h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It matters a lot actually awix. If it works so well then why have no other films tried it (okay star wars is the exception but that was a big realese that lucas could put a lot of weight behind)

Average cinema goer wants it there on a plate story wise. If hes seen the first two highlanders, he/ she doesn't want to imagine back to before the second highlander.

If the average cinemagoer remembered seeing the first two Highlanders there wouldn't be a cat's chance in hell of them going to see number three! Let's not forget that Highlander 2 was recently voted one of the ten worst films of all time, some achievement for a mid-budget film over ten years old.

The Highlander sequels audience consisted of two elements: die-hard fans of the original, who were prepared to continuity-cop the problems themselves, and undemanding filmgoers who fancied seeing a dumb action movie and either weren't too bothered about which one or arrived ten minutes too late for the evening showing of The Hard Way.

I didn't say, or mean to say, that the hopscotch thing worked well! The Highlander follow-ups are a creative tram-smash, trying to create sequels where there's no opportunity for any.

I think you're being a little bit too scornful of the 'average cinema-goer' - these are the people who've stuck with and understood the films you praise so much like LOTR and the Matrix.

Anyway, wasn't the first official prequel Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom? That seemed to do okay...

The first highlander was great, and is still one of my fave's. Gorgeous soundtrack, realistic sets, and nice sword fights (all for the time it was made anyway). When the second came out people really didnt like it, but the powers that be (in this case, 20th century fox sold the idea to Miramax, who took the third film on with three smaller companies) decided to make a third (in this case, miramax could make money pretty easily on a cult following- oh and another small distributor made its mark on films like highlander 3, namely dimension films).

"The Highlander follow-ups are a creative tram-smash, trying to create sequels where there's no opportunity for any."
That means nothing- as its an original story. Tolkiens work can't be touched, because its already written and there'd be uproar (although 'the hobbit' and possibly 'the sillrallion' are pretty much dead certs for the next decade of film releases). The highlander trilogy will be butchered and hacked to peices as long as theres a following (if theres money, then they will make - especially the little companies like fallingcloud)

"The Highlander sequels audience consisted of two elements: die-hard fans of the original, who were prepared to continuity-cop the problems themselves, and undemanding filmgoers who fancied seeing a dumb action movie and either weren't too bothered about which one or arrived ten minutes too late for the evening showing of The Hard Way."
Wrong im afraid. Okay your right about those, but most people would have gone to see it on the back of either highlander 1 (hoping to see an improvement), or the masses of advertising. As an example, lord of the rings had the full weight of AOL Time Warner behind it (THE biggest media company on the planet), but saved on the cost by pouring it on for the first film and easing off as the trilogy went along (less for Two Towers, but increased again for ROTK as the trilogy had turned around there fortunes and the funds were available again). A more obvious example will be the matrix trilogy. There was hardly anything for the first film before its initial realease, as it wasnt a major blockbuster (budget only in the region of $63million, made mainly by silver pictures and Village roadshow, subsiduries of AOL Time Warner <Silver pictures is most noted for die hard 1 and 2, and village roadshow for swordfish and eight legged freaks&gt Its success however, meant that AOL Time Warner were more willing to throw there entire weight behind it (as we've all seen over the past few months)

"I think you're being a little bit too scornful of the 'average cinema-goer' - these are the people who've stuck with and understood the films you praise so much like LOTR and the Matrix."
No im not, your giving them far to much credit.
What Im trying to say say (and most other media students would agree on this) is that your average cinema-goer wants things that are suited to them. E.g one of the several target audiences of the matrix trilogy is young male adolesents and so there are several flashy fight sequences. Another audience women between 18 and say 28, so a nice romance is placed in. A similar thing was done with lord of the rings (increased interaction between arwen and aragorn, as well as eowyn popping her head up, as well as some huge battle scenes) - which again equals my 'films should be a fat kids cake' theory.

"Anyway, wasn't the first official prequel Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom? That seemed to do okay..."
No temple of doom was suppose to be indian jones' last outting, before his son (played by river pheonix) was suppose to take over. Unfortunately he died, so it never happened (but ive heard rumours of a new film)

Highlander is a quadrilogy.


Hang on, River Pheonix is in Last Crusade! Made after Temple of Doom (which was set before Raiders of the lost Ark).

And Highlander's sets were realistic seeing as most were shots of New York or Scotland.

i know highlanders a quadrilogy, with 4 featuring duncan (as a friend repeatedly tells me 'cos hes pretty')

I meant the flash backs mainly (even though the two you mentioned do look fantastic), as well as the rest of the mise-en-scene.

I'll check up on the indian jones stuff tomorrow (the xbox is calling me!)

Hmm. According to the on-screen dates, Temple of Doom is set *before* Raiders (as is Last Crusade, I think, though I may be wrong) - hence, 'prequel'.

Whether it's an original story or not has nothing to do with how sequelisable a film is. An original story which concludes with the planet blowing up is, on the face of it, hard to get a sequel out of (unless it's Beneath the Planet of the Apes). Highlander was the story of immortals fighting duels until only one remains. At the end only one remained, and so in order to get sequels they either had to produce 'new' immortals from various silly places (2 and 3) or just ignore the events of the original film entirely (4)! Ergo, tram-smash.

