Originally Posted by kevin
I've usually been inclined to use the X-Men to X2 comparison myself, but I doubt there's a lot in it.
I think that allows for universe expansion and a better story after 'the origin film' while retaining some energy and fun (unlike Lindelof I'd rather not invoke The Dark Knight because I don't want the sequel to become a darkly lit bombastically self-important ramble. Sure that seems to work for Nolan and the Batman character but I don't really want that transferred over to Trek) about itself.
That, and that I'm not to hot on Iron Man 2 and would hope we don't end up in that route.
Well, so would I. I was looking at what I considered a 'realistically' worst case scenario (although I still 'like' IM2
But I think certainly in the case of sequels like X2
, Spider-Man 2
, Terminator 2
, Hellboy 2
and yes, The Dark Knight
(though it seems there is the potential for misunderstanding whenever anybody mentions that last) the second film is typically the 'thematic core' of the franchise, or the film that the director presumably wanted the freedom to make upfront had the audience and studio been ready for it. (Oh, and then the studio makes a lot more money and the director either walks away from the third film or has his vision compromised by studio politics.)
If the new movie is more of an Iron Man 2
, it could be a little harder to defend Abrams' vision for ST. But we might take reassurance in the fact that his directing career will be riding on this as well.