Why do a sequel for a film which under-performed?

Didn't Prometheus struggle to make a profit? And the reviews were lacklustre. Unless Ridley Scott decides to change the structure. I hope he doesn't downgrade Noomi Rapace because I thought her Elizabeth Shaw was one of the few elements about Prometheus which worked. Her struggle to survive in the film's last twenty minutes remains the best part of that movie.

Why do a sequel for a film which sucked big hairy stinky donkey balls?

becaus it was a genius work and it didn't struggle to make a profit at all, it just didn't make what the studio was hoping for but still managed to make a profit of a hundred fifty million

becaus it was a genius work

No.

>>4
yes

get over yourself

It was a film that got all bent out of shape by trying to be something it had no business being, in the most pretentious way possible. In short, Damon Lindelof totally ruined what should have been an excellent film when he changed it from a straight up Alien prequel to a pseudo-intellectual "exploration" of the conflict between religion and science. It needlessly bogged down what's best about the franchise, which is its ability to put forward progressive themes as a natural byproduct of the narrative.

C'mon, admit it...you'd still see it.

Because it's part of a franchise that is popular, despite the last film not being very good or as successful as it could have been. They won't stop making James Bond films if this new one doesn't do well, they'll just try something different next time.

Under-performed?

Ok

Under-perform, yes, it did. It did 126 million dollars in America when its budget was 120 million, meaning the film had to make double that for it to be profitable in domestic soil. Yes, the film did better overseas but the studio tends to gain less money from its profit overseas than in domestic territory, which is why some tend to give more importance to how much a film makes domestically.

Was Prometheus a flop? No. Did it under-perform? Yes, because it didn't live up to expectations.

Because we live in a bizarre age in which sequels can often do better than their predecessors.

Anyway, I'm not complaining: I think it's a good thing if studios are willing to keep going, and won't always abandon a series of movies just because the first one didn't quite work out.

I say that even though I can't imagine how a sequel to this particular movie could possibly be any good, especially if Scott directs again.

I'm quite happy about this, it'll be a nice change from the cookie cutter super dooper hero movies that seems like an endless wash of mediocrity in the future.

Except for the fact that Prometheus sucked.

I don't deny that it has its problems but visually I thought it was great. Granted I realize that's not gonna cut it for most.

Maybe they started filming the sequel directly after the release Prometheus. Then they had to much money invested to just walk away.

Sequel doesn't make much sense. I actually liked the first one, but last time I saw it I liked it less.

Box office hits or busts are the initial revenue, but time tells if there's more revenue.

Future sells of the film and future showings can be very monumental if there are enough "iconic scenes or lines", or if some of the cast become legends, or various other reasons.

I don't know if that applies here. As I remember the film, it was more a "flow of lines" than "set up for iconic lines", and that unfortunately does hurt.

Sequels can be bigger or smaller, but rarely the same. A sequel may even help the story line of the first movie in some cases. PROMETHEUS was pretty well concocted in the script, with a few muddled areas that seemed to be begging for a sequel to clear up. Not surprised by a sequel at all.

Prometheus made a profit, now for the sequel to try.