Escape Artists
The Lounge at the End of the Universe => Gallimaufry => Topic started by: Russell Nash on July 13, 2007, 06:54:40 PM
-
This topic came up recently, and since it was something going through my head anyway, I thought it might make a good thread.
What good/great movie was reduced to laughable status because of the sequel(s)? I put this thread in this section so that we don't have to stay with just SF films.
I think the ultimate example is Rocky. I haven't seen the newest one so don't sream and holler at me if it redeemed the whole franchise. (*cough* not likely)
The first one won three oscars, including best film, and had seven other nominations, including best screenplay, actor, actress, and two for supporting actor. This is a real serious film not just a testosterone action flick.
The second one was OK, third bad, fourth laughable, fifth (did anyone actually watch the fifth one?). It is now almost impossible to talk about the original without someone scoffing.
-
Highlander
The first is a pretty good movie. The second is one of the worst movies ever - and nullifies the ending of the first.
I never saw any after that, but what I saw of the show was pretty good.
Alien
The first two are great in their own right especially considering how different they are from each other.
Then they made the third and started it by making the second one pointless by killing the child Ripley rescued.
The forth was mostly just stupid.
-
I'll just mention a few really obvious ones, and maybe return later for more:
The Matrix.
Star wars (I doubt I need to spell it out, but first two sequels were great, and it all went downhill from there).
-
The Matrix.
I thought the third was a bit disappointing, but I really liked the second one. I'm sure I'm in the minority on that.
-
Star wars (I doubt I need to spell it out, but first two sequels were great, and it all went downhill from there).
I watched them again last year and Jedi was already weakening the films. The changes Lucas made to the DVDs further weaken it. HAN SOLO SHOT FIRST!!!!
-
Star wars (I doubt I need to spell it out, but first two sequels were great, and it all went downhill from there).
I watched them again last year and Jedi was already weakening the films. [/quote[
Jedi has its problems, but it wasn't ruining the franchise - for most of it, it keeps the spirit of fun adventure going and does it well. It sort of loses its way towards the end, but in a forgivable way.
The prequels, however, may have occasional good moments, but they sucked the sense of fun right out. And that's the greatest problem - sure, the plot doesn't make sense and the attempts at "comic relief" are massively irritating, but as long as it was fun I didn't care.
The changes Lucas made to the DVDs further weaken it. HAN SOLO SHOT FIRST!!!!
Absolutely
-
The Matrix.
I thought the third was a bit disappointing, but I really liked the second one. I'm sure I'm in the minority on that.
Interesting, I thought the third one was okay but hated the second one. Regardless, they both sucked when compared to the original. The Animatrix was cool, though.
Scream 2 sucked, expept when they were talking about how sequels suck. It was like they were trying to figure out "who will the audience never guess it is?"
To further the Aliens thing, I present Aliens vs. Predator (and the upcoming AvP2. I thought Aliens 3 and 4 had some interesting parts but some even bigger flaws.
Highlander 2 is one of the worst movies I've ever seen because it seemed to hate the first film so much.
I really liked Pitch Black and had hopes for Chronicles of Riddick. Bleh. What a poorly written/constructed movie.
The film sequels to Silence of the Lambs (never read the books). Talk about taking a terrifying character and turning him into a cannibalstic Batman.
Batman Forever and Batman Returns. 'nuff said.
That said, I thought the best part of Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back was when Matt Damon and Ben Affleck made the sequel to Good Will Hunting: Open Hunting Season. That was freaking hilarious.
-
Back to the Future
Saw, original concept with the plot twists, Saw II disappointing, Saw III beyond disappointing and boggling the mind to know there are further sequels planned (Spoiler allert) [size=03pt]Everyone is dead at the end of saw iii that has been in the others[/size]
-
Back to the Future
I disagree here - I mean, the first is by far the best, but 2 and 3 are still decent movies.
-
Star Trek 1 and 2 were very very good 3,4,5,7+ all sucked donkey water! Except First Contact whatever number that was, that was only half sucky.
Pretty much any superhero movie gets worse with each sequel - mostly because they over do it trying to "top" the previous one. (haven't seen FF2 - this may be the exception). I like Batman Returns a fair bit(Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman was great). Did you mean Batman Begins (Christen Bale), ClintMemo? That was sucked so hard I left before it was over. Maybe you squished the name with Superman Returns, which was clearly another horrible movie - Superman Whines would have been a better title.
Rocky and Highlander are the best examples, though - spectacular first movies and then nothing but crap!
I wonder if a more difficult question would be - which movie sequel was as good or better than the original? The Harry Potter movies have been consistently good (ignoring the fact that the books are way better!).
Casino Royale was a Bond sequel that was very very good, though it wasn't really a sequel. Some Bond movies are good sequels, some stunk - though again not so much sequels as other tales - Bond never really changes or grows as a character. Maybe why I liked Casino Royale - the Bond character actually changed.
-
Back to the Future
I disagree here - I mean, the first is by far the best, but 2 and 3 are still decent movies.
When I saw the sequels originally in the theater, I hated them. I watched them last year and I thought they were pretty good. I'm guessing expectation has something to do with it.
-
It wasn't me that mentioned Batman and Superman, but just for the record:
Batman: Excellent - Jack Nicholson as the Joker was fabulous.
Batman Returns: Liked Michelle Pfieffer as Catwoman, hated Danny Devito as the Penguin
Batman Forever: Barely remember this, only remember not liking it very much and being ticked that they took a really interesting villain (Twoface) and turning him into a farce. Seems like this was just another Jim Carey movie
Batman and Robin: Godawful! How can a director take that much screen talent and make such a bad movie?
Batman Begins: LOVED IT! Best movie of the group. I Can't wait for more.
Superman: Great movie in it's day - seems a bit dated now. (Spiderman stole much of it's structure from this movie)
Superman 2: I liked this movie a lot, despite how ot got created. I have the Richard Donner version, but I haven't watched it yet.