I saw Highlander 2 on its original release and it wasn't especially heavily promoted. I suspect the company knew full well what they'd created - 3 and 4 only happened after (and because) the TV show was a hit.

All I'm saying about average movie-goers is that they're not complete morons!

"What I'm trying to say say (and most other media students would agree on this)"

Well, you kind of gave yourself away, there. I don't mean to sound harsh, because I'm as guilty of this sometimes as anyone, but it's easy to assume that just because you know a bit more about a subject than most people, or have studied it academically, everyone else knows absolutely nothing.

I don't think you're describing average film-goers. You're describing what studio moguls *think* average film-goers are like. Given the chance people have flocked to see unusual films (foreign films, cerebral films, arty films), it's just that they so rarely get shown them. Studios play safe. If people were as dumb as you think they are every focus-grouped and test-screened dimwit blockbuster would do a massive box office. They don't. I don't deny many films are dumb. But not everyone who sees a dumb film is stupid, they just might like everything else on even less.

Last Crusade is after Raiders.

Doom chapter 23
Raiders chapter 24
Last Crusade chapter 25

So wouldn't the Planet of the Apes series have the first prequel?

"Whether it's an original story or not has nothing to do with how sequelisable a film is. An original story which concludes with the planet blowing up is, on the face of it, hard to get a sequel out of (unless it's Beneath the Planet of the Apes)."
Okay your way off the mark there. As long as the key charecter survives - Connor Macleod - then you can do pretty much what you want. However, with a book you simply cant do that because people who've read the book and gained there own pre-concieved ideas dont like it. It has to stay true to the original, just like any adaptation. 'The Handmaid's Tale' is a book based loosely on 1984 by george orwell. The film ended up being nothing like the book as they gave it a happy ending, the film is awful. With an original idea for a film you can literally beat it to death if you can get money out of it. Highlanders a small example, but look at the 'carry on' series or even 'police academy'. If theres money - they will make.

"I saw Highlander 2 on its original release and it wasn't especially heavily promoted. I suspect the company knew full well what they'd created - 3 and 4 only happened after (and because) the TV show was a hit."
Most companies will, if they suspect the films going to completely flop, release straight to video or not release at all.

"All I'm saying about average movie-goers is that they're not complete morons!"
Your average media-goer is a lot dumber then you think, as he or she is heavily influenced by advertising. How many people went to see Lord Of The Rings because it was on, or because they wanted to see some violence. Most people went because of the masses of advertising that happened. There are many movie goers who will go see a film because it sounds good, and not due to the mass media, and it is through word of mouth that these smaller films become a success. Examples include 'donnie darko', a relativley small budget film which became a cult hit. Or 'My big fat greek wedding' Originally only released in small amounts in italy and america, it became big because of people going against the advertising focus.

"Well, you kind of gave yourself away, there. I don't mean to sound harsh, because I'm as guilty of this sometimes as anyone, but it's easy to assume that just because you know a bit more about a subject than most people, or have studied it academically, everyone else knows absolutely nothing."
True i do, but i know from what ive studied that your wrong on this. There are people who've studied films, who know certain truths about media and how it works (flood the market with advertising, people will go see it). Many great films go against the current (as ive said in the form of donnie darko and my big fat greek wedding) but the vast majority will go see it on advertising alone, and the rest usually follow (phantom menace is a prime example of this at work)

"I don't think you're describing average film-goers. You're describing what studio moguls *think* average film-goers are like. Given the chance people have flocked to see unusual films (foreign films, cerebral films, arty films), it's just that they so rarely get shown them. Studios play safe."
Totally true, studios play extremely safe and lord of the rings is a prime example of this. Look at how much advertising went into lord of the rings. That happened because they had to release all three films, whether they were hits or not.
People dont flock to see films that are unusual, they go to the safe bets. The safe bets are the ones that have been heavily advertised with good reveiws (for the most part phantom menace). Its all about advertising. Little advertising = little profit (mostly), mega advertising = Mega profit (mostly). I say mostly because 1 time out of a thousand a film will break through or fail abismally.

"If people were as dumb as you think they are every focus-grouped and test-screened dimwit blockbuster would do a massive box office. They don't."
The majority do, because the companies spend a huge amount on advertising and dont want to risk lossing all there investment. See phantom meance especially here.

"But not everyone who sees a dumb film is stupid"
True very true. But most are sucked into the films through the advertising.

So what made you go see Lord of the Rings then?

He did! That's the reason I went instead of waiting until money allowed. He told me to!

Well Mr. Dark is saying that the movie-going public is dumb because he (thinks he) has a higher understanding of the industry based on Media Studies experience.

If this was the case he would enjoy a lot more independent films and Critic's choices because they're watching to see how good a movie is based on a number of factors and not just-- does it tell a good story?

