examples.) Just having sequels are good and entertaining and watchable is often a big accomplishment.
 
2011-10-19 12:56:40 PM
Spade: Dwight_Yeast: Mugato: Why does The Hobbit need to be 2 movies?

Apparently because they're including material from other Tolkein works to flesh out the story.

I thought they didn't have the rights to any of the other material.


Much of it is actually in The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, in the appendices or mentioned in passing. The other material apparently consists of the White Council debating about what to do about Sauron (simply called the Necromancer in The Hobbit) and chasing him out of Dol Guldur. Presumably they'll plant the seeds of Saruman's treachery and desire for the Ring, too.

Don't know if they'll include a pre-Hobbit encounter between Gandalf and Thorin also detailed in the appendices, but stuff like that would be available to them, too.

This stuff can all be culled from the books they have the rights to. Not sure if Unfinished Tales would at all be in play, but if so they'd have a few more details to fill things out. If not, still plenty to put together a solid subplot that ties these movies together with Lord of the Rings.
 
2011-10-19 12:57:45 PM
Spade: I thought they didn't have the rights to any of the other material.

I don't know why you thought that. The other material is being drawn from the Silmarillion, which I don't believe has ever been optioned for film.

/The Tolkien estate has been actively involved in helping getting the Hobbit made, as they made a boatload off the Lord of the Rings films.
 
2011-10-19 12:58:43 PM
Filming lotr would have been nearly impossible if they hadn't done them concurrently. Actors age, die, or demand more money and keeping everyone around would likely have been intractable. Focus groups as each movie came out would demand changes, etc.

And anyway, tolkien wrote it as one book and was forced to divide it into a trilogy.
 
2011-10-19 01:02:30 PM
Fano: Filming lotr would have been nearly impossible if they hadn't done them concurrently. Actors age, die, or demand more money and keeping everyone around would likely have been intractable. Focus groups as each movie came out would demand changes, etc.

As it was, they had to pay ever-increasing amounts to get the actors to come back for re-shoots as they did post-production on each film.
 
2011-10-19 01:08:55 PM
i.qkme.me
 
2011-10-19 01:10:04 PM
mitchcumstein1: [i386.photobucket.com image 420x272]

I don't know about back to back, but ass to ass always works.


+1.
 
2011-10-19 01:10:14 PM
shoegaze99: jchic: I do indeed disagree with you. They were watchable but in my opinion are inferior to the first movie.

Thing is, in almost all cases sequels are inferior to the original. (I favor The Godfather Part 2 over the first, and Empire over Star Wars, but can't think of many other examples.) Just having sequels are good and entertaining and watchable is often a big accomplishment.



Aliens
AvP: Requiem (this isn't saying much though)
Bourne Ultimatum
Christmas Vacation
Dark Knight
Desperado
Evil Dead 2
the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
LoTR: tTT, RotK (if these count)
Oldboy
Road Warrior
Sanjuro (yes, I went there!)
Silence of the Lambs
ST2:KHAN!
T2: Judgement Day

.... sure could probably come up with more with some thought...
 
2011-10-19 01:12:45 PM
Dwight_Yeast: Rapmaster2000: Of course it will work. It's Transformers. Tits + explosions = $$$$$$$$

I don't remember any tits in the second one, only a giant boob.


I don't know, I never saw it. When I want mindless entertainment I get drunk.
 
2011-10-19 01:21:40 PM
Leader O'Cola: Aliens
AvP: Requiem (this isn't saying much though)
Bourne Ultimatum
Christmas Vacation
Dark Knight
Desperado
Evil Dead 2
the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
LoTR: tTT, RotK (if these count)
Oldboy
Road Warrior
Sanjuro (yes, I went there!)
Silence of the Lambs
ST2:KHAN!
T2: Judgement Day


I disagree with many of those, actually. I'd agree on T2 and Road Warrior, and largely agree with Sanjuro (though that's very close). With Dark Knight, too.

A few wouldn't count, I think. Silence of the Lambs the film isn't really a sequel to Red Dragon, the Lord of the Rings movies wouldn't count (and Fellowship is considered by many to be the best anyway), and hard to count something like Star Trek since it was just an extension of an existing TV series.

I think Alien was better than Aliens in every way, enjoy both Fistful of Dollars and For A Few Dollars More better than TGTBTU, think the first Bourne movie remains the best, etc.

That said, all the sequels you listed are damn good movies. Not knocking a single one of them. Well, okay, maybe AvP. But otherwise think they're all great examples of the idea that sequels don't have to suck.
 
2011-10-19 01:35:03 PM
Mugato: Wow. Another article from Den of Geek that doesn't have a point. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Profound. I think it works when they have a complete script and doesn't work when they don't. Lord of the Rings wasn't exactly filmed back to back, it was shot as one movie with parts of each film shot non-linearly.

Why does The Hobbit need to be 2 movies? Peter Jackson seriously needs to hire an editor.


