7 comments

• 

  Jared

  1 年 ago

  I'd say it was a monster movie, just done in a way (with strict constraints like the fixed single perspective) that was consistently different than other monster movies that have come before it.
  
  I'd be willing to bet a substantial amount of money that there will be no sequel. To expand on the story any more than they did would violate the whole point of how and why this film was done.
  
  The only way I could possibly see a sequel being done would be another movie just like this one, just from the perspective of a different group of people, with no additional information about the situation revealed, but even that I highly doubt.
  
  I really liked the movie, but I'd be very disappointed if there were a sequel, and based on the decisions the creators made in making this one I can't imagine them agreeing to do one.
  reply
• 

  nstryker

  1 年 ago

  yeah, agreeing to do a sequel would be like extending the number of seasons your "set ending" series goes for just because it's popular.
  reply
• 

  Jared

  1 年 ago

  Exactly. Since they wouldn't do that with Lost, I doubt they'd do it for this movie.
  
  (I suspect Nathan is under the mistaken impression that that's what happened with Lost).
  reply
• 

  Dan Cameron

  1 年 ago

  Actually he's right. You and I both know that they wanted to end it earlier than now contracted. Maybe the shorter seasons contributed to the extension but either way it's additional seasons with a few episodes.
  
  Also, I tried to make it clear that sequels would be similar but from a different vantage point,
  "Since the movie’s secondary plot was the monster they could easily create another with the monster backdrop".
  
  I say it's not a monster movie because the monster wasn't the plot, it was just one conflict during those characters stories.
  reply
• 

  Jared

  1 年 ago

  OK, you and I can disagree with calling it a monster movie; that's just a matter of opinion.
  
  On the Lost thing, I disagree. Here's how it went down:
  
  The creators said they only wanted to do 5 seasons. The catch was that ABC owns the show and they could continue making it however long they wanted to. The creative team said they wouldn't participate if ABC tried to extend it.
  
  As a compromise, they decided to do 3 more seasons of 16 episodes each, rather than 2 more 24 episode seasons. Either way, it's the same number of episodes (48), so the creators stuck to their guns and did not extend the show overall.
  reply
• 

  Dan Cameron

  1 年 ago

  Cuse quotes:
  Originally quoted saying, "100 episodes in 4-5 seasons", that doesn't mean full seasons. Now it's "the most honest answer we can give [is] as long as it's good."
  
  
  5 Full Seasons equals approx. 120 episodes and if they make up this years 8 missing episodes because of the writers strike we'll see 117.
  
  I don't care how many we see, as long as it's good, but they have swayed from their original goal of a strict 100.
  reply
• 

  Jared

  1 年 ago

  When was that quote (of 100 episodes) made?
  
  I'm assuming it was early on (at least pre-season 3).
  
  It's understandable that there would be some adjustments that they are forced to make along the way due to the long running (multiple year) production nature impacting things like actor availability, etc., but those kind of slight variations are not the same as adding filler episodes to stretch the whole series (the way that I think they might have done in season 2, before the final arrangement was in place).
  
  117 is close enough to that early estimate that I'd say that overall, they're definitely holding their ground on the issue of not extending / stretching the series at the request of the network.
  reply