what do you think??..is it a sequel or??
By ddfreedie
@ddfreedie (690)
India
February 22, 2009 3:48am CST
hey guys...was the film intentionally taken as a sequel or the second part was taken just because the first part was a super hit??...
4 responses
@albedo (55)
• United States
10 Apr 09
The deal with New Line Cinema was always to make 3 movies. Since there are 3 books. That's why they filmed all 3 at once. It was basically done as 1 big movie, which was split into 3 parts so that we wouldn't have to wait 10 years for the whole thing to be done.
@playwright82 (167)
• United States
25 Feb 09
It was a trilogy of books before the movies were made. The movies were meant to be a triology also. Kinda like Harry Potter or The Chronicles of Narnia. They are book series and meant to be movie series too.
@theproperator (2429)
• United States
22 Feb 09
They always intended to make a sequel, since the books on which the movies were based were a trilogy. Had the first movie done poorly, then the second and third movies may not have been made, but the producers, director, and actors had all signed on to do all three movies.
@Thrilok (1)
• India
22 Feb 09
Yes they the film was intentionally taken as a sequel, it was excellent
I really enjoyed the movie................
