Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:53 AM
Quimby Quimby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: NJ
Posts: 7,880
I will second Police Academy. I haven't seen it in probably a decade and suspect it hasn't aged well bu at the time was a funny and well made comedy followed by shit sequels that got worse and worse.

I will say Jurassic Park. The first movie has issues but is a good movie. The Lost World was not terrible but bad. Three was completely forgettable (other than Pterodactyls I literally remember nothing about it). Jurassic World was complete garbage. It was like four scripts and a pile of turds were put in a blender.
  #52  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:59 AM
TreacherousCretin's Avatar
TreacherousCretin TreacherousCretin is offline
Horrified Onlooker
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Moscow, Idaho
Posts: 5,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalMeacham View Post
Terminator.


even though I LOVED Terminator 2, and it was a great flick, the original by itself had a purity of vision and beauty of execution that elevated it to a high rank in SF films. Chief among these was the way the Terminator -- in the best tradition of literary SF* -- was simply a killing machine that, as Reece says in a pivotal speech, can't be reasoned with and wouldn't stop until Sarah Connor was dead.

And then, of course, in the sequel, the second edition of the Arnold Terminator CAN be reasoned with, can make jokes, and practically gets emotional at the end. It's fun filmmaking, and his giving the "thumbs up" as her goes down into the molten metal can bring a tear to your eye, but its not the image the first film projected so cleanly and wonderfully**

the less said about the subsequent sequels, the better.



* like Kate Wilhelm's The Killer Thing, or Philip K. Dick's Second Variety (which, it's been argued, was an influence on the first film.

** I know that they have a scene -- cut from the released version, but fortunately preserved in the Director's Cut -- where they show them reprogramming the T2, but it still doesn't account for the overall change. The original Terminator, like Robby in Forbidden Planet, was a real robot, and the dark humor came when his reactions -- like Robby's -- could be interpreted as resembling human reactions, even though they were the results of logical machine reactions to stimuli and their programming. In the second movie, the T2 was acting more like as metal person -- like R2D2 and C3PO do -- than a Real Robot.
100% agree with this.
  #53  
Old 06-15-2018, 11:00 AM
bump bump is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 15,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot Arm View Post
Robot Arm's Law of the Emasculated Sci-Fi Badass: Science fiction franchises excel at creating cool, popular villains, but attempts to explain and humanize them only serve to diminish the popularity and coolness.
This is so true... they should leave the bad guys BAD. Think about the Terminator- he was so awesome because he was, as Reese put it,
Quote:
It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
Kind of like a force of nature, but more malevolent because it's technological.

And what do they do? They make him care and one of the good guys in the sequels.

Same thing in the new Battlestar Galactica; the best episodes were early on when the Cylons were unstoppable, unknown and terrible. The further in you got, the less terrifying they became, and the show devolved into a soap opera.

Darth Vader was much the same way after about the halfway point of ROTJ. It's what made the end scenes in Rogue One so entertaining; THAT's what you wanted to see Vader do all along.

Hell, even The Walking Dead fell prey to this particular law. In the first season or so, the walkers were a real and present threat. But by the time they found the prison, they were.. manageable.

And in the Star Wars prequels, they never even established the Sith as being *that* scary or ominous.
  #54  
Old 06-15-2018, 11:10 AM
Dropo Dropo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 387
High Noon, Part II: The Return of Will Kane (1980)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080870/?ref_=nv_sr_1

I haven’t actually seen this and I am not really that fond of the original (though it does have some undeniable virtues), but given the general esteem which the original is held, I can’t imagine this made-for-TV sequel does anything but taint it.


King Kong (1933) is of course a classic. The Son of Kong (1934) is not as good, but still very enjoyable for me. However, there can be no defense for King Kong vs. Godzilla (1962) or King Kong Escapes (1967) as doing anything but devaluing the earlier flicks. I am inclined to include King Kong Lives (1986), but I haven’t seen it and I think it would be challenging to argue it “diminished” King Kong (1976) given how bad that film is (other than Rick Baker’s make-up and Jessica Lange).

Indiana Jones movies – The second one is bad, but ...Crystal Skull plays like an awful parody. What a waste of film stock.