Superman 3: ugh
Superman 4: Are you kidding?
Superman Returns: This was pretty good. It had it's good and bad parts. Kevin Spacey was excellent. I think the future sequels could be better than this.
-
It wasn't me that mentioned Batman and Superman, but just for the record:
Batman: Excellent - Jack Nicholson as the Joker was fabulous.
Batman Returns: Liked Michelle Pfieffer as Catwoman, hated Danny Devito as the Penguin
Batman Forever: Barely remember this, only remember not liking it very much and being ticked that they took a really interesting villain (Twoface) and turning him into a farce. Seems like this was just another Jim Carey movie
Batman and Robin: Godawful! How can a director take that much screen talent and make such a bad movie?
Batman Begins: LOVED IT! Best movie of the group. I Can't wait for more.
I agree with every word you wrote above.
Superman: Great movie in it's day - seems a bit dated now. (Spiderman stole much of it's structure from this movie)
Superman 2: I liked this movie a lot, despite how ot got created. I have the Richard Donner version, but I haven't watched it yet.
Superman 3: ugh
Superman 4: Are you kidding?
Superman Returns: This was pretty good. It had it's good and bad parts. Kevin Spacey was excellent. I think the future sequels could be better than this.
I haven't seen Superman returns, nor do I have any intention to do so.
I have a soft spot for Superman 4, because I remember being 11, watching it in the theaters, and loving it. My tastes have changed and I find it totally unwatchable now, but it did something right.
-
It wasn't me that mentioned Batman and Superman...
D'oh, that was DKT, sorry.
Batman Begins: LOVED IT! Best movie of the group. I Can't wait for more.
=shudder= Well, I guess we can't agree on everything. I really found it horrible - by the time the Batmobile (what an ugly car) starting driving on rooves, I just checked out mentally. Ridiculous, utterly ridiculous.
-
Superman 2: I liked this movie a lot, despite how ot got created. I have the Richard Donner version, but I haven't watched it yet.
Don't. Just Don't. It was cobbled together from screen tests and cutting room floors bits. There is no Paris opening sequence and the Niagra Falls scenes where Clark reveals himself to Lois is a nightmare. In differnet shots, Ken's glasses frames and hair is different.
-
It wasn't me that mentioned Batman and Superman...
D'oh, that was DKT, sorry.
Well, I'm not offended.
I hope he's not. :P
Batman Begins: LOVED IT! Best movie of the group. I Can't wait for more.
=shudder= Well, I guess we can't agree on everything. I really found it horrible - by the time the Batmobile (what an ugly car) starting driving on rooves, I just checked out mentally. Ridiculous, utterly ridiculous.
[/quote]
Well, that part was a bit over the top.
Overall, one of the reasons I liked it so much was that Batman is a superhero with no superpowers - just lots of money, training and personality disorders. This movie did a better job than any other about showing that. Pretty much everything in the movie that batman had was either real or a couple of generations ahead of something that was current.
I also thought Christian Bale was great (along with the rest of the cast).
Side point: want to launch a financially successful franchise? Cast Liam Neison (Batman Begins, Star Wars I, Narnia), but not as the lead (Darkman).
-
This only belongs on the fringe of the list, but I still think it's worth a mention even though they're still great movies:
Lord Of The Rings - What they made poor Gimli do makes me cringe to watch. They were obviously committed to making a massive film, they could have left him a little dignity.
-
It wasn't me that mentioned Batman and Superman...
D'oh, that was DKT, sorry.
Well, I'm not offended.
I hope he's not. :P
I'm very offended. How dare you all! ;)
Actually, I didn't mention Superman at all but I'm pretty onboard with what Clintmemo said except I didn't really like Superman Returns. I didn't hate it like some people do, it just left me feeling bored. Kevin Spacey felt like he was trying too hard to be Gene Hackman which is a bummer because I really like Kevin Spacey. I haven't seen very much Smallville, but I think in the end I preferred what the freshness of that series (particularly the dude who plays Lex Luthor) to SR.
Batman I liked a lot.
Batman Returns was pretty good but not great.
Batman Forever unforgivably screwed one of the most terrifying/tragic comic book villains of all time Two-Face.
Batman and Robin...I still have never seen because it looked so bad.
Batman Begins I also love, more than any of the other Batman movies (and possibly more than any other superhero movies, except maybe X2. maybe) because the characters in it were so believable. Bummer you didn't like it, Slic. I can understand a car driving on rooftops seems ridiculous but I was so invested in the movie by then, it didn't bother me at all.
Fun fact about Liam Neeson, btw. I hadn't thought about that before.
-
It wasn't me that mentioned Batman and Superman...
D'oh, that was DKT, sorry.
Well, I'm not offended.
I hope he's not. :P
I haven't seen very much Smallville, but I think in the end I preferred what the freshness of that series (particularly the dude who plays Lex Luthor) to SR.
I've only seen maybe a few episodes of Smallville, but I completely agree with you about the guy who plays Lex Luthor - Michael Rosenbaum. He's the best actor on that show.
another fun fact - Michael Rosenbaum also does the voice of the Flash on Justice League. In one episode of JL, Flash and Lex Luthor trade bodies. They kept the same voice actors with the body, so Clancy Brown did Flash in Lex Luthor's body and Micheal Rosenbaum did Lex Luthor in Flash's body.
Odd to think that the voice of Lex Luthor is the voice of Mr Crabs (Spongebob)
-
Pirates of the Caribbean:
1st- AWESOME!
2nd- Ung, I could care less.
3rd- THAT FRAKING SUCKS!!!
-
Pirates of the Caribbean:
1st- AWESOME!
2nd- Ung, I could care less.
3rd- THAT FRAKING SUCKS!!!
This series is a bit confusing to me as far as my opinion goes. The thing is, I liked 2 and 3. I really did. Not nearly as much as I liked 1, but I had a blast watching them in the cinema.
But - I don't feel they worked very well as sequels to 1. 1 was tightly plotted, with several clever ideas (especially the ending). It had a setting and premise which made the adventures really work on all levels. 2 and 3 sacrificed that for epic confrontations that were cool to watch but meant nothing, and basically were of the "heap more and more on the plate" school of sequel design.
So I agree, in a way. Even though on their own merits 2 and 3 were very enjoyable, turning 1 from a stand-alone into a series wasn't a good idea. It's sort of like Matrix 2 and 3 (though I thought those were considerably worse).
-
I know I'm in the vast minority here, but I actually prefer Dead Man's Chest to Curse of the Black Pearl. I enjoyed the third one pretty well, too. So I'm always surprised when I see people hating on them. Dead Man's Chest was darker than the first one, so I'm sure that's probably something that I like more about it. But Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann seemed vastly more complex (and to me, interesting) in the sequels than they were in the original.
Capt. Jack Sparrow, OTOH, has always been awesome.
-
Just to over-analyze Pirates of the Caribbean, I liked 1 the best (by far) and 2 the least. 3 was OK.
Here's why:
The only two characters that were pure joy for me to watch were Jack Sparrow and Barbosa. The first movie was mostly a split plot with Johnny Depp
carrying every scene in one thread and Geoffry Rush carrying every scene in the other. In the second movie, it was split between Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom and Geoffry Rush was only in the last 30 seconds. (Orlando Bloom is not Geoffrey Rush). The third movie had Geoffry Rush back, but he was mostly paired with Johnny Depp while the other plot lines had the other cast members.
I predict that when they make POTC 4 (and you know they will), they will go back to having two plot lines - one for Depp and one for Rush - with the two of them meeting in the middle of the movie and then again at the end of the movie. They even set the plot hook up that way at then end of 3.
-
Don't. Just Don't. It was cobbled together from screen tests and cutting room floors bits. There is no Paris opening sequence and the Niagra Falls scenes where Clark reveals himself to Lois is a nightmare. In differnet shots, Ken's glasses frames and hair is different.
As is explained on the DVD, the only way to resurrect that reveal shot was to do it with screen tests. Personally I think it was funnier than the "oops I fell into the fire" scene, because you really see the transformation from Clark to Superman.
Stop reading if you haven't seen the Donner cut:
The way he just starts standing up straight and gives Lois that LOOK is just killer.
I felt the Paris opening scene in the Lester version was kind of weak, actually. It really didn't fit with the rest of the story IMO.
The ending of the Donner version is what killed me, but after you watch it, watch the featurette so you can see WHY they went with that ending.
After having read "The Godfather" (what an amazing book), I really hope someone somewhere unearths a novel of the first two Superman films by Mario Puzo... or they at least release the screenplays, but I always have trouble reading those. What Puzo could have done with a Superman novel... I shudder to think of just how awesome it would have been.
-
I am surprised no one has mentioned The Terminator to date. The first was really an Indie flick, which while filmed on a shoestring budget was really a high concept science fiction film, filmed before Arnold Schwarzenegger was anyone other than a mass of man meat that could easily pass for a robot. It explored many paradoxes of time travel (like being able to pick your own father) it was excellent.
The second, although introducing stunning special effects, suffered from the fact Arnold had become a "star" and now needed to be the hero rather than the villain. It was more "big Hollywood" pyrotechnics than high science fiction. Still quite a watchable film. It also undermined the premise of the first film.
The last was quite truly awful. IT was awful because the premise negated everything the previous two had f stood for--The series had been based on the idea of non-determinism, that the future is not pre-determined, is mutable and changeable, and it is yours to choose. The last film squarely stated that NO that is not the case, it is written and so shall it be--making it all pointless. Three pointless movies.
-
Three pointless movies.
I heartily disagree! While I agree that the first of the three was the best, the second one was quite good, and had the nice twist where the "heartless evil" robot became good. The inital scene with Sarah meeting the T-Arnold was excellent.
The series had been based on the idea of non-determinism, that the future is not pre-determined, is mutable and changeable, and it is yours to choose.
Perhaps you read/heard something from the writers and/or directors about what they felt the idea was, but if you are basing this on your personal interpretation, I'm sorry but you couldn't be more wrong.
The whole premise (even in the first one) was that the future was immutable. It ends with Sarah Conner going off to the desert to await the "Final End". The idea of "...being able to pick your own father..." - absoultely not - if John Conner had sent any one else but the guy his Mom told him about then he wouldn't exist. Sarah's attempts to destroy Skynet before it came to life failed - they were destined to fail.
The only counterpoint in the moive plot against my idea is the comment that "they delayed the birth of Skynet", that the date told to Sarah was wrong - but that could be explained away by an off screen act where John tells his future-Dad to tell Sarah the wrong date because that was what Jonh had always been told.
The lack of choice extends to the Terminator character - the robot had no free will whatsoever. There are examples of reluctant heroes- - here's the pre-programmed hero. No choice it makes is outside the bounds of it's programming. It's not being heroic, it's being "controlled". It doesn't take the bullets or face the "villian" out of a sense of what is right or wrong. Even the bit at the end of T3 where John is yelling at the virused T-Arnold - that wasn't choice, that was a command.
This movie actually has strong resonance to my belief/understanding of Freewill/Predestination (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=838.0).
John Conner still has to make day to day choices and very often has no idea what the outcome will be - even though other people, future people, already know how his life ends.
-
On the Terminator:
I liked the first one, but I liked the second one more. I saw the third one, and it wasn't as good.
However, I have to agree with Michael about them ruining the first two.
First off, one of the themes in #2 was "There is no fate but what you make" meaning that the future was NOT written in stone.
