Sequel Science - The Making Of A Good Sequel

Most of the time sequels suck. He'll almost all the time. It's usually the first one that really does it. But sometimes the sequel is better, but that doesn't happen often. In the case of this movie it's true. "Anacondas" was better, so I thought, than the first one "Anaconda". But the first one had more well known actors. The second one is good in every way though, with SFX, acting, story, all that stuff. And the snakes looked damn real to me. I think the idea is realistic, and slightly scientific, that's why it's here. If a food could unlimit a person's growth, like that flower did with the snakes, then we'd be really buff, like the Belgian Blue Bull, an animal that has no myostatin, myostatin is what makes an animal not grow too big. And if you've ever seen a picture of this animal then you know that it's supremely muscled in a massive way. They did it by constantly looking for the strongest bulls and mating them will only the strongest, after a while, the genes got rid of the inhibitor gene and it grew all that huge muscle it has now. Well, the idea was that the snakes ate the flower and in turn lived longer, and living longer is what made then grow bigger, not the flower, that only helped with prolonging life. And the mating ball was an accurate depiction of a snake, it made me think of human mating rituals (going to bars - gathering spots, kinda like a mating ball). So if we could live longer, then maybe we'd be taller. ...anyways if the sequel sucks then the first one sucks, so you have to have a good sequel.



Guest Commentator DEATHBUNNY says: "I shoulda been the star of this flick!"