Memories of Chinatown (1974) are ill-served by The Two Jakes (1990), though whether it actually “diminishes” the earlier film is open to debate.

No loathing for 2010 (1984)?



Quote:
Originally Posted by CalMeacham View Post

Did we really need...

The Return of the Fly -- the sequel to the original movie The Fly. Or its second sequel The Curse of the Fly
The Fly (1958) is camp horror. I don’t even remember The Return of the Fly (1959). Curse of the Fly (1965), however, is something else; a sequel going off in an entirely different direction. It has an awesome opening (girl in her underwear fleeing the loony bin), creepy mutations evoking Lovecraft and a cool ending, and is neither camp nor derivative of other horror films (or at least none I can think of offhand). Not without flaws, to be sure, but superior imo to any other “fly” film.
  #55  
Old 06-15-2018, 11:16 AM
Tread Tread is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 706
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaffa View Post
The best line in the original Rocky was Apollo Creed saying "...ain't gonna be no rematch" and the whole point of the film wasn't Rocky being triumphant, but simply lasting to the very end.
Second best line, but it set up the best line, when Rocky replied " Don't want one"
  #56  
Old 06-15-2018, 11:39 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 36,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tread View Post
Second best line, but it set up the best line, when Rocky replied " Don't want one"
This. By going fifteen rounds with the champ, Rocky's proved everything about himself that one man could need to prove.

Also, he and Creed have fought their war to a draw (with tie going to the defending champ, of course), and neither one wants to have to fight the other a second time.

All that, conveyed perfectly in that handful of words: "Ain't gonna be no rematch." "Don't want one."
  #57  
Old 06-15-2018, 11:49 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 36,209
I'm going to disagree about Pirates of the Caribbean. The sequels may not be as good as the original, but they're still pretty enjoyable, IMHO. I hardly think they're anywhere near the sort of drop-off that the Rocky or Jaws sequels are, or that the prequels/sequels to the original Star Wars trilogy are.
  #58  
Old 06-15-2018, 11:59 AM
NDP's Avatar
NDP NDP is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: PNW USA
Posts: 8,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dropo View Post
Curse of the Fly (1965), however, is something else; a sequel going off in an entirely different direction. It has an awesome opening (girl in her underwear fleeing the loony bin), creepy mutations evoking Lovecraft and a cool ending, and is neither camp nor derivative of other horror films (or at least none I can think of offhand). Not without flaws, to be sure, but superior imo to any other “fly” film.
I've seen The Curse of the Fly and it's pretty much a SINO (sequel-in-name-only). It seemed like it out with a screenplay for a separate movie but the studio shoehorned into the series. Also, one of film's storylines straight out of "Jane Eyre".
__________________
Can also be seen at:

Last FM Library Thing
  #59  
Old 06-15-2018, 12:04 PM
GargoyleWB's Avatar
GargoyleWB GargoyleWB is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Somewhere cold 'n squishy
Posts: 5,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
This. By going fifteen rounds with the champ, Rocky's proved everything about himself that one man could need to prove.

Also, he and Creed have fought their war to a draw (with tie going to the defending champ, of course), and neither one wants to have to fight the other a second time.

All that, conveyed perfectly in that handful of words: "Ain't gonna be no rematch." "Don't want one."
I disagree with all of the Rocky sequel dislike. I think Rocky 2 plausibly showed the rationale for Creed and Rocky's setup for a rematch, with Creed playing the perfect narcissist role trying to save his legacy and Rocky set up well as the reluctant goadee.

Rocky 3 and 4 are pure shiny-pec-man-awesome like the Predator movies.
__________________
"He was shortish. And oldish. And brownish. And mossy. And he spoke with a voice that was sharpish and bossy."
  #60  
Old 06-15-2018, 12:21 PM
dorvann dorvann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 284
Ok, here's kind of an odd choice: The Land Before Time(1988). They made thirteen direct to video sequels; the last one being released in 2016.

