Interesting post from Cinematical this morning concerning Judd Apatow's musing about an 'Anchorman' sequel. I have appreciated that Apatow has so far not taken us down a sequel path, but it was this comment that caught my eye...
"Methinks sequel territory for Judd might be a sign of his decline."
Would a sequel signal the beginning of the end for Apatow? Does that hold true for any filmmaker?
It seems to me the most artistically viable sequels are when there is still more of the story to tell. Most comedies stand alone and comedy sequels tend to stink -- Ghostbusters and Austin Powers spring to mind. (In fact, at the moment I cannot think of a truly solid comedy sequel. Anyone?) The only reasons to create a sequel for most comedies is to milk the cash cow or because you are tapped for ideas.
So does heading down that road automatically doom successful fimmakers?
2 comments:
"So does heading down that road automatically doom successful fimmakers?"
Oh absolutely. Certainly Coppola ruined his career with The Godfather Part II. Phew ... what a stinker that was.
OK, first of all the post was about sequels to comedies. Second of all, Godfather II was not nearly as good as Godfather I. Third of all, your line of reasoning brings you straight to Godfather III which was a stinker. So there
Post a Comment