 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