For that matter, The Secret of NIMH has a direct to video sequel. It has none of charm and mystery of the first and is just an all-around horrible film.
  #61  
Old 06-15-2018, 12:29 PM
dorvann dorvann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 284
I just thought of another (well sorta): the 1984 film Starman starring Jeff Bridges was adapted into a tv series that had Robert Hayes in the Jeff Bridges role. It lasted one season and was horrible. Though if we start adding movies adapted in to tv shows, I'm sure we come up another dozen films.
  #62  
Old 06-15-2018, 01:32 PM
CelticKnot CelticKnot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: 2 hours from somewhere
Posts: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Typo Negative View Post
It had no sequels.



IT HAD NO SEQUELS!!

I can't help myself.




There can be only one.
  #63  
Old 06-15-2018, 02:57 PM
Eyebrows 0f Doom Eyebrows 0f Doom is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Typo Negative View Post
There were three sequels that no one remembers.
And according to "Psycho II," Mother wasn't actually even Norman's mother! The RiffTrax episode for "Psycho II" is hilarious.

I have a soft spot for those sequels. They are so bad, but I saw them so many times as a kid. I even had a poster for "Psycho III" I got from a local video store.
  #64  
Old 06-15-2018, 03:08 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 36,955
You know guys, there is a difference between a great film which was diminished by it's sequels, and a great film which had crappy sequels which do not diminish the original in any way.
  #65  
Old 06-15-2018, 04:26 PM
Clawdio Clawdio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 702
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
You know guys, there is a difference between a great film which was diminished by it's sequels, and a great film which had crappy sequels which do not diminish the original in any way.
This is what I think every time Jaws is mentioned. That movie is pretty universally held up as an all-time classic. If the sequels have diminished it, I'd hate to see the pedestal it was on before they were made.

Rambo is probably a great example though. In your mind's eye, the word "Rambo" probably conjures up an image of a shirtless Stalone wearing a headband and gunning people down indiscriminately, when that's not what the first movie is about at all.
  #66  
Old 06-15-2018, 04:37 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 43,951
How can a sequel diminish the original? By showing something in the original was a lie, something that made the original great.
King Kong vs. Godzilla isn't even a sequel to King Kong, not really, and it certainly doesn't diminish the classic. But the later Godzilla movies which makes the horrible monster from the first movie a good guy and a friend to kiddies certainly do.

How would you like a Star Wars sequel where Vader lives and starts a day care center where he uses the Force to amuse the kids and to reassemble broken toys? That's the later Godzillas.
  #67  
Old 06-15-2018, 04:43 PM
ftg's Avatar
ftg ftg is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 17,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
You know guys, there is a difference between a great film which was diminished by it's sequels, and a great film which had crappy sequels which do not diminish the original in any way.
Was going to make just this point.
  #68  
Old 06-15-2018, 06:01 PM
dorvann dorvann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 284
I think one way sequels diminish the original is by attempting to explain everything.
Two examples:

1. The Matrix. The first film would of been better if the sequels didn't try to explain what the matrix was. They really removed the sense of awe and mystery the first one had.

2. Star Wars. Similar to the Matrix, I think introducing midichlorians in order to explain the Force was a huge mistake. It was an attempt to explain something that was best left as a mystery. Although I think George Lucas's constant revisions of the original three films probably hurt them worse.
  #69  
Old 06-15-2018, 11:30 PM
Asuka Asuka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dropo View Post

No loathing for 2010 (1984)?
I actually enjoyed 2010, but 2010's problem was that it was very much an 80's Science-Fiction movie as opposed to Kubrick's 2001 which seems absolutely timeless. 2010 lacked the dream-like presentation of 2001 and the overall style of it going back to a much more conventional movie style.

The perfect example is like if you rewrote The Fugitive slightly to make it about Deckard escaping from a Blade Runner and called it "Blade Runner 2: The Fugitive". They're both great movies but by following up the stylish Blade Runner with a much more conventional movie and the latter film looks like crap in comparison.
  #70  
Old 06-16-2018, 02:31 AM
msmith537 msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 26,937
Oceans 11. The Brad Pitt, George Clooney & friends remake superseded the largely forgotten Rat Pack original as a fun heist film. Both sequels were terrible as I'm sure the female version Ocean's 8 will be.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Gretchion View Post
Another vote for Matrix, but I'd also like to toss in Pirates of the Caribbean. The first one was a surprisingly fun movie, the rest were unnecessary.
It's like Star Wars films. You can make one great standalone film. Given that the studios will want to cash in on the success of that, you can maybe get away with a sequel. If you're lucky, the second film might even surpass the first like Aliens or Empire. But at least one film will divide fans. Every film after the trilogy is just an unnecessary money grab.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoeless View Post
Does anyone remember that there was a sequel to Psycho made 23 years later? Can a sequel diminish the original if nobody remembers that there was a sequel?
Are you referring to the shot for shot remake with Vince Vaugn and Anne Heche? Unlike Oceans 11, that was just completely unnecessary and forgettable.
  #71  
Old 06-16-2018, 03:22 AM
Jack Batty's Avatar
Jack Batty Jack Batty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The Astral Plane.
Posts: 14,763
The French Connection.