Nah, two movies means two box office hits, which means double the cash in his pocket. This might be the new trend, after it worked so well for Harry Potter.
 
2011-10-19 01:38:55 PM
Stratohead: IF you have read the books, and aren't a fan of plot progression, then yeah... Deathly Hallows part 1 is a GREEEEAT film... if you didn't read the book, and are a fan of plot progression than part 1 sucks diseased donkey balls.

meant harry potter 1: sorceror's stone
 
2011-10-19 01:45:06 PM
baufan2005: I liked Jackson's editing. The best thing the movies did was to cut out all the dancing and songs. I honestly don't know how I made it through those books in high school. Though I think I did skip every poem and song. Actually the Lord of the Rings books are set up so you can skip 10every pages in a row and not really miss anything.

And that's fine. The problem is Jackson basically made up superfluous plot points and added/combined characters. The Two Towers was a total mess. Helm's Deep was one chapter. It's about two hours in the movie. I could also do without Liv Tyler sighing for half an hour in pointless flashbacks and dream sequences.
 
2011-10-19 01:48:32 PM
piceye.net

Financial success.
All I'm sayin'.

//like4timeswhattheycosttomake
 
2011-10-19 01:48:46 PM
I'd also submit that the last two Harry Potter movies showed little damage from being shot one after the other, and the same could apply to the Lord Of The Rings trilogy, and the two Kill Bills. But then these were different beasts. In these cases, this was the plan (okay, perhaps not quite the plan in the case of Kill Bill, where a split was proposed, but even so, time was built in to manage that).
==================================================================

The final harry potter movie, just like the two kill bills are NOT TWO SEPARATE MOVIES.

It's one movie, split in half due to time contraints (And money hording).

And LoTR, while fantastic, was less shot 'back to back' and more like shot 'concurrently'. Shots from each movie were done when they were needed, to be utilize the sets and minimize finances. Hell, if I recall, one of the very first shots was a shot near the end of the third movie while one of the very last shots was also a shot in that scene.

Shooting back to back does not help the script, but it doesn't hurt it. The only thing shooting back to back does is:
A) Allow you to film both at the same time to free up the actors instead of having to pull them back again for a sequel.
B) Save money.
 
2011-10-19 01:52:51 PM
Dwight_Yeast: Rapmaster2000: Of course it will work. It's Transformers. Tits + explosions = $$$$$$$$

I don't remember any tits in the second one, only a giant boob.


Make Unicron a giant boob!

Uniboob?
 
2011-10-19 02:09:28 PM
Fano: Filming lotr would have been nearly impossible if they hadn't done them concurrently. Actors age, die, or demand more money and keeping everyone around would likely have been intractable. Focus groups as each movie came out would demand changes, etc.

And anyway, tolkien wrote it as one book and was forced to divide it into a trilogy.


Tolkien wrote it as SIX books. This is why the first two words of "The Two Towers" are "Book III".
 
2011-10-19 02:19:08 PM
Leader O'Cola: shoegaze99: jchic: I do indeed disagree with you. They were watchable but in my opinion are inferior to the first movie.

Thing is, in almost all cases sequels are inferior to the original. (I favor The Godfather Part 2 over the first, and Empire over Star Wars, but can't think of many other examples.) Just having sequels are good and entertaining and watchable is often a big accomplishment.


Aliens
AvP: Requiem (this isn't saying much though)
Bourne Ultimatum
Christmas Vacation
Dark Knight
Desperado
Evil Dead 2
the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
LoTR: tTT, RotK (if these count)
Oldboy
Road Warrior
Sanjuro (yes, I went there!)
Silence of the Lambs
ST2:KHAN!
T2: Judgement Day

.... sure could probably come up with more with some thought...


Old Boy is a sequel?

/to Wikipedia!
// Jumps into Binkymobile
 
2011-10-19 02:20:05 PM
White Rose Duelist: Tolkien wrote it as SIX books.

Books as in sections of a larger work, not books as in separate stories or publications or volumes. He intended it to be one volume, not three or six. It's no more six books in the way being stated above than any one of the hundreds and hundreds of novels that have "Book 1," "Book 2" sections.
 
2011-10-19 02:27:03 PM
*returns to the Binkcave*

Old Boy isn't a sequel, or else Prince of Darkness is a sequel to The Thing.
 
2011-10-19 02:29:20 PM
shoegaze99: White Rose Duelist: Tolkien wrote it as SIX books.

Books as in sections of a larger work, not books as in separate stories or publications or volumes. He intended it to be one volume, not three or six. It's no more six books in the way being stated above than any one of the hundreds and hundreds of novels that have "Book 1," "Book 2" sections.


This reminds me of a set of LotR bower in which each book was separated by book volume, plus The Hobbit and the Appendices. I still wish I got that all those years ago.
 
Displayed 50 of 73 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »