#298026 - 07/05/2007 21:05
Re: Sequelae
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
|
Yeah, Toy Story 2 could well have been much worse (particularly if Disney had made it on their own without Pixar's help). Still, the non-sequel Pixar films have just been one amazing film after the next (even Cars, which I seemed to enjoy far more than the average reviewer). If I was forced to pick a "worst" Pixar film, it would probably be Toy Story 2 (despite it being so much better than anything to ever come from, oh, Dreamworks animation group). I was about to write a rant about the inspired awfulness of Leonard Part 6 (Bill Cosby, gone horribly, horribly wrong), but that led me to a Wikipedia page on the worst films ever. Wow. Great list.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#298027 - 07/05/2007 21:35
Re: Sequelae
[Re: DWallach]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 06/04/2005
Posts: 2026
Loc: Seattle transplant
|
Quote:
Wow. Great list.
As is IMDB's bottom 100!
http://www.imdb.com/chart/bottom
Even The Milpitas Monster didn't make that.
/lives in Milpitas.
_________________________
10101311 (20GB- backup empeg)
10101466 (2x60GB, Eutronix/GreenLights Blue) (Stolen!)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#298028 - 08/05/2007 01:59
Re: Sequelae
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12341
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
Quote:
I actually really liked Toy Story 2.
Oh, I did as well. I didn't say otherwise! I was pointing out that there is indeed a Pixar sequel. I think Disney once put a lot of pressure on them to make more sequels (so unlike Disney, huh?), but they refused.
_________________________
Matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#298029 - 08/05/2007 01:59
Re: Sequelae
[Re: Robotic]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
Quote:
Godzilla (originals- all sequels equal the crap of the first)
Wow. To each their own, I suppose. I saw (and still see) the original Godzilla film as an amazing piece of art. I mean, when you put it in context (two years after the end of the American Occupation, after being the target of multiple atom bombs, etc.), there's a lot of meat on them bones.
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#298030 - 09/05/2007 00:04
Re: Sequelae
[Re: Dignan]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 19/09/2002
Posts: 2494
Loc: East Coast, USA
|
Gotta weigh in on Pixar (who's the only reason I even regard Disney as an entity). Toy Story 2 felt so contrieved and disjointed. But it was good. For the worst Pixar film, I'd have to struggle to say "Finding Nemo." Seriously, you can't have a Pixar/Disney film with no bad guy. And that school of fish thing was pointless (but it kept that voice actor in, which I guess was the point). Cars was an instant classic.
How do you all rate the sequels to these more time-tested films:
Jaws
Rocky
Godfather (above comment noted)
.... Police Academy??
_________________________
- FireFox31 110gig MKIIa (30+80), Eutronix lights, 32 meg stacked RAM, Filener orange gel lens, Greenlights Lit Buttons green set
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#298031 - 09/05/2007 00:16
Re: Sequelae
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Terminator 2 (though I never saw the first)
How can you say that the one you saw was better than the one you didn't see? Personally, I think you're totally wrong.
I think I detect a pattern: Bitt likes smaller, more intimate movies with unstoppable, murderous aliens.
I liked 'em both (T/T2), but I have to say that the nuked dream sequence mentioned by Doug in T2 was pretty stunning. At first I decided that T2 was better, but then I got a little disheartened that it had almost taken the magic out of special effects. Once it is obvious that you can do *anything*, I found myself less impressed by FX elements of movies.
One small point of order - clarification to my original post:
I consider a "sequel" to be any movie made after the original in an effort to make more money from the original concept/theme/characters/story. So, i would consider "Batman Begins" (never saw it) to be a sequel from a business/money sense.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#298032 - 09/05/2007 00:32
Re: Sequelae
[Re: webroach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Godzilla (originals- all sequels equal the crap of the first)
Wow. To each their own, I suppose. I saw (and still see) the original Godzilla film as an amazing piece of art. I mean, when you put it in context (two years after the end of the American Occupation, after being the target of multiple atom bombs, etc.), there's a lot of meat on them bones.
When people say "the first" I think many people refer to the original film with Raymond Burr arbitrarily spliced in. That's what I went gaga over watching TV as a kid. I didn't see the original original until a few years ago. I can't say I found it much more coherent than the Perry Mason version, but there were a few moments I found touching. I'll have to rent it.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#298033 - 09/05/2007 01:08
Re: Sequelae
[Re: DWallach]
|
addict
Registered: 25/06/2002
Posts: 456
|
Quote:
If ever there was a Worst Sequel Ever, it would have to be Highlander 2: The Quickening. Oh my that sucked in a spectacular fashion
Hear hear! You are as right as can be.
Highlander 2 was absolutely sucktacular.
If I recall correctly, Sean Connery managed to block its release in the U.S. for several years after it hit the theaters in Europe.
I remember wondering why he was "being a jerk" until it was finally released here.
Then I understood completely (and no longer blame him in the slightest).
Also, according to the Wikipedia link you posted, the director of Highlander 2 walked out of his own premier after 15 minutes!
...though legend has it that the entire cast of "Manos: Hands of Fate" slunk out of the middle of their premier -- appalled at the utter badness of it all.
ISTR that Highlander 3,4, The Series, etc. etc. all pretended like "Highlander 2" never existed.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#298034 - 09/05/2007 01:28
Re: Sequelae
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12341
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
Quote:
I consider a "sequel" to be any movie made after the original in an effort to make more money from the original concept/theme/characters/story. So, i would consider "Batman Begins" (never saw it) to be a sequel from a business/money sense.
Well, I guess that's the jaded way to look at it. I prefer the artistic sense. I personally would never consider Batman Begins a sequel. Does that mean you'd consider this to be a sequel to this? I'd say it does according to your definition, but I think the general population wouldn't define it that way.
_________________________
Matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#298035 - 09/05/2007 03:10
Re: Sequelae
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
Bitt likes smaller, more intimate movies with unstoppable, murderous aliens.
LOL
Honestly, a lot of the time that a big-budget movie is made, they rely on the big budget. When a low-budget movie is made, they have to rely on actual story and acting. Of course, you can have low-budget movies with terrible story and acting (Manos, for example) and you can have big-budget movies with great stories and acting (Batman Begins, for example -- you should seriously rent it), but the latter are the exception and the former, well, are not the exception, but no one cares about or mentions the bad low-budget movies. Which, of course, is the way it should be for the bad big-budget movies, too, but people are overly influenced by both marketing and shiny things, so it's not.
I've largely been uninterested in special effects except for how they can contribute to the storytelling. Sure, the flashy ones are neat, but I don't watch movies to awe at big robots on screen. If a movie is just a big series of special effects, which is what many "scifi" (read "space action") movies of the last twenty years have been, I'm bored out of my skull.
In addition, there's very little I haven't seen before, at this point. Special effects have become so commonplace that I think that most moviegoers are also bored with them now. In fact, the flashiest special effects I've seen in years were in The Fountain, and that was a relatively low-budget movie where the special effects were largely opticals of microscopic fluid dynamics, and shot in whole for about $140k.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#298037 - 09/05/2007 10:58
Re: Sequelae
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 18/01/2000
Posts: 5683
Loc: London, UK
|
Quote:
I consider a "sequel" to be any movie made after the original in an effort to make more money from the original concept/theme/characters/story.
So, does this mean that I should put US Marshals next to The Fugitive?
Our DVD collection is currently sorted alphabetically by title, except for sequels, which go in order after the original.
_________________________
-- roger
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#298038 - 09/05/2007 11:25
Re: Sequelae
[Re: Roger]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 29/08/2000
Posts: 14496
Loc: Canada
|
Quote:
Quote:
I consider a "sequel" to be any movie made after the original in an effort to make more money from the original concept/theme/characters/story.
So, does this mean that I should put US Marshals next to The Fugitive?
Mmm.. I haven't seen USM, but from the link you gave it definitely sounds like an intentional sequel to TF.
Cheers
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#298039 - 09/05/2007 11:42
Re: Sequelae
[Re: FireFox31]
|
veteran
Registered: 25/04/2000
Posts: 1529
Loc: Arizona
|
Quote:
How do you all rate the sequels to these more time-tested films:
Jaws
The original was absolutely amazing, and had some of the best lines ever ("You're going to need a bigger boat" and "I can't talk to somebody who is lining up to be a hot lunch" or "it ate a car?" as examples). Jaws 2 was pretty good, not quite as good as the original but pretty close. Jaws 3 was bleh for the most part, but some good parts. Jaws 4 was utterly terrible and I had a hard time paying attention through the whole thing.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#298040 - 09/05/2007 13:55
Re: Sequelae
[Re: Tim]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
|
You mean Jaws 3 in 3D? What were they thinking?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#298042 - 09/05/2007 14:44
Re: Sequelae
[Re: Robotic]
|
veteran
Registered: 25/04/2000
Posts: 1529
Loc: Arizona
|
Wow, that just about sums it up. If anybody has had the pleasure of not seeing Jaws 4, I totally recommend you not seeing Jaws 4.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#298043 - 10/05/2007 23:38
Re: Sequelae
[Re: Tim]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 19/09/2002
Posts: 2494
Loc: East Coast, USA
|
Crap, I forgot to mention another time tested film:
Superman
That's a no-brainer though, eh? I still don't think I've seen the first installment.
_________________________
- FireFox31 110gig MKIIa (30+80), Eutronix lights, 32 meg stacked RAM, Filener orange gel lens, Greenlights Lit Buttons green set
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#298044 - 11/05/2007 00:12
Re: Sequelae
[Re: Dignan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
Quote:
I consider a "sequel" to be any movie made after the original in an effort to make more money from the original concept/theme/characters/story. So, i would consider "Batman Begins" (never saw it) to be a sequel from a business/money sense.
Well, I guess that's the jaded way to look at it.
