> Blade Runner is another one that should have probably been spread over two or three movies.
As a huge fan of Blade Runner, I strongly disagree. A masterpiece I've watched plenty of times already and love dearly, but there simply isn't enough plot to stretch into a series. I'm a bit upset at the general tendency to turn everything (books, movies) into trilogies, and then have prequels, sequels and whatnot. I'd rather have a single beautiful piece of art, and then have the director and scriptwriter move on to different works. I prefer focus to a never-ending milking of the proverbial cash cow. I don't enjoy "shared universes" or "world building" -- I'd rather have a single, focused good movie.
Or, to paraphrase Eldon Tyrell:
"The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long, and you have burned so very, very brightly, Blade Runner."
No more sequels. No more trilogies. I beg you, Hollywood!
As a huge fan of Blade Runner, I strongly disagree. A masterpiece I've watched plenty of times already and love dearly, but there simply isn't enough plot to stretch into a series. I'm a bit upset at the general tendency to turn everything (books, movies) into trilogies, and then have prequels, sequels and whatnot. I'd rather have a single beautiful piece of art, and then have the director and scriptwriter move on to different works. I prefer focus to a never-ending milking of the proverbial cash cow. I don't enjoy "shared universes" or "world building" -- I'd rather have a single, focused good movie.
Or, to paraphrase Eldon Tyrell:
"The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long, and you have burned so very, very brightly, Blade Runner."
No more sequels. No more trilogies. I beg you, Hollywood!