tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1535826466844312001.post2789153988421534689..comments2011-12-10T09:53:07.873-08:00Comments on Ashley's Blog: To Sequel or not to Sequel?Ashley Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06501684685250204945noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1535826466844312001.post-7402436193333374202010-12-15T15:22:15.990-08:002010-12-15T15:22:15.990-08:00Schaunkmier effect?
Švankmajer?
Sequels just don...<em>Schaunkmier effect</em>?<br /><br />Švankmajer?<br /><br /><em>Sequels just don't have the same effect as the original film, in a negative way.</em><br /><br />I can understand this feeling, but I feel I have to point out that there's a difference between saying that a sequel "just doesn't have the same effect" and saying that a sequel has a <em>negative</em> effect!<br /><br />In other words, granted that sequels may be, and very often are, inferior and unwelcome echoes of the original, but why should this interfere with our enjoyment of the original?<br /><br />Is this most likely to be the case with stories that we adopt as our own early in life, stories that have a formative effect on us and that we are reluctant to question or compromise?<br /><br />Another way of asking this question is, <em>Okay, so</em> Return to Oz <em>is a bad film, but why does that matter? Does it affect the way I respond to the earlier</em> Wizard of Oz?Charles Hatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00420624399042669001noreply@blogger.com