I didn't know a lot about the original, nor its sequel, when I fired the first one on Hulu/Netflix/wherever ... in fact, the only thing I recalled is that Gene Hackman plays a vice cop who ends up getting kidnapped by the bad guys and forcibly hooked on heroin. Turns out that's in the second movie not the first. The first movie is good, but I think it's most notable for its style - that guerilla style film-making that was ground breaking at the time.

Also, I've been listening to Unspooled lately (a podcast with Paul Scheer and Amy Nicholson where they talk about each of the AFI's 100 best movies, one per episode) and I learned that the original was based on actual people and actual events (with liberties taken) while the second is a complete flight of fancy. In the end, the fact that the two movies get conflated in my mind and the most compelling plot twist never really happened, but all the non-compelling plot twists did, make the original completely diminished by its sequel.
  #72  
Old 06-16-2018, 04:19 AM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 8,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
How would you like a Star Wars sequel where Vader lives and starts a day care center where he uses the Force to amuse the kids and to reassemble broken toys?

I...think I would like that. It'd be like Kindergarten Cop if Ahnold had actually spent most of the movie with the kids.
  #73  
Old 06-16-2018, 05:38 AM
asterion asterion is online now
2012 SDMB NFL Salary Cap Champ
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 11,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
I...think I would like that. It'd be like Kindergarten Cop if Ahnold had actually spent most of the movie with the kids.
It sounds good for about two minutes on Robot Chicken. I'm not sure the premise would hold up any longer than that.
  #74  
Old 06-16-2018, 11:30 AM
Staggerlee Staggerlee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 1,912
I think Back to the Future 3 slightly diminishes the previous, better, two films, as it''s both quite poor but inescapable. The first two films can't really stand alone without the tiresome third one to finish the story.
  #75  
Old 06-16-2018, 12:07 PM
Eyebrows 0f Doom Eyebrows 0f Doom is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
Are you referring to the shot for shot remake with Vince Vaugn and Anne Heche? Unlike Oceans 11, that was just completely unnecessary and forgettable.
No, it had three actual sequels. Anthony Perkins returned in all three as Norman. Psycho II was him being released from the mental hospital after 23 years and trying to be normal (spoiler, he fails), Psycho III was more murder hijinks at the motel, and Psycho IV was a TV movie set a few years later that has Norman recounting his childhood to a radio talk show host.

