 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Um, do you mean Hancock or Hitch?
Heh. Hancock. Altho Hitch was good too.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > Matrix > Reloaded > Revolutions
>
> Hey, you just listed them in the order you saw them! Put some thought into it,
> man! ;-)
Still true, anyway. :P
Really, what was the big impact of the first movie: suggesting this reality is
all but a simulation. You can't beat that in sequels.
> I do like the dock battle in the third film tho. And there's that
> moment of poetic beauty when the ship breaks through the clouds on that
> parabolic arc...
Yes, first time they see the sun for real.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> True. I expected both Hitchcock
Hancock, right?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I like how they managed to make Shrek II *better* than Shrek I. As in,
> geniunely better. Actually, there have been a few films like that. All
> too often, a film comes out, it's a success, they make a sequel - even
> if that doesn't make any sense. But sometimes, they manage to make a
> really good sequel.
Terminator, Terminator 2.
Max Max, Mad Max 2.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > I like how they managed to make Shrek II *better* than Shrek I. As in,
> > geniunely better. Actually, there have been a few films like that. All
> > too often, a film comes out, it's a success, they make a sequel - even
> > if that doesn't make any sense. But sometimes, they manage to make a
> > really good sequel.
>
> Terminator, Terminator 2.
> Max Max, Mad Max 2.
Alien, Aliens.
"Hey, you've just got a hard-on for Cameron!"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
>
> More generally, I think people tend to start watching movies with far too much
> 'expectation' baggage, whether that be 'fanon' (good word!), hype, familiarity
> with the adapted source material, or whatever.
I don't believe that's more true for sequels. I think sequels just suck.
More money, more people involved ==> More fights, more sex, more humor,
a wider demographic range for the characters, and more car chases are
added not to make the movie better for the original fans, but to make it
"good enough" for the widest possible range of people.
Even when these additional elements are good, the result can be
disappointing. No matter how well done, it's rare that the blockbuster
formula results in anything better than a "popcorn movie."
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay <sha### [at] nonenone> wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
> >
> > More generally, I think people tend to start watching movies with far too much
> > 'expectation' baggage, whether that be 'fanon' (good word!), hype, familiarity
> > with the adapted source material, or whatever.
>
> I don't believe that's more true for sequels. I think sequels just suck.
>
> More money, more people involved ==> More fights, more sex, more humor,
> a wider demographic range for the characters, and more car chases are
> added not to make the movie better for the original fans, but to make it
> "good enough" for the widest possible range of people.
Or more jokes per frame in the case of Shrek 2.
Anyway, I think Terminator 2, Shrek 2 and Aliens are good examples of exceptions
to the general sequel-suckage rule.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I like how they managed to make Shrek II *better* than Shrek I. As in,
> geniunely better. Actually, there have been a few films like that. All
Not for me. Shrek I was great. Shrek II only had its moments of
greatness. Didn't bother with III.
> Another example would be Back To The Future. Every single episode was cool.
True.
> Similarly, Pirates of the Caribean. First one was great. Second one was
> great. Third one was... hmm. It all kinda went a bit wrong, eh?
Didn't like the third. Liked the second when I saw it, but when I saw
it again, it seemed silly. Not so for the first - worth watching more
than once.
--
186,000 miles/sec: Not just a good idea, it's the LAW.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Terminator, Terminator 2.
I'm one of the few people I've met who liked the first a lot more.
> Max Max, Mad Max 2.
So 2 is worth watching? I saw the first and didn't care much for it...
--
186,000 miles/sec: Not just a good idea, it's the LAW.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> > Another example would be Back To The Future. Every single episode was cool.
>
> True.
I have to say Back to the Future is just one movie. Really. I mean, it was as
economic to shoot the sequels as it was economic to shoot the whole Groundhog
Day movie, as most of the scenes are straight repetitions from previous scenes.
Must be a consequence of time loops... :P
> > Similarly, Pirates of the Caribean. First one was great. Second one was
> > great. Third one was... hmm. It all kinda went a bit wrong, eh?
>
> Didn't like the third. Liked the second when I saw it, but when I saw
> it again, it seemed silly. Not so for the first - worth watching more
> than once.
At first I hated the whole franchise. Then, suddenly, it grew on me. It's
good, solid entertainment, I guess.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