Secondly, there was an alternate ending that was filmed and shown on TV in the US that had Sarah Conner as an old woman in a park with, IIRC, grand kids thinking about all the horrible things that never happened because she succeeded. Skynet never existed and no one else would ever know what she had done. It was shown on TV several years before they started on T3.
-
Terminator Franchise-
T1- Overall good
T2- Rambo with Robots
T3- Mindless Fun
T-Series: I give it 3 eps. before Fox cancells it, unless it is complete crap. Then it gets 5 seasons.
-
Duh-duh Duh-duh Duh-duh...
No one has mentioned that death spiral of Jaws?
Jaws was unbelievably good, tense, funny, the characters were all great fun to watch and easy to identify with, the writing was crips and the effects were excellent and most of them hold up pretty well even now.
Jaws 2 was sort of okay, but without Richard Dreyfus and Robert Shaw it was missing the chemistry that made the first film so good. Also, the epic tension wasn't there as it was in the first.
Jaws 3D er... wow. Gimmicy and stupid, AND the template for virtually every direect to video/DVD shark movie made since. On the plus side it had Malcolm McDowell in it, on the minus side it had everyone else in it.
Jaws: The Revenge is possibly the worst shark movie ever made (and I've reviewed several of them shot in Bulgaria on a budget of about $500,000). Mario Van Peebles, and Michael Caine faxing in performances, a mechanical shark made largely of gray canvas. A roaring shark killed by impalement on a bowsprit.
I am one of the few who dug T3. I actually liked the way the film ended and that did a lot for the stuff that came before it. I liked how they kept the T-1's mission murky until the end.
-
I only saw Jaws, never any of its sequels, so I can't comment on that.
As for Terminator, I'm in the camp that believes it doesn't belong in this thread. I do agree, however, with Clintmemo that the three sequels did not share a time-travel philosophy.
Terminator 1 made you think that the future was changable - Skynet thought it could get rid of John Conner by sending the terminator and killin his mother - but really it was a closed loop, as this led directly to John Conner's birth.
Terminator 2 changed this - it retconned Terminator 1 so that now Skynet created itself by sending the first Terminator - while it appears that this cements the time loop, it actually gave the Conners a way out. Destroy the chip, undo the loop. Future is changable.
Temrinator 3 has a third philosophy - this is not about closed time loops now, it's about destiny. You can prevent Skynet from arising one way, but it will arise another way. You can change how you get there, but not the direction.
No entry in this series ruined it, but each of them revised the world rather than just expand it.
-
I only saw Jaws, never any of its sequels, so I can't comment on that.
You really owe it to yourself to see Jaws: The Revenge. Get a bunch of witty friends together, some pizza, beer, whatever, and laugh yourself into convulsions.
-
How about Harry Potter?
My first exposure to HP was the first film, which cut out so little from the book (IMO) that, outside of there being less Quidditch than in the book, I thought it was probably the most complete of any of the movies.
The second was pretty close too. The third? Not too many cuts, but enough.
I very much disliked a great deal of the fourth film once I'd digested it. Visually very pleasing, with the best soundtrack of all of them (sorry, but despite John Williams's stellar work on the first one, I think Patrick Doyle's edged it JUST slightly). But it had soooooooo many cuts, and so much stuff was smashed together, that I was seriously worried about the fifth film. The fifth one redeemed itself a little, but there was still a lot of stuff cut that would've made the film so much better and only about 15 minutes longer.
And has anyone else noticed that the farther we go into the movies, the less Quidditch there's been? By the next film, it won't even have ever existed!
-
There wasn't any quidditch in the OotP movie! I did hear the director say it would probably be back in Halfblood Prince, though. :)
But overall, I'm not sure I agree. Do you think maybe you feel this way because you hadn't read the first book before you saw the first movie? I do agree that although some of the movies are pretty well made, they don't hold a candle to the books.
Sorcerer's Stone was as good as the book, and therefore my least favorite of the series. I thought Chamber of Secrets was a lot of fun. I really liked Prisoner of Azkaban (although there were a few cuts that really annoyed me -- specifically, why not say exactly who had created the Marauder's Map). Goblet of Fire was good but at the same time did some things that made me go, huh? I thought Order of the Phoenix did a lot of things right and didn't have any of the "huh" moments. Still, I'm more forgiving with the last two because those books were so thick and I know the filmmakers have to cut stuff in order to make a good movie.
OTOH, I really wish someone had the foresight (as they did with LOTR) to do extended cuts of the films, especially GoF and OotP. And if they cut too much from the last book, I'll be seriously annoyed.
-
Two things I love about T1:
1) It is, by far, the finest acting of Arnold's career. Yeah, yeah, bar so low you could trip over it, but think about it; when he was on the screen in Terminator, I really felt like I was seeing the character (a relentless killer robot from the future) and not Ah-nold. Name another Ah-nold movie where that's true. (Okay, the first Conan. Maybe.)
2) We see the beloved Polaroid Reese has of Sarah. He describes it to her, tells her how much time he spent looking at it, wondering what she was thinking about when it was taken. At the end of the movie, of course, we see moment when the picture was taken....
... and she was thinking of him.
Took me several viewings to make that connection, but I got chills when I finally did.
-
T1 had the benefit of being a low budget film. Films with massive budgets are shoved into the public consciousness even if they don't deserve it (Armageddon). If T1 had been a piece of junk, it would only be remembered as "that movie the 7 time Mr. Universe was in".
Low budget movies have to have something special to make it into the public consciousness.
-
There wasn't any quidditch in the OotP movie! I did hear the director say it would probably be back in Halfblood Prince, though. :)
But overall, I'm not sure I agree. Do you think maybe you feel this way because you hadn't read the first book before you saw the first movie? I do agree that although some of the movies are pretty well made, they don't hold a candle to the books.
I would have to say yes and no. I think that, as someone who was resistant to the very idea of Harry Potter, had there not been a first film I never would have bothered to read the books. I wouldn't say the movie was better than the book, but it was truly excellent.
