Movies in a franchise that changed everything

[SethRex]

There are movies in a franchise that change things going forward because either the villain does something or the hero does something and the repercussions are felt by everyone.

For instance...

In The Dark Knight, Harvey Dent becomes Two-Face and Batman is forced to take him down. But instead of revealing that it was truly Harvey Dent that did it, Batman takes the blame. This has the effect of making Harvey a hero and Batman the Villain. It gives us the Dent act in The Dark Knight Rises.

Name a movie in a franchise that changes things for future entries of the franchise.

[NP13]

Originally Posted by SethRex

There are movies in a franchise that change things going forward because either the villain does something or the hero does something and the repercussions are felt by everyone.

For instance...

In The Dark Knight, Harvey Dent becomes Two-Face and Batman is forced to take him down. But instead of revealing that it was truly Harvey Dent that did it, Batman takes the blame. This has the effect of making Harvey a hero and Batman the Villain. It gives us the Dent act in The Dark Knight Rises.

Name a movie in a franchise that changes things for future entries of the franchise.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, because

[Show spoiler]Voldemort comes back.

was the first one that came instantly to mind. (Is that really a spoiler anymore?)
Then again, doesn't every film in a franchise affect the others?

[AaronJ]

Megan Fox compared Michael Bay to Hitler ...

[SymbioticFunction]

An insane amount of franchise movies have this thing happening don't they?

A classic example is The Empire Strikes Back having Vader reveal his identity to Luke.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by SymbioticFunction

An insane amount of franchise movies have this thing happening don't they?

A classic example is The Empire Strikes Back having Vader reveal his identity to Luke.

That's probably the most famous example ever, actually.

[DanTheMan]

Harry Potter and The Half-Blood Prince. Not my personal favorite of the HP franchise, but it officially set the dark tone that was yet to come for the final two films.

[Gamma_Winstead]

Shouldn't every sequel that has another entry, have something that impacts the next film? I mean seriously, that's the point of a sequel.

[DanTheMan]

Originally Posted by Gamma_Winstead

Shouldn't every sequel that has another entry, have something that impacts the next film? I mean seriously, that's the point of a sequel.

Not all of them though. Taken and Taken 2 for instance, had no storyline in place because the studios didn't prepare for sequels following each movie. Some franchises just don't plan that kind of thing unless they know they have something successful on their hands or they need to progress the story and/or characters.

But yes, more often than not, damn near everything now NEEDS to have a sequel, so why not plant a little seed towards the end of a film, so they can continue on that in the next entry?

[SymbioticFunction]

Originally Posted by Gamma_Winstead

Shouldn't every sequel that has another entry, have something that impacts the next film? I mean seriously, that's the point of a sequel.

You'd think so but a successful franchise like Dirty Harry or the majority of the James Bond films never really did.

[Buscemi]

The death of Marie in The Bourne Supremacy. After this event, the franchise goes from a standard espionage franchise to the Bond successor that it became.

[Gamma_Winstead]

Originally Posted by dantheman89

Not all of them though. Taken and Taken 2 for instance, had no storyline in place because the studios didn't prepare for sequels following each movie. Some franchises just don't plan that kind of thing unless they know they have something successful on their hands or they need to progress the story and/or characters.

But yes, more often than not, damn near everything now NEEDS to have a sequel, so why not plant a little seed towards the end of a film, so they can continue on that in the next entry?

First films usually don't, but when a second film is made with expectations of a third, we get sequels that address the prior film.

Bond and Dirty Harry are certainly good examples of standalone films, but even then, current Bond absolutely addresses the other films.

Other than that, it's very rare to find a sequel that doesn't reference the first film.

[The Debts]

Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan.

[schan1269]

Originally Posted by SymbioticFunction

You'd think so but a successful franchise like Dirty Harry or the majority of the James Bond films never really did.

James Bond films are not sequels.

The only sequel(conceived as one at all) is Quantum of Solace.

[SymbioticFunction]

Originally Posted by schan1269

James Bond films are not sequels.

The only sequel(conceived as one at all) is Quantum of Solace.

Really? How could From Russia With Love not be a sequel to Dr No? And so on.

[Mystic]

Originally Posted by SymbioticFunction

Really? How could From Russia With Love not be a sequel to Dr No? And so on.

