a sequel or two
Oct. 8th, 2010 08:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deird1I think I've realised why I like Die Hard 2 better than Die Hard 3.
To start with, they're both sequels (obviously). But they don't approach "sequelism" in the same way.
Generally, I don't like sequels very much. That's why it took me so long to figure this out - because movie 3 is much less a traditional sequel, so I'd expect to like it better.
I'd also expect to like movie 3 better because it is a better movie. It's better crafted, it has better dialogue, and it's just generally... better. (But I still don't like it as much.)
The thing is... movie 2 is a sequel because:
- John McClane has a Christmas terrorist issue just like last time.
- Holly is stuck in a terrorist situation worrying about her husband again.
- McClane's reputation has preceded him.
- ...and not in a good way. He's been on tv and is now seen as posturing because he likes the attention.
- The reporter is there again - and now has a restraining order against Holly.
- The cop is there again - and is now good friends with McClane.
Whereas movie 3 is a sequel because:
- Bruce Willis is once again playing a guy called John McClane.
- Lots of stuff gets blown up.
Movie 2 is aware it's a sequel - and every part of the movie is affected by what happened in the movie before. Holly and John's relationship; Holly and reporter-guy's relationship; John and the cop's relationship; the arguments John keeps having with all the cops... plus, John McClane spends a lot of the case running around muttering about having to go through "the same shit twice".
Movie 3... is trying to capitalise on a successful franchise.
The third movie is a technically superior film. But the second one has much more to do with John McClane. And much more to do with Die Hard.
To start with, they're both sequels (obviously). But they don't approach "sequelism" in the same way.
Generally, I don't like sequels very much. That's why it took me so long to figure this out - because movie 3 is much less a traditional sequel, so I'd expect to like it better.
I'd also expect to like movie 3 better because it is a better movie. It's better crafted, it has better dialogue, and it's just generally... better. (But I still don't like it as much.)
The thing is... movie 2 is a sequel because:
- John McClane has a Christmas terrorist issue just like last time.
- Holly is stuck in a terrorist situation worrying about her husband again.
- McClane's reputation has preceded him.
- ...and not in a good way. He's been on tv and is now seen as posturing because he likes the attention.
- The reporter is there again - and now has a restraining order against Holly.
- The cop is there again - and is now good friends with McClane.
Whereas movie 3 is a sequel because:
- Bruce Willis is once again playing a guy called John McClane.
- Lots of stuff gets blown up.
Movie 2 is aware it's a sequel - and every part of the movie is affected by what happened in the movie before. Holly and John's relationship; Holly and reporter-guy's relationship; John and the cop's relationship; the arguments John keeps having with all the cops... plus, John McClane spends a lot of the case running around muttering about having to go through "the same shit twice".
Movie 3... is trying to capitalise on a successful franchise.
The third movie is a technically superior film. But the second one has much more to do with John McClane. And much more to do with Die Hard.