Sequels in low budget filmmaking?

[NzoMatrix]

I was thinking about this and wondering if you think it is a good idea to have sequels to low horror budget films. Hollywood could almost never affectively create a sequel that surpass the expectations of the original. Do you think its possibly in the low budget arena? I would think it is possible because usually your budget gets bigger and your progression as a filmmaker is improved. What do you think?

[HailtotheKing]

Good question. I think you could make a sequel better at an indepdent level. One reason...time.

You have all the time you need to make the film. Time to get the script right, shooting, post, ect. Alot of Hollywood movies have dates to meet and such, that is all good and all filmmarkers should set dates and goals, but indie films like us don't have big stuidos over head watching. We can pace ourselves more....

Just my 2 cents. ;D

[ScriptedEyes]

Sequels in the low-budget area does work. I have made a sequel before. The filmmaking was better,and so was the acting.

[dethandtaxes]

i will have to say that lately hollywood has been doing much better with sequels...the lord of the rings movies prove that...along with the x-men, and im sure that matrix reloaded will be amazing.

as far as sequels in low budget horror films...im not really sure...i mean sure you have more experience but you also have a rehashed story line with different characters...about the only thing different you can do is setting (and that isnt always available) more gore, and more ways to kill characters off. plots of sequels (especially in the horror genre) tend to be very week or put something into play that is so ridiculous that you end up turning the movie into a farce, i.e. Jason X.

its just like with evil dead....the first one didnt have that comedic air to it. the second one (which really shouldnt be called evil dead 2...just evil dead: dead by dawn) wasnt really a sequel to the first one...plus they made it more of a comedy than anything. then you have army of darkness which IS a sequel and should be sitting in the comedy section of any video rental place that has it.

i guess one of the few horror series that has enough flexability to have a good plot with sequels is hellraiser. granted parts 3-5 sucked, 2 was awesome if Doctor Chinard hadnt sang whilst killing people, and hellseeker was really good...more of a psychological thriller than anything but good none the less.

i guess to sum up whatever the hell it is im trying to say is that...low budget horror films could be good if you have the right type of story line and it can pull its weight as its own movie as well as a sequel.

yeah

bradshaw

[BackFromTheDead]

with low budget film making. . . sequels dont usually happen . . . but if they do (evil dead trilogy) then usual they can get better (bigger budget, better acting, ect.) . . . UNLESS . . . they get fucked with by CEOs in HOLLYWOOD . . . everything gets edited down or something . . . the director never has full control over suck

[BackFromTheDead]

why did my previous post get f'd up? the end of it was cut off

[NzoMatrix]

BackFromTheDead said:

why did my previous post get f'd up? the end of it was cut off

Sometimes the forums goes screwy and messes up. Server 18 that i am on has lot of bugs that still need to be fixed.

[armagecko]

A low-budget sequel is usually not a good idea for several reasons: 1) Sequels usually flop, even at the Hollywood level. Yeah, yeah, tell me all about X-Men and the Matrix, but as a general rule (check Weekly Variety for the stats), most sequels do not do as well as the original (see dethandtaxes "dead-on" comments above). 2) The directors and writers of money-making low-budgets usually use their success to catapult them into the major leagues. They don't want to work for peanuts anymore. 3) Even though the filmmakers might be more experienced and theoretically capable of making a 'better' movie, that's not what sold the first one. People obviously enjoyed the combination of inexperienced artistic vision and very little money. So the very things that made the first installment successful, doesn't really exist anymore. That's why you don't get a better movie, just a different one.

That being said, there have been some 'independent' movie sequels that did prove successful- Re-Animator, Evil Dead, Living Dead, etc. - at least successful enough to justify yet another sequel. So, it is possible to do.

However, I must add that I feel that there are so many good ideas out there that have never been made into movies that I find it insulting that we are persuaded to shell out $8 or more to see something like X-Men 2 or Jaws IV or Jason X. Isn't this the very thing that the Matrix movies are all about?? The brainwashing of humankind? I'm sure the CGI is great and the costumes are fantastic, but do they show me anything that I haven't already seen? Do they take me to places I haven't been? Do they prove to me facts I would rather ignore? I doubt it. Oh well, at least the explosions are bigger and the chicks are cool. Gimme that Red pill, Morpheus!!!

[ScriptedEyes]

That last post was a little harsh on sequels. Yes I will agree "HOLLYWOOD" tend to have the same clarity. They suck. You have had exceptions. In the low budget/no budget world of filmmaking. Some sequels have surpassed the original. I am currently writing a sequel to my short "The Note". I am not changing much around. Just adding a more intense scene that I wanted to do with the first one but couldn't b/c of manpower. So enclosing you are right most sequels do suck,but things here latley are starting to look up. Even in the amateur biz.