Its only when you begin to understand the media as a whole that you realise the power it actually has. So i agree three and a bit years ago, while still at high school, i was heavily influenced by what media told me (as will all the newer generations who are brought up watching the tele).

And its not just media studies experience that tells me these things. Look at the Phantom menace fiasco. It was a mess, and had non of the darkish undertones of the originals (The imperial march track sequences with vader etc) in stead phantom menace had a poor (to put it nicely) mong who bounced about the screen saying 'mesa jar-jar-binks'.


"If this was the case he would enjoy a lot more independent films and Critic's choices because they're watching to see how good a movie is"
I loved/love donnie darko (i got it on pirate before it went big). Many so called independent films are ultimately owned by the bigger companies (just follow the money trail basically), but the problem remains that the vast majority of films are no longer small independents because of this. The small specialist films are being produced by the big companies because they can afford to make the loss and can advertise it more.

I have a good grasp of how the movie business works.

I would still not constitute the public as being dumb.


Media studies doesn't always give an accurate view sometimes giving meaning that I would say, weren't necessarily there.

The fighters in Fight Club are supposedly fighting to release pent-up homosexual frustrations.
I don't like Fight club but I wouldn't say that was its meaning.

Yes, you can make a sequel to anything, in theory. (Although thankfully Titanic 2 seems to have been quietly abandoned.) But that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be any good! The point I'm trying to make is that some films are more open to a sequel than others. You could very easily make a sequel to, oh, I dunno, Pirates of the Caribbean - further adventures for Jack, or whoever. More of the same. But while you could in theory make a sequel to Independence Day, it would have to be so different to the original in order to be any good (you couldn't do 'aliens invade and nearly destroy our world' again, because it was nearly destroyed already) that it would probably not appeal to the original audience and thus be a dodgy proposition. Some films just *do not* lend themselves to follow-ups or continuations, whether they're original or not.

Whether a film goes straight-to-video or not depends on how much money they spent on it, because even a really low cinema box office is better than nothing. Consider the number of out-and-out turkeys that've come out and got theatrical releases recently - Gigli, The Sin Eater, to name but two. If it's got a 'name' star in it (like Connery), it'll probably get at least a small release.

"Your average cinemagoer is a lot dumber than you think"

Really? I don't consider myself an exceptional cinemagoer. I suspect most of the people who read the Post would call themselves 'average cinemagoers', whatever that means. Are you happy calling us all dumb?

People don't flock to unusual films? Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon? Subtitled kung fu film with a very atypical plot and structure? Took $128 million in the US. You've already mentioned Big Fat Greek Wedding, which was a sleeper hit in the US. You say this was because of people 'going against the advertising focus' - have you any suggestions why all those 'dumb' people would do that, other than because they're not actually just sheep under the hypnotic sway of ad campaigns?

Are you aware of the recent trend that most big blockbusters have their biggest take on their opening weekends? What happens is that the film is heavily advertised, people go to see it, realise it stinks, and tell all their friends. Hence the *colossal* drop-offs in ticket sales many blockbusters experience. Word-of-mouth is as important as advertising for a film to be *really* successful, and (other than the last two Star Wars movies) I can't think of a really inept, utterly worthless picture that's done mega-business recently, so word-of-mouth is a lot more discerning than studio advertising.

Anyway, your argument seems to boil down to: People mainly go to see films that have been heavily advertised, regardless of whether they're any good or not. I don't see how this translates into 'people are mostly stupid'.

As HPB said, how do you decide what movies to see? Surely you can't be swayed by the advertising, because apparently only dumb people pay any attention to that? Do you go into a yogic trance and make your choice while in it? Do you stick a pin into the listings page of the paper?

Look, imagine that for the last week every paper, every magazine, every TV ad, every billboard you've seen has been promoting Witchy-Kid in Magic Shades 3. Saturation coverage. You've heard a massive amount about it. When you get to the cinema, your choices are the (hopefully) entertaining Witchy-Kid in Magic Shades 3, showing on four screens, or some low-budget drama about Belgian coalminers you've never heard a thing about. Which one would the average person, not wanting a demanding or surprising night out, go and see? Does that make them 'dumb'?

Oh, sorry, HPB - the films in the Apes series after Beneath... aren't strictly prequels, as (from the main characters' perspective) the earlier films are in their personal past. It's a time travel thing.

"I would still not constitute the public as being dumb."
Your average person isnt that smart. Thats person - singular. The problem with the public is that they suffer from group stupidity, and act like sheep (he/shes going to see it, lets go see it) which is lead by the media.

"Media studies doesn't always give an accurate view sometimes giving meaning that I would say, weren't necessarily there."
Perhaps, but media studies always demands evidence for things that it says. Pointing at something and going 'look everyone, meaning' doesnt happen. Pointing at several things and looking at how they act together to form a meaning, however, does happen.

Doesn't have to be from the main character's perspective does it?

Just set before?

Surely the average person is, by definition, of average intelligence? Okay, nitpicking, but are you saying that the average filmgoer is dimmer than everyone else? Watching films kills brain cells?

Boy, we're all in trouble, aren't we?