-
I only saw Jaws, never any of its sequels, so I can't comment on that.
You really owe it to yourself to see Jaws: The Revenge. Get a bunch of witty friends together, some pizza, beer, whatever, and laugh yourself into convulsions.
Michael Caine was once asked how he felt about being in Jaws: The Revenge. He responded with:
I've never seen it. I have, however, seen the house it bought and that's lovely.
-
I only saw Jaws, never any of its sequels, so I can't comment on that.
You really owe it to yourself to see Jaws: The Revenge. Get a bunch of witty friends together, some pizza, beer, whatever, and laugh yourself into convulsions.
Michael Caine was once asked how he felt about being in Jaws: The Revenge. He responded with:
I've never seen it. I have, however, seen the house it bought and that's lovely.
That's hilarious.
On the Terminator movies...I will admit that I like all three of them, but I think the original is the best. The second had the most going visually for it (and excellent pacing). I thought the third film could have been stronger, but the ending was fantastic.
What bugs me about the Terminator sequels, though, is why an AI like Skynet decided it would be a good idea to send back 3 terminators at different points in time to kill Sarah and John Connor? Why didn't they just send three terminators back in time to kill Sarah? I just can't imagine Skynet thinking...Terminator T-800 back to 1984...check. Terminator T-1000 back to 1991...check. Sexy Terminator back to 2003...check. I also have a hard time imagining John Connor (and his wife) doing something similiar, although I think somewhere in a director's cut or script of T2, he did send Kyle Reese back and then found the T-800 and sent him back as well.
-
What bugs me about the Terminator sequels, though, is why an AI like Skynet decided it would be a good idea to send back 3 terminators at different points in time to kill Sarah and John Connor? Why didn't they just send three terminators back in time to kill Sarah? I just can't imagine Skynet thinking...Terminator T-800 back to 1984...check. Terminator T-1000 back to 1991...check. Sexy Terminator back to 2003...check. I also have a hard time imagining John Connor (and his wife) doing something similiar, although I think somewhere in a director's cut or script of T2, he did send Kyle Reese back and then found the T-800 and sent him back as well.
I think it was also supposed to be the case that skynet didn't send all three terminators at once, but that it was developing more and more advances terminators and sending them back every time it hit a milestone.
Of course, that doesn't explain why did it send them, not only to different timepoints, but to these timepoints? Why not send the T-1000, for instance, *earlier* than the first terminator movie, and have it catch the totally unsupsecting Sarah Conner before she was warned by Reese? Why not kill her as a child?
(one possible explanation is that the time travelling can only work a fixed amount of time - say, that the time portal can only take you exactly 27 years back or something. Of course, if this was the case, it was never explained. Plus, why is skynet working on better robots but not on better time-travel tech?).
-
This is always the problem with introducing time travel into a story -it's the classic paradox - if Skynet succeeded in killing Sarah Connor, it would never know to kill Sarah Conner (and send a T-1 to do it) because John Conner would never exist, but then John Conner would exist so .....
Short of the parrallel time line theory that indicates an infinite number of divergent timelines - you can't change the past. Skynet knows that the T-1 didn't kill Sarah because history tells him so - so why did it bother...stupid computer
Also when T-2 came out, I read somewhere that the logic of the movies was in fact that Skynet sent the T-1000 back first to kill John, but the T-1 proved suprising effective and resiliant, so it sent a T-1 back even further to take out Sarah. But again this is just dumb...
As for the meanings of the movies - I don't remember T-2 all that well, just Arnie submerging himself in the molten metal near the end, so I can only go off my feelings. As for the extra ending - that was in the novelization of T-2 as well when it came out, and I just thought it was dopey...
-
Just saw Die Hard 4. This was just bad bad bad. The first one was really a great flick. My willing since of disbelief was set low and didn't really need to be pushed up. I had my setting all the way up for the new one and it was cracked by about 15 minutes in.
-
The Matrix.
I thought the third was a bit disappointing, but I really liked the second one. I'm sure I'm in the minority on that.
The problem is that Reloaded and Revolutions are the same movie, split in half.
Reloaded spends the entire movie introducing odd, mysterious characters and setting up beautiful little questions, and then in Revolutions none of it gets any resolution, and all the questions Reloaded ask are just ignored without comment.
So the first half of the movie is pretty good, but then it just collapses under its own weight in the second half. Conclusion: The movie sucks.
-
It wasn't me that mentioned Batman and Superman, but just for the record:
Batman: Excellent - Jack Nicholson as the Joker was fabulous.
Batman Returns: Liked Michelle Pfieffer as Catwoman, hated Danny Devito as the Penguin
Batman Forever: Barely remember this, only remember not liking it very much and being ticked that they took a really interesting villain (Twoface) and turning him into a farce. Seems like this was just another Jim Carey movie
Batman and Robin: Godawful! How can a director take that much screen talent and make such a bad movie?
Batman Begins: LOVED IT! Best movie of the group. I Can't wait for more.
Dark Knight, with Heath Ledger as a very dark Joker, coming to cinemas soon!
Chris Nolan is possibly the greatest director of his generation.
-
Pretty much any superhero movie gets worse with each sequel - mostly because they over do it trying to "top" the previous one. (haven't seen FF2 - this may be the exception).
One exception is X2 - X-Men United which definitely surpassed its predecessor. (The third, not so great, but watcheable.)
What's "FF2"?
Just saw Die Hard 4. This was just bad bad bad. The first one was really a great flick. My willing since of disbelief was set low and didn't really need to be pushed up. I had my setting all the way up for the new one and it was cracked by about 15 minutes in.
I didn't think much of the second (Die Harder) but loved the third one with Samuel Jackson and Jeremy Irons. Haven't seen the most recent yet. And the original is still in my list of top 5 Christmas movies ;D
-
Pretty much any superhero movie gets worse with each sequel - mostly because they over do it trying to "top" the previous one. (haven't seen FF2 - this may be the exception).