I plead guilty. I know that normal folks never have jaded thoughts about the shining city on a hill that is Hollywood, but I just can't shake them. Guilty, guilty, guilty.
Quote:
I prefer the artistic sense. I personally would never consider Batman Begins a sequel. Does that mean you'd consider this to be a sequel to this? I'd say it does according to your definition, but I think the general population wouldn't define it that way.
I would classify that more as a remake. If, after some decent interval, somebody looks back in the body of cinematic and telecast art and decides that they can do a better job with Batman or Gone With the Wind, I have no truck with that. So long as the resurrecting effort doesn't like totally blow chunks.
My initial post was more to assess the case where Producer X makes Film A and it makes some money and then contemplates a follow up, Film B, whether it is a prequel or sequel in the strict sense. And how often do these attempts to mine the vein of opening weekend gold at least roughly equal the original or earlier efforts.
On advice of trusted associates, I never saw the 3rd or 4th entries in the Alien canon, but I hear that some greedly mogul would have done well to let Ellen Ripley go out a winner. Matrix #2 and #3? Anybody see 'em? And come away satisfied?
In well-timed news (George follows this BBS closely I'm told) I hear Lucas is going to make a couple more Star Wars flicks. Sequels? Prequels? I don't want to guess, but would you predict: Super awesome...or...sucko-barfo?
And when is Jerry Bruckheimer gonna get off his ass and remake Moby Dick?
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#298045 - 11/05/2007 00:55
Re: Sequelae
[Re: jimhogan]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
Quote:
Matrix #2 and #3? Anybody see 'em? And come away satisfied?
Yes, and emphatically yes. I've never understood people's disdain for the second and third movie. I constantly hear people complaining that they were made "just to get more money", which is contrary to the truth of the matter: The Matrix was pitched, from the beginning, as a trilogy.
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#298047 - 11/05/2007 06:35
Re: Sequelae
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5916
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
Quote:
Matrix #2 and #3?
There is no Matrix #2 and #3, there was only one Matrix film...
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#298049 - 11/05/2007 07:26
Re: Sequelae
[Re: webroach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5916
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
It is because they were so awful that I like to pretend that they don't exist. The Matrix was such a good film, great ideas, good story, incredible special effects and action. The second and third films might have had the same effects and action, but apart from that they were just crap. I sat there through most of the second and third films bored out of my mind. I came very close to walking out of #3 and I have never walked out of a film in my life. I have the same issue with Pirates of the Caribbean, #1 was so good that I at least expected #2 to be watchable fun. But it wasn't and there is no way that you could convince me to waste my time watching #3. I'm normally quite good at avoiding watching crappy films (I have a mate who just goes to see any old crap), but I so wanted Matrix #3 to be good that I went to see it even knowing how awful #2 had been. Never again... ...and breathe, rant over 
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#298050 - 11/05/2007 10:29
Re: Sequelae
[Re: andy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 29/08/2000
Posts: 14496
Loc: Canada
|
Quote:
It is because they were so awful that I like to pretend that they don't exist.
Agreed 100%
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#298051 - 11/05/2007 11:59
Re: Sequelae
[Re: mlord]
|
old hand
Registered: 07/01/2005
Posts: 893
Loc: Sector ZZ9pZa
|
I'm not one who needs 'closure' in a movie, and I thought that the open end of the first Matrix was simply perfect. Also with Mark and Andy consider The Matrix to be a movie and do not speak of the other two. A poll may be interesting...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#298052 - 11/05/2007 12:10
Re: Sequelae
[Re: sein]
|
old hand
Registered: 07/01/2005
Posts: 893
Loc: Sector ZZ9pZa
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#298053 - 11/05/2007 12:21
Re: Sequelae
[Re: sein]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
How about "everyone said the sequels sucked, so I deliberately didn't even see them, in order to preserve my admiration of the first one"? And the same, FWIW, with Foundation books after the third one, and Dune books after the first one. And I wish I'd done the same with the third Gormenghast book.
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#298054 - 11/05/2007 12:33
Re: Sequelae
[Re: peter]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/06/1999
Posts: 7868
|
Quote:
How about "everyone said the sequels sucked, so I deliberately didn't even see them, in order to preserve my admiration of the first one"? And the same, FWIW, with Foundation books after the third one, and Dune books after the first one. And I wish I'd done the same with the third Gormenghast book.
I'm the same way with the Alien movies. I've seen Alien and Aliens, but stopped there due to the recommendations of several friends.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#298055 - 11/05/2007 12:49
Re: Sequelae
[Re: peter]
|
old hand
Registered: 07/01/2005
Posts: 893
Loc: Sector ZZ9pZa
|
True true, that would be smart. Don't think I can edit the poll now anyway.
The strategy wouldn't have worked for me on the Matrix though, I remember going to see the second one on opening night with a bunch of guys from work. Made the mistake of really hyping it up beforehand too. It was a disaster.
Went to see the third to see whether it would make the second make more sense and fill in the new gaping holes in the story. That was another big mistake.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index