I would view the Connery / Moore - Bond films as a series of stand alone films. I cannot offer an opinion on the Bond films that followed.

[schan1269]

Originally Posted by SymbioticFunction

Really? How could From Russia With Love not be a sequel to Dr No? And so on.

First...

Fleming wrote as serial, not sequel.

Second...

From Russia With Love comes before Dr. No(in the canon).

Third...

When Quantum came out...all "the Bond people" said...

"We are excited for the first actual sequel".

[Al_The_Strange]

Fast Five is the first thing that comes to mind. It really put the fun into the Fast and Furious movies.

Originally Posted by SymbioticFunction

Really? How could From Russia With Love not be a sequel to Dr No? And so on.

Originally Posted by Mystic

I would view the Connery / Moore - Bond films as a series of stand alone films. I cannot offer an opinion on the Bond films that followed.

Everything changes in Bond all the time, there really isn't any one movie in the whole series that does it.

In the classic era, I think Goldfinger was the big paradigm shift; Dr No and FRWL were pretty straightforward, old-school spy movies (and pretty close to the original books), but Goldfinger is the first truly action-packed Bond movie.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service tried to make a significant change, but it didn't really stick to the series. It's become something of a one-off.

Live and Let Die not only started off the Roger Moore era, but it also marked the start of the campier brand of Bond movies that would persist up until FYEO.

I think GoldenEye is the next big series-changer for Bond, after that huge six-year gap. It was pure 90s action-movie territory, and it made the character relevant all over again.

Casino Royale changed everything yet again, obviously because it's a reboot. QoS and Skyfall both took on very different approaches, and I think both of them tried to radically alter the direction of the new series. Looks to me like the pattern established in Skyfall will stick though; you could even consider it a second start for the newer Bond movies.

They're all so different, but I like 'em that way.

[SymbioticFunction]

From Russia With Love:

Came out following year after Dr No.
Same lead character.
Connery again playing lead character.
Bernard Lee reprises his role as M, as does Lois Maxwell as Miss Moneypenny.
Another gun barrel opening.
Return of "James Bond Theme" music.
Same director.
Same producers.
Same distributor.
Script has Blofeld specifically talking about the death of Dr No from the previous film.

Of course it's a sequel to Dr No.

I will accept that the Bond franchise is a series of sequels and reboots.

[SymbioticFunction]

Originally Posted by schan1269

First...

Fleming wrote as serial, not sequel.

Second...

From Russia With Love comes before Dr. No(in the canon).

Third...

When Quantum came out...all "the Bond people" said...

"We are excited for the first actual sequel".

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by schan1269

First...

Fleming wrote as serial, not sequel.

Second...

From Russia With Love comes before Dr. No(in the canon).

Third...

When Quantum came out...all "the Bond people" said...

"We are excited for the first actual sequel".

Originally Posted by SymbioticFunction

From Russia With Love:

Came out following year after Dr No.
Same lead character.
Connery again playing lead character.
Bernard Lee reprises his role as M, as does Lois Maxwell as Miss Moneypenny.
Another gun barrel opening.
Return of "James Bond Theme" music.
Same director.
Same producers.
Same distributor.
Script has Blofeld specifically talking about the death of Dr No from the previous film.

Of course it's a sequel to Dr No.

I will accept that the Bond franchise is a series of sequels and reboots.

Originally Posted by SymbioticFunction

Originally Posted by schan1269

First...

Fleming wrote as serial, not sequel.

Second...

From Russia With Love comes before Dr. No(in the canon).

Third...

When Quantum came out...all "the Bond people" said...

"We are excited for the first actual sequel".

It's true that Fleming wrote all the books different from the movies, but it seems to me that a few of the original Sean Connery films (and the George Lazenby one) click together to collectively tell the story of Bond vs SPECTRE, building up to him confronting Blofeld.

And out of those movies, the books for Thunderball, OHMSS, and YOLT were sequential and had to be read as a trilogy. The movies mixed them up big-time.

I get what you mean though. In the movies, QoS is the only one directly attached to a predecessor movie; the rest can be seen stand-alone (although YOLT and Diamonds Are Forever are best seen after the other Connery/Lazenby ones).