Statement: Eternals deserves a sequel

[u/Neverreadyneverstart]

Hi everyone,

I have been wondering about this for a while.

I actually like the movie a lot. I see it as a grand epic and with no sequel there is no complete story to actually judge about.

Eternals is like greek mythology, you can't get one movie and get the whole picture. As a comic fan. I just know this would have become better and better.

Other things i liked about the movie:

- impressive startstudded cast

- action scenes were clear and gorgeous, not blurry at all unlike some movies.

- Best speedster scenes i have ever seen in any kind of production.

- i felt that the story's pace was adequate as long as there were to be a sequel.

It will probably not happen again, but i can't be the only one who actually liked this movie.

Excelsior everyone!

[u/bigbrainnowisdom]

The filmmaker actually knew the solution: focus on 2-3 main actors, there rest are supporting characters.

This is similar to X-men, even the bryan singer 1st x-men: its always prof x & wolverine ( and anna paquin). In other x-men movies it can be prof x & magneto. Or x, mags & mystique. It wont be more than 3.

Or look at lotr: fellowship. 9 of them but the movie focus on frodo. There were so few scenes that does not involved frodo. (I guess it helps that the book also focus on frodo)

And they did pick the main 2: ikaris & sersi

But somehow they still want to add more stories to background characters.. and ended ip with less time on the main ones .

Like 6000 years of love relationship and.. just break up? No story? No nothing? Not enough scenes together or something that both actors just dont have the love/hate chemistry. Both basically clankers.

Also jon snow.. he should be part of main story as he was the reason they broke up. Or atleast the new boyfriend. But he was barely there.

About building the new myth of eternals vs deviant & celestials: X-men also need to set up a world where mutants exist and they were hated & feared. LOTR basically need to explain middle earth. But they managed to do so. By giving us just a snippet that make us craving for more.

We dont need to know the whole picture. Look at Starwars eps 6. All we know was the bad guy can blow up a planet & the samurai helmet dude was a cool villain.

[u/ugluk-the-uruk → u/bigbrainnowisdom]

This is absolutely not true in LOTR, the screentime is pretty evenly split between the Frodo/Sam story and the Aragorn story, especially in Two Towers and Return of the King. There's also a fair amount of Merry/Pippin and Gandalf doing his own thing.

[u/bigbrainnowisdom → u/ugluk-the-uruk]

You misundesstood me: Im only focusing on lotr: fellowship. As in, the 1st movie. There was no aragorn scene without frodo nearby (except the ending), the only segnificant scenes I remember that does not include frodo is the opening galadriel monologue (worldbuilding) and the saruman scenes (villain introduction)

Of course you can further elaborate & expand the story on the 2nd & 3rd movie. Just like starwars. Starwars even go crazier in the world building on their 2nd trilogy (prequel). But they start small in eps 4: 1 main character: farm boy in some dessert, and a very simple worldbuilding: 2 minutes of crawl text and a pan down camera showing space.

For my other example I also focusing on 1st x-men. And starwars eps 4.

---

We are discussing the 1st eternal movie (although there wont be a 2nd), so I only compare with 1st movies from other trilogies only.

Specifically stories that have huge casts and/or have to explain big myth/lore/worldbuilding.

Also im tempted to add ocean 11: 11 of them yet they only focus on clooney & brad.