unnecessary sequels

[waider]

No, nothing to do with Star Wars. Due to my incessant frobbing of DVD Rentals‘ offerings, I have discovered that Wild Things has not one, but two sequels. Without digging further I can only assume that they figured, hey, all the guys who drooled over Neve Campbell and Denise Richards in the first will rent/buy these without even checking the cast list.

update: Better still. The original Wild Things has, in its IMDB trivia, the following gem:

Director John McNaughton says he deleted a scene that would have shown Matt Dillon and Kevin Bacon showering together, as it was gratuitous.

So the Dillon/Campbell/Richards scene was wholly required by the plot, eh?

Comments

[hwrnmnbsol.livejournal.com]

I note that sequel #2 has a character named 'Davros'. I think it's pure genius to introduce that character to the franchise, because nothing spices up stories of crime and lust quite like a pack of Daleks motoring about shouting 'EX-TER-MIN-ATE!'

[jwgh]

                    __            
                   )o (--o        CAN! I! PLAY! TOO?! OR! IS! IT! 
                   """"===--(     JUST! FOR! BOYS?! 
                  |::|:\          
                  |::|::\         
                  ========        

[nothings.livejournal.com]

Sure it was! See, one of Dillon or Bacon walks in on the other one showering, and it's a very casual thing which makes you go "aha". And then they kiss or something? Anyway, they make it clear, so you don't need more.

The threesome, on the other hand, isn't necessarily clear. They need to show you that all three of them are in on it together. They could just _say_ it, but you know, show don't tell. And if they just started the threesome and then cut away immediately, or implied it, you'd be confused about what the exact nature of the relationship between the three is; I mean, who is into whom, exactly? With a twosome it's obviously bidirectional. With the threesome, you need to show whether the triangle is closed or not.

Yeah.