Lord of the Rings Trilogy...

/Although, I suppose those were filmed concurrently.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

FILM EXPERTS.

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).

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.

Stratohead: in answer to Subby's question.... Yes... see The Three Musketeers/The Four Musketeers (1973/74).

Yes, that is the correct answer

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.

Of course it will work. It's Transformers. Tits + explosions = $$$$$$$$

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

Financial success.
All I'm sayin'.

//like4timeswhattheycosttomake

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.

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?

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".

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

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.

*returns to the Binkcave*

Old Boy isn't a sequel, or else Prince of Darkness is a sequel to The Thing.

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.