Will there be a 7th movie?

[Locutus]

I care if the film has a cliffhanger, because I may not necessarily want to see the next installment.  I don't want to commit to a film series.  I want to watch the movies I like and skip the ones I dislike.

I hated that The Lord of the Rings were one, 12-hour story.  I also didn't like that Pirates of the Caribbean 2 & 3 are effectively a 5-hour story.  Really, I prefer independent sequels that don't require you to watch the other movies in the series.  That's why I love Star Wars, each movie stands on it's own. 

How would you know you disliked the movie until you saw it?

And how are the Star Wars movies all stand-alone? That makes no sense. Each one, with the exception of "Star Wars" (I refuse to call it 'A New Hope') builds on the previous one.

Finally, there is absolutely no way to tell The Lord of the Rings in 2, 3, or even 5 hours. While an argument could be made that it was mildly self-indulgent for theater-goers, I prefer the extended versions, because it's not always about what is blowing up next, ala Star Wars, it's the quiet character moments that make the movie(s) something beyond special for me.

While not preferring sequels or trilogies is perfectly acceptable (I'm trying to say I have no personal enmity one way or the other on this subject), I personally prefer epics, and if they need 2, 3, or 10 movies to do the subject matter justice, I'll be sitting there in the theater, with my pretzel, and popcorn, and Twizlers, and wheelbarrow full of Sprite to delve into the film maker's vision, hoping that the Law of Diminishing Returns does not apply to this chapter.

[Bryancd]

Boy, I'm with you Locutus, LOTR was the finest film series ever, and I am an original, there in '77 Star Wars fan. I couldn't disagree more with that post. POTC is pathetic and not even worthy of mention in this thread.

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

How would you know you disliked the movie until you saw it?

Easy.  I look the movie up online and see if the premise is interesting to me.  I guess I should'a done that with the POTC sequels.  I'm just used to sequels being good.

And how are the Star Wars movies all stand-alone? That makes no sense. Each one, with the exception of "Star Wars" (I refuse to call it 'A New Hope') builds on the previous one.

Stand-alone means the movie stands on it's own, it may follow previous movies, but you are not required to have seen them to understand the current movie.

A New Hope
Sequels were not guaranteed when this movie was being made.  I suspect that is why the Death Star was destroyed in the climax.  You can watch this movie and have a complete story without having see any other movie in the series.

The Empire Strikes Back
It helps to have seen the first movie, but it's not required.  This movie stands on it's own in that you aren't required to have seen the original movie to understand this one.  The main plot is resolved accept for Han Solo's capture, but that is largely there to get the audience to see the next movie.  You could just as easilly watch this one movie and have a complete story.

Return of the Jedi
Again, this movie does not require you to have seen the previous two movies.  Since it's the end of the saga, you don't have to worry about a cliffhanger ending.  This movie serves as the conclussion to the saga, but it also works as a stand-alone movie for those who have not seen the rest of the series.

The Phantom Menace
The very nature of this movie being a prequel means you don't have to have seen the original trilogy.  It easilly stands on it's own and has a nice conclussion.

Attack of the Clones
I don't remember this one too well, but I do remember that the I hadn't seen the first prequel in a long time when I saw this, yet the story was easy to follow.  The main plot ended while leaving the door open for the saga to continue since it's a prequel and all.

Revenge of the Sith
It helps to have seen the previous prequels, but again, this one doesn't require you to have seen previous movies.  However, this is the one movie that ends on a major cliffhanger, but that's because it has to end badly for it to lead into the original trilogy.  It was kind of expected.

Finally, there is absolutely no way to tell The Lord of the Rings in 2, 3, or even 5 hours.

Each movie is 4-5 hours long, so... they have told The Lord of the Rings in 5 hours.  Personally, I would have prefered a six-movie saga like Star Wars instead of three 4-hour movies. 

While an argument could be made that it was mildly self-indulgent for theater-goers, I prefer the extended versions, because it's not always about what is blowing up next, ala Star Wars, it's the quiet character moments that make the movie(s) something beyond special for me.

I prefer a balanced mix of action and drama as well.  However, I also prefer a movie to end after 2-3 hours.  Key word: end.  When a movie ends with a cliffhanger, I generally don't bother with the sequel nor have a second viewing of the movie that ended with a cliffhanger.  Did I mention I hate cliffhangers?  Why on Earth is it so hard for people to write an ENDING?!

While not preferring sequels or trilogies is perfectly acceptable (I'm trying to say I have no personal enmity one way or the other on this subject), I personally prefer epics, and if they need 2, 3, or 10 movies to do the subject matter justice, I'll be sitting there in the theater, with my pretzel, and popcorn, and Twizlers, and wheelbarrow full of Sprite to delve into the film maker's vision, hoping that the Law of Diminishing Returns does not apply to this chapter.

I say the film makers should make as many sequels as they want.  However, each movie should stand on it's own so the viewer does not have to dedicate his time to the entire series if he does not want to.  Also, what happens if he likes the first two movies, but thinks the third one is crap?  Since it's one big story, you've not only ruined his fun for the third movie, but for the first two movies as well.

POTC is pathetic and not even worthy of mention in this thread.

I would say bloated, not pathetic.  Squidman's story should have ended in the 2nd movie so the 3rd movie could focus entirely on the pirates' war against the East Indian Trading Company. 

[Rico]

Like I say many times in a variety of threads, it's best to state your own views and move on.  You will probably not be able to change another persons viewpoint.  This point and counterpoint format doesn't really get you anywhere.

I would also try and go back to the main idea of this thread which was about another Star Wars film.  I still think it will be a long, long time (if ever) before we see another film.

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

Like I say many times in a variety of threads, it's best to state your own views and move on.  You will probably not be able to change another persons viewpoint.  This point and counterpoint format doesn't really get you anywhere.

First off, I don't state my views and move on.  I stick around and have a discussion.  Second, I'm not trying to change anyone's views..  Third, this is a forum, so point and counterpoint format discussions are bount to happen.  It's not about getting anywhere, it's about the sharing of ideas, opinions, facts, and so on.

I would also try and go back to the main idea of this thread which was about another Star Wars film.  I still think it will be a long, long time (if ever) before we see another film.

You're right, we have gone off topic.  I'm sorry if I contributed to that.

I agree, it will probably be a long time before we see a 7th movie, just like it was a long time before we saw a 4th movie.