...or does it seem the makers put more effort into Part 2 over Part 3? I know some stuff was rushed with the special effects on Part 3, but everything else from the script to the characters to the pace on Part 3 seems weaker to me than on Part 2. Seems strange since they were filmed back to back. I know both films were shot together in three months (or maybe it was two months?), but does anyone know how much time in those three months was spent on each film?
share[deleted]
My theory is that the making of Fast Food had something to do with Part 3 being different and a bit more laid back. The movie was released in 1989 and had a lot of faces that were in Part 2 and 3 (Tracy Griffith, Michael J. Pollard, Pamela Springsteen, Benji Wilhoite, Renée Estevez and maybe way more that I'm missing).
I'd like to think it caused scheduling conflicts, as the locations section for FF mentions being in L.A. and parts of Georgia, while the SC sequels stayed in two or three specific areas of Georgia. Perhaps they started FF right after SC3 unless they filmed back to back with that once SC2 was complete.
Our songs will all be silenced, but what of it? Go on singing. -- Orson Welles