| |
|
(a) I'm not saying/writing that all sequals must have no plot, but simply that having a good plot or even being a good idea in an aesthetic/having-something-to-say manner, has ever been necessary to spawn a sequal to another film. All that is required is that the sequal might be successful. An actual point is, if anything, an added bonus.
(b) There's a big difference between knowing everything that's going to happen in a movie and simply being given a basic plot as part of the advertising. Most films, that's the first thing you know, is the plot. It might be something as simple as 'X stars in a romance about a jewel thief and a monkey-worshipping ancient priestess zombie' or 'man discovers God through maths and has nervous break down,' but there's something. I realize we're just to the point where a teaser is coming out - and it seems like it's further along than that - but, really, even 'Gigli', 'The End of the Affair' or 'End of Days' tried to sell us a plot early on, successful or not.
I'm just saying, there's got to be an audience - and not just of myself - that would be more enticed by knowing some sort of basic plot, than seeing A REAL LIVE FLESH AND BLOOD HANK McCOY, OH YAY! Isn't there?
But, yeah, it's only up to the teaser stage, and while it feels like it's been going longer than that, maybe there doesn't have to be plot (and that's plot, not detail or scene or development, reveals, but the basic pitch that differentiates this movie from, well, any other) given, yet.
And, really, the incoming director does have a habit of making movies that are lacking, primarily, in the plot area, far as I'm concerned, hence the curiosity that would otherwise be fairly sublimated. I'm not asking if there's a plot to the new Woody Allen or Aronofsky film, because there's precedent. |
|
|
