Everyone has seen both of their back stories a hundred times already. Or at least heard of them. It's the same as if someone didn't know that Darth Vader is Luke's father at this point. Yes, these are generalizations. And for good reason. The same reason why we shouldn't need to see Batman's or Spider-Man's origin every time they make a new movie about them. Besides, a goofy, fun monster fight movie doesn't require you to know their origin. Come on! It's just two cool monsters fighting!
I'm usually the pessimistic one, but I truly like to believe that people in general aren't as stupid as they let themselves seem. And they're sure going to be stupid if you treat them like they're stupid.
I find you optimistic in a pessimistic kind of way. You often look at the positive side of things but somehow say it in a way that makes it sound like you're saying something pessimistic. I know that doesn't make much sense.
And I don't think the production value of sequels is really dependent on the success of the first movie these days. This Kong thing seems to have great CGI, what funded that project? Godzilla? Okay, but that had good CGI too, so...
Qirstu wrote:EThe same reason why we shouldn't need to see Batman's or Spider-Man's origin every time they make a new movie about them.
I actually felt Batman needed an origin movie before BvS not for the sake of it, but for character establishment. I loved Affleck, but I found his character arc unfinished. But I see your point though.
Well, he could have used a solo movie perhaps, which we're getting now. But there's other ways to establish the Affleck version's motivations than always just starting from the beginning. His past should shine through his actions and lines. We don't necessarily need to see why he does what he does. In BvS they just had too much going on in general, so they didn't really have time to carry any arcs properly.