One exception is X2 - X-Men United which definitely surpassed its predecessor. (The third, not so great, but watcheable.)
What's "FF2"?
Fantastic Four 2. If it's better than the first one, it's only because the bar was so, so low.
-
Pretty much any superhero movie gets worse with each sequel - mostly because they over do it trying to "top" the previous one. (haven't seen FF2 - this may be the exception).
One exception is X2 - X-Men United which definitely surpassed its predecessor. (The third, not so great, but watcheable.)
What's "FF2"?
Fantastic Four 2. If it's better than the first one, it's only because the bar was so, so low.
Ah. Haven't seen either. What I've heard about them doesn't encourage me to do so.
-
Oh, and they're not SF so maybe not quite relevant to this forum, but They Call Me Mister Tibbs was a pathetic sequel to In the Heat of the Night (I never watched the TV show that came afterward so can't pass judgment on that.)
-
I have a massive advantage when it comes to comic book movies. I never read comic books. I'm not offended by any changes made to the stories. I can just take them as stories.
Oh, and they're not SF so maybe not quite relevant to this forum, but They Call Me Mister Tibbs was a pathetic sequel to In the Heat of the Night (I never watched the TV show that came afterward so can't pass judgment on that.)
This threads is for any type of film. The first example given was Rocky.
-
Cannonball Run ;). Caddyshack. Bring it On ;).
-
Cannonball Run ;). Caddyshack. Bring it On ;).
Were the first films any good to begin with? (OK, I'll give you Caddyshack, maybe.)
-
Man, I like the Bring it on movies (If you've not seen them, here is an excellent synopsis (http://www.the-isb.com/?p=285). But, as cheerleader movies go, it's not a patch on Sugar & Spice (http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0186589/), in which a pregnant cheerleader plans a bank robbery by watching Point Break.
Movies that were spoiled by their sequels?
Beastmaster. Friday. Any Disney animated feature based on a classic fairytale.
-
Cannonball Run ;). Caddyshack. Bring it On ;).
Were the first films any good to begin with? (OK, I'll give you Caddyshack, maybe.)
No, Caddyshack had its moments, but the other two were terrible I'd say.
-
Every Psycho succeeding the first Alfred Hitchcock movie. I'm surprised the Zombie Invasion didn't start with the spontaneous reanimation of Alfred Hitchcock's corpse from the violation done to that movie.
-
Pretty much any superhero movie gets worse with each sequel - mostly because they over do it trying to "top" the previous one. (haven't seen FF2 - this may be the exception).
One exception is X2 - X-Men United which definitely surpassed its predecessor. (The third, not so great, but watcheable.)
What's "FF2"?
Fantastic Four 2. If it's better than the first one, it's only because the bar was so, so low.
Ah. Haven't seen either. What I've heard about them doesn't encourage me to do so.
In case anyone is wavering: don't bother. Everything cool about this movie was in the trailer.
http://www.youtube.com/v/Y3EC_V9A-rw&hl=en
-
Pretty much any superhero movie gets worse with each sequel - mostly because they over do it trying to "top" the previous one. (haven't seen FF2 - this may be the exception).
One exception is X2 - X-Men United which definitely surpassed its predecessor. (The third, not so great, but watcheable.)
What's "FF2"?
Fantastic Four 2. If it's better than the first one, it's only because the bar was so, so low.
Ah. Haven't seen either. What I've heard about them doesn't encourage me to do so.
In case anyone is wavering: don't bother. Everything cool about this movie was in the trailer.
I always thought the Silver Surfer was a good guy. As I have stated before, I never read comics.
-
I always thought the Silver Surfer was a good guy. As I have stated before, I never read comics.
Well, he's not exactly a bad guy. It's just that his boss likes to eat planets, and sometimes people live on those planets. It's SS's job to warn people o those planets that they might want to make a crash investment in space travel...
-
As I understand it, he was somewhat of a bad guy (or at least a guy employed by a bad guy), who turned on his boss and became a good guy.
I think.
I haven't actually watched the movies.
-
Question:
My wife and I have never read a single thing about FF or SS. We saw the first movie and thought it was OK popcorn, comic book movie fun. Should we see the second film?? It's already on the Netflix list, although it is pretty far down.
-
Question:
My wife and I have never read a single thing about FF or SS. We saw the first movie and thought it was OK popcorn, comic book movie fun. Should we see the second film?? It's already on the Netflix list, although it is pretty far down.
I wouldn't bother. Watch Darkman or The Phantom instead. They're also not very good, but they're more fun.
-
Question:
My wife and I have never read a single thing about FF or SS. We saw the first movie and thought it was OK popcorn, comic book movie fun. Should we see the second film?? It's already on the Netflix list, although it is pretty far down.
I wouldn't bother. Watch Darkman or The Phantom instead. They're also not very good, but they're more fun.
Or for good superhero flix, get the X-Men trilogy if you haven't already.
-
I wouldn't say "destroyed", but I really don't think "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure" needed a sequel. It was pretty awesome all on its own. "Bogus Journey" was pretty funny, though, especially with William Sadler's great interpretation of Death.
-
I wouldn't say "destroyed", but I really don't think "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure" needed a sequel. It was pretty awesome all on its own. "Bogus Journey" was pretty funny, though, especially with William Sadler's great interpretation of Death.
I loved Bogus Journey it was an awesome goof on Berman's The Seventh Seal.
-
Question:
My wife and I have never read a single thing about FF or SS. We saw the first movie and thought it was OK popcorn, comic book movie fun. Should we see the second film?? It's already on the Netflix list, although it is pretty far down.
I wouldn't bother. Watch Darkman or The Phantom instead. They're also not very good, but they're more fun.
Or for good superhero flix, get the X-Men trilogy if you haven't already.
