 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> I'm one of the few people I've met who liked the first a lot more.
I liked Alien better than Aliens, but they were all good.
>> Max Max, Mad Max 2.
> So 2 is worth watching? I saw the first and didn't care much for it...
MM2 is far better than MM1. MM3 is ehn. I don't remember much, but I
remember I never had the urge to watch it a second time.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Star Trek, Star Trek II
*drumbeat, cymbal hit*
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/10/2009 9:19 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> I'm one of the few people I've met who liked the first a lot more.
>
> I liked Alien better than Aliens, but they were all good.
I disagree. Alien and Aliens were both excellent (and which is better
depends on what mood I'm in), but the other two were definitely NOT good.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/9/2009 7:41 PM, nemesis wrote:
> 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.
The funny thing is, it wasn't anywhere near being a new idea. Sci fi
writers have been working this concept for decades, and philosophers a
similar one (Life is just a dream) for millenia.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/9/2009 11:28 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:16:50 -0700, Chambers wrote:
>
>> http://xkcd.com/566/
>>
>> Ten years already... heck, I still can't believe that Jurassic Park was
>> made 15 years ago! I know people who are younger than that!
>
> I'm still laughing about the xkcd comic. :-)
>
> Jim
I think it's one of the best I've seen for a while :)
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> but the other two were definitely NOT good.
The third one brought closure (or should have), but was a kind of dumb
premise overall. It was definitely the weakest of the series.
A comedy about a bunch of rampaging Aliens is going to be weird no matter
how you work it, but I liked the fourth one. It was quite different, tho.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Sci fi writers have been working this concept for decades,
If you want a *thoughtful* treatment of the subject, incidentally, try Greg
Egan's "Permutation City".
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:50:07 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> On 4/9/2009 11:28 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:16:50 -0700, Chambers wrote:
>>
>>> http://xkcd.com/566/
>>>
>>> Ten years already... heck, I still can't believe that Jurassic Park
>>> was made 15 years ago! I know people who are younger than that!
>>
>> I'm still laughing about the xkcd comic. :-)
>>
>> Jim
>
> I think it's one of the best I've seen for a while :)
I would agree with that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> On 4/9/2009 7:41 PM, nemesis wrote:
> > 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.
>
> The funny thing is, it wasn't anywhere near being a new idea. Sci fi
> writers have been working this concept for decades, and philosophers a
> similar one (Life is just a dream) for millenia.
Yes, but they brought it mainstream and got kung-fu, Buddhism and Christianism,
cool looks and a foreboding 90's workplace and conspiracy theories into the
mix. It was just the right movie at the right time. :)
Anyone out there read Neuromancer?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/10/2009 8:35 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> but the other two were definitely NOT good.
>
> The third one brought closure (or should have), but was a kind of dumb
> premise overall. It was definitely the weakest of the series.
>
> A comedy about a bunch of rampaging Aliens is going to be weird no
> matter how you work it, but I liked the fourth one. It was quite
> different, tho.
>
It was a comedy? I'll have to watch it again - that would definitely
change my perspective of it.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> On 4/10/2009 9:19 AM, Darren New wrote:
> > Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> >> I'm one of the few people I've met who liked the first a lot more.
> >
> > I liked Alien better than Aliens, but they were all good.
> I disagree. Alien and Aliens were both excellent (and which is better
> depends on what mood I'm in), but the other two were definitely NOT good.
I admire Alien because it was made in 1979, yet looks better than many
SFX movies made 20 years later. Its design and special effects put many
other "big" scifi movies of the era to shame (very especially the first
Star Wars movie).
The 1980's was the era where movie-making technology (very especially
puppeteering) was advancing in really giant leaps, so Aliens, made in 1986,
had a huge advantage over the first movie from the technology point of view.
Regardless, it's also a very good achievement of the era where CGI had yet
not spoiled movie-making.
If you look Alien 3 (the original, not the director's cut) today, you would
think they used CGI for the alien. Surprisingly, it's 100% puppeteering.
I find it marvelous how they succeeded in making it so mobile, agile and
versatile with just puppeteering. It really doesn't need to be ashamed
against later CGI-ridden movies. I admire it for that.
(Of course the director's cut, made years later, was ruined by them adding
CGI scenes.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> > 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.
Personally I found the second and third movies rather chaotic, confusing
and hard to follow.
It's so long since I saw the first movie that I don't even remember what
happened there, but I think it was much easier to follow.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> It was a comedy? I'll have to watch it again - that would definitely
> change my perspective of it.
Yes. Weaver said she always wanted to be a comedian.
"Hey, you fought these things before, didn't you?"
"Yeah."
"What did you do?"
"I died."
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> cool looks
The semi-humorous expression "<some color> is the new black" comes, as far
as I know, from the fact that black was the "cool" color (especially in
clothing) in the 90's, and the Matrix was the pinnacle of this phenomenon.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/10/2009 10:20 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Anyone out there read Neuromancer?
Oh, yes, good book :) I didn't really get the ending, though, but I've
only read it once and that was years ago. I'll have to take another
look, sometime.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
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
> 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.
Especially considering they hadn't planned the story for a sequel. They were
surprised by the success of the first one, and didn't expect they'd have to
make a sequel.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Best alternative Matrix interpretation ever:
Neo is a junkie (see his junkie friends at the beginning of the movie)
who gets post-effects of acid trips (hallucinations like suddenly losing
your mouth or having a bug inserted in your body). Morpheus is a drug
dealer who offers him some new wonder drug (just listen to what he says
and tell me it doesn't sound like something a drug dealer would talk) and
the rest of the movie is just an acid trip (starting with the melting
mirror and going from there to worse).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Best alternative Matrix interpretation ever:
>
> Neo is a junkie (see his junkie friends at the beginning of the movie)
> who gets post-effects of acid trips (hallucinations like suddenly losing
> your mouth or having a bug inserted in your body). Morpheus is a drug
> dealer who offers him some new wonder drug (just listen to what he says
> and tell me it doesn't sound like something a drug dealer would talk) and
> the rest of the movie is just an acid trip (starting with the melting
> mirror and going from there to worse).
And in the end of the trilogy he dies of overdose. :P
It does make sense, true. I like works open to interpretation. :)
http://tinyurl.com/c2tplc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
>
> Especially considering they hadn't planned the story for a sequel. They were
> surprised by the success of the first one, and didn't expect they'd have to
> make a sequel.
Same goes for Pirates of the Caribean. Which is why the first movie has
a bit of everything in it, and was designed as basically a
self-contained story, while the second movie ends obviously setting up
for the third.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp 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.
I'm not sure Terminator 2 is *better* than the first one - but certainly
its equal.
I haven't seen Mad Max, or Max Max. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