Saw Darkman. Danny Elfman's music was the best part.
Saw all three X-men. We liked them. ::Ducks and runs.::
-
Question:
My wife and I have never read a single thing about FF or SS. We saw the first movie and thought it was OK popcorn, comic book movie fun. Should we see the second film?? It's already on the Netflix list, although it is pretty far down.
I wouldn't bother. Watch Darkman or The Phantom instead. They're also not very good, but they're more fun.
Or for good superhero flix, get the X-Men trilogy if you haven't already.
Although I'd stop at X2. I blame the Rat.
Russell, I've heard almost universally that the second FF film was better than the first. Still can't vouch for it personally.
-
Question:
My wife and I have never read a single thing about FF or SS. We saw the first movie and thought it was OK popcorn, comic book movie fun. Should we see the second film?? It's already on the Netflix list, although it is pretty far down.
I wouldn't bother. Watch Darkman or The Phantom instead. They're also not very good, but they're more fun.
Or for good superhero flix, get the X-Men trilogy if you haven't already.
Although I'd stop at X2. I blame the Rat.
Russell, I've heard almost universally that the second FF film was better than the first. Still can't vouch for it personally.
Ah-bah-wha?? ???
I thought there was quite a lot to like about X3... and not so much about FF2. I think, upon reflection that I was mostly disappointed that the Silver Surfer did really "do" anything, they pulled a lot of cheesy plot gags with the wedding, and the Millenium dome figured into the thing somehow. (Is anyone ever going to figure out what that's for?)
-
If you liked the first FF, then sure, go for the second one. It's cheezy, no doubt. But it has some great moments. And I have a huge soft spot for the Silver Surfer, and they did a pretty good job on him. Apparently they're looking at giving him his own film, which would be great.
Now don't get me wrong - FF2 isn't a good movie, and it's not generally recommended. But if you enjoyed the first one, nothing in the second should put you off from it.
-
Question:
My wife and I have never read a single thing about FF or SS. We saw the first movie and thought it was OK popcorn, comic book movie fun. Should we see the second film?? It's already on the Netflix list, although it is pretty far down.
I wouldn't bother. Watch Darkman or The Phantom instead. They're also not very good, but they're more fun.
Or for good superhero flix, get the X-Men trilogy if you haven't already.
Although I'd stop at X2. I blame the Rat.
Russell, I've heard almost universally that the second FF film was better than the first. Still can't vouch for it personally.
Ah-bah-wha?? ???
I thought there was quite a lot to like about X3... and not so much about FF2. I think, upon reflection that I was mostly disappointed that the Silver Surfer did really "do" anything, they pulled a lot of cheesy plot gags with the wedding, and the Millenium dome figured into the thing somehow. (Is anyone ever going to figure out what that's for?)
Keep in mind that I think X2 is one of the two best comic book movies ever made. It took a really good comic book movie and made a better one on top of, and set the stage for something GREAT to come with Jean's death. I could go on and on about why I hated X3. And the more I think about it, I don't really blame the Rat. He had a bad script to start with and a studio that was racing to get a movie to the theater before Singer and Superman Returns.
Spoilers after this point. Just saying.
Jean Grey was a non-character. Essentially, she's the most powerful woman in the universe. And what does she do? Stand behind Magneto for the majority of the movie and scowl.
Another virus/drug that makes mutants not mutants anymore? Ugh. Based off another mutant? Double Ugh. What about the Dark Phoenix!?!?!?!
Scott died in the first 20 minutes. I don't like killing a character like that, but I can understand why they did it. However, killing him without any kind of emotional cinch = poor writing. (Compare Jean dying at the end of X2.)
Wolverine had VERY little to do and was really very much a passive character. Wolverine, by nature, IS NOT a passive character.
The Iceman/Kitty Pryde/Rogue love triangle.
One thing that made it feel very much like a comic book was the ever-hating Retcon at the film's end. Everything that happened in the movie doesn't matter because the mutant anti-virus was bullshit. At the end of the movie Magneto can move a metal chess piece. And Professor X isn't really dead. He transferred his consciousness to someone else.
I will say I did like Kelsey Grammar's Beast. And I'm looking forward to the Wolverine movie (especially since they have a solid writer and a solid director).
-
Yeah... I can certainly see your points. I guess I didn't interpret things the way you did... wishful thinking on my part? :)
I took the virus/drug strand as an allegory for homosexuality (because so many folks get wrapped around the "is it genetic or choice" question - thus finding a "cure" would be a troublesome thing indeed). They also seemed to be trying to explore questions about when it is appropriate for an oppressed minority to abandon the system... a question that democracy has wrestled with for millenia.
Fair cop on the Jean Grey/Dark Phoenix under-utilization and Wolverine's basic passivity... but I think that's because they were trying to embed too much thematic tension and forgot to translate that into physical action onscreen. The conflict within Jean between her power and her conscience mirrored the outside conflicts, such as the conflict between Prof. X and Magneto (working out the "freedom fighter vs. terrorist" question) and between herself and Wolverine (which in turn represented her internal struggle between her ego and id (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id%2C_ego%2C_and_super-ego)).
Or I could have just been reading too much into it... I do that when they don't give me enough to watch on camera. ;)
-
Just thought of another one. Mortal Kombat, while not a great movie, was still fun, but Annihilation was lame, and they didn't even keep Christopher Lambert as Raiden. Just about the only thing they did right was to kill Johnny Cage within the first five minutes :)
-
Yeah... I can certainly see your points. I guess I didn't interpret things the way you did... wishful thinking on my part? :)
I took the virus/drug strand as an allegory for homosexuality (because so many folks get wrapped around the "is it genetic or choice" question - thus finding a "cure" would be a troublesome thing indeed). They also seemed to be trying to explore questions about when it is appropriate for an oppressed minority to abandon the system... a question that democracy has wrestled with for millenia.
Fair cop on the Jean Grey/Dark Phoenix under-utilization and Wolverine's basic passivity... but I think that's because they were trying to embed too much thematic tension and forgot to translate that into physical action onscreen. The conflict within Jean between her power and her conscience mirrored the outside conflicts, such as the conflict between Prof. X and Magneto (working out the "freedom fighter vs. terrorist" question) and between herself and Wolverine (which in turn represented her internal struggle between her ego and id (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id%2C_ego%2C_and_super-ego)).
Or I could have just been reading too much into it... I do that when they don't give me enough to watch on camera. ;)
my big queston is , why did the big W nail jean when the whole flore was literd whith mutant fixing hipodermiks?
-
Yeah... I can certainly see your points. I guess I didn't interpret things the way you did... wishful thinking on my part? :)
I took the virus/drug strand as an allegory for homosexuality (because so many folks get wrapped around the "is it genetic or choice" question - thus finding a "cure" would be a troublesome thing indeed). They also seemed to be trying to explore questions about when it is appropriate for an oppressed minority to abandon the system... a question that democracy has wrestled with for millenia.
Fair cop on the Jean Grey/Dark Phoenix under-utilization and Wolverine's basic passivity... but I think that's because they were trying to embed too much thematic tension and forgot to translate that into physical action onscreen. The conflict within Jean between her power and her conscience mirrored the outside conflicts, such as the conflict between Prof. X and Magneto (working out the "freedom fighter vs. terrorist" question) and between herself and Wolverine (which in turn represented her internal struggle between her ego and id (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id%2C_ego%2C_and_super-ego)).
Or I could have just been reading too much into it... I do that when they don't give me enough to watch on camera. ;)
my big queston is , why did the big W nail jean when the whole flore was literd whith mutant fixing hipodermiks?
Same reason people like emo and opera... it's better to die an angsty death than it is to fix whatever's wrong and be stuck livin'. (Besides, that Retcon DKT outlined should teach us that you should never say "never"....)
-
I took the virus/drug strand as an allegory for homosexuality (because so many folks get wrapped around the "is it genetic or choice" question - thus finding a "cure" would be a troublesome thing indeed). They also seemed to be trying to explore questions about when it is appropriate for an oppressed minority to abandon the system... a question that democracy has wrestled with for millenia.
Definitely. And I don't have a problem with that -- at their best, that was always what the X-Men comics were about, it just felt like that's not only exactly the last movie was about, but they used the exact same device. I'm good with stories that deal about prejudice and being different. I just think there's a lot of different ways that topic can be explored than yet again creating a vaccine for the mutant virus.
It will be interesting to see if they make another X-Men movie. I'd love to see more, especially if they brought back Bryan Singer to direct (thought that doesn't look likely). I know they're planning on some Wolverine movies (which should hopefully be good), a Magneto origin movie (which will hopefully not be Young Hannibal Lecter), and a X-Men kid movie (not really interested, to be honest. If you're going to do a comic book movie about teens, do Runaways (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785118764/escapepod-20)).
Moderator: Did the link thing
-
I took the virus/drug strand as an allegory for homosexuality (because so many folks get wrapped around the "is it genetic or choice" question - thus finding a "cure" would be a troublesome thing indeed). They also seemed to be trying to explore questions about when it is appropriate for an oppressed minority to abandon the system... a question that democracy has wrestled with for millenia.
Definitely. And I don't have a problem with that -- at their best, that was always what the X-Men comics were about, it just felt like that's not only exactly the last movie was about, but they used the exact same device. I'm good with stories that deal about prejudice and being different. I just think there's a lot of different ways that topic can be explored than yet again creating a vaccine for the mutant virus.
It will be interesting to see if they make another X-Men movie. I'd love to see more, especially if they brought back Bryan Singer to direct (thought that doesn't look likely). I know they're planning on some Wolverine movies (which should hopefully be good), a Magneto origin movie (which will hopefully not be Young Hannibal Lecter), and a X-Men kid movie (not really interested, to be honest. If you're going to do a comic book movie about teens, do Runaways (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785118764/escapepod-20)).
I thought they covered Magneto's origin thoroughly enough... but I could certainly see him in a heroic position. He interests me as a villain because he isn't evil - he makes choices that I wouldn't make, but I can respect what he's trying to do. And Sir Ian rocks the otherwise lame helmet... could anyone else look so dignified in that thing?
-
How about Harry Potter?
Qualifier: saw the first four films, read the first six books, saw the fifth film, and read the final book.
On the films:
Loved the first two, with the second being my favorite.
Really didn't like the third at all, but when I read the third book it turned out to be my favorite of all the seven.
The fourth film was good for the most part, but really fell down at the end by failing to convey the gravity of the situation; it almost seemed like the filmmakers were trying to end on an "up" note in spite of it all.
I didn't expect much of the fifth film, nor do I expect much of the sixth, because the fifth and sixth books were mostly just Rowling spinning her wheels. Thankfully she regained enough traction to make the seventh book a worthy conclusion, but it will be difficult to adapt well to the screen.
[editing to add that movies based on series of novels are an entirely different barrel of fish from the original scope of this thread.]
-
I was a bit disapointed by the sequals of Cube.
Cube was awesome, it blew me away. The sequals were okay, but they were a bit too much: take the idea of the original Cube and make it more flashy, colorful, Hollywood. It fell flat while it could have been so goooood, if only someone had thought about the concept a bit longer.
That what mostly happens with sequals: just making sequals to make a lot of money and completely let go of the great concept of the first movie. Is it really that hard for creative minds to think of a good sequal? I hope not, but it hasn't been done a lot. I think, if you have the briljant mind to come up with a strong first movie, you must have the 'power' to create a briljant sequal, going deeper on the psychological level you present in the first movie. If not, then think about the concept a few years longer or please please please, _don't_ make a sequal.