Despite all three, “Psycho” is still a film classic. I don’t think they impact the original at all.
  #76  
Old 06-16-2018, 12:10 PM
Lucas Jackson Lucas Jackson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,548
I agree that First Blood is a good example of the OP. The original wasn’t Oscar worthy but a nice yarn of escapism. The sequels were almost literally unwatchable. The last one appearing to made by a committee of teenagers. And maybe that’s giving it too much credit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dorvann View Post
I think you can add the Matrix to the list. It's better to view it as a stand alone film. I don't think the sequels were that great; they really over-explained everything and just were a jumbled mess.
As soon as I saw the thread title I knew this was going to be in the top three responses. Despite the ‘Matrix Sequels Suck’ being a popular meme here on the Dope, I totally disagree. I think they offered some interesting characters, interesting ideas and great action scenes. And apparently I’m not alone. If Matrix 2 would have sucked that bad, 3 wouldn’t have quadrupled it’s production cost in profits bringing in $427.3 million dollars at the box office alone.
  #77  
Old 06-16-2018, 01:40 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 43,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
I...think I would like that. It'd be like Kindergarten Cop if Ahnold had actually spent most of the movie with the kids.
I haven't seen that movie, but my impression is that there, and in Last Action Hero, he is playing against the stereotype of the characters he plays. That could be fun. (I liked Last Action Hero.) Different from the character being undermined. Like if Dirty Harry went to kindergarten.
  #78  
Old 06-16-2018, 02:34 PM
Gatopescado's Avatar
Gatopescado Gatopescado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 19,865
Titanic II
  #79  
Old 06-18-2018, 07:30 AM
Gedd Gedd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatopescado View Post
Titanic II
Still better than the third one.
  #80  
Old 06-18-2018, 08:45 AM
digs's Avatar
digs digs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West of Wauwatosa
Posts: 8,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gedd View Post
Still better than the third one.
But the third one was in 3D!
  #81  
Old 06-18-2018, 11:25 AM
Just Asking Questions Just Asking Questions is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 5,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gedd View Post
Still better than the third one.
You mean, TITanic 2000? I think the lesbian vampires don't diminish either Cameron's version, or A Night To Remember. I think Cameron dropped the ball by not having lesbian vampires in his version!
  #82  
Old 06-18-2018, 11:35 AM
Labtrash Labtrash is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Murrells Inlet, SC
Posts: 3,761
Leonard Part 6

It was so bad, it erased parts 1 thru 5 from EXISTENCE
__________________
---remainder of post deleted. All is well...move along.
  #83  
Old 06-18-2018, 11:42 AM
Brayne Ded Brayne Ded is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 150
A vote for Godfather 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparky812 View Post
Godfather 3 - So bad that it makes you forget the first 2 films are actually good. I've only ever walked out of one film, and this was it.
I only saw Godfather 2 a long time after seeing the original Godfather, and not long after that I saw Godfather 3, having seen Godfather 1 again shortly before.
Weeeeeeeeeeeeell, it rounds out the story, but 3 was just so bad it verged on parody. It rehashed several bits from Godfather 1 - BADLY. And Sophie Coppola deserves some sort of award for worst wannabe actress. Her limitations would not have been so obvious but for the all-star cast. The death of Al Pacino (Vito?) was a bad remake of the classic scene from Godfather 1. Last but not least, the whole plot was overblown.
  #84  
Old 06-18-2018, 01:05 PM
anomalous1 anomalous1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticKnot View Post
I can't help myself.




There can be only one.
I had to scroll through to make sure nobody else said it, but DAMN IT!
  #85  
Old 06-18-2018, 05:20 PM
Grestarian Grestarian is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Garage & Lab
Posts: 1,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalMeacham View Post
Terminator.


even though I LOVED Terminator 2, and it was a great flick, the original by itself had a purity of vision and beauty of execution that elevated it to a high rank in SF films. Chief among these was the way the Terminator -- in the best tradition of literary SF* -- was simply a killing machine that, as Reece says in a pivotal speech, can't be reasoned with and wouldn't stop until Sarah Connor was dead.

And then, of course, in the sequel, the second edition of the Arnold Terminator CAN be reasoned with, can make jokes, and practically gets emotional at the end. It's fun filmmaking, and his giving the "thumbs up" as her goes down into the molten metal can bring a tear to your eye, but its not the image the first film projected so cleanly and wonderfully**

the less said about the subsequent sequels, the better.



* like Kate Wilhelm's The Killer Thing, or Philip K. Dick's Second Variety (which, it's been argued, was an influence on the first film.

** I know that they have a scene -- cut from the released version, but fortunately preserved in the Director's Cut -- where they show them reprogramming the T2, but it still doesn't account for the overall change. The original Terminator, like Robby in Forbidden Planet, was a real robot, and the dark humor came when his reactions -- like Robby's -- could be interpreted as resembling human reactions, even though they were the results of logical machine reactions to stimuli and their programming. In the second movie, the T2 was acting more like as metal person -- like R2D2 and C3PO do -- than a Real Robot.
This is why Highlander II came to mind.

Not only did fans want to insist it didn't exist, but when Highlander III was made the writers and production team made a clear point of ignoring Highlander II as well. The mistake was letting Mario Van Peebles play the lead antagonist and I could only assume he got the role because he and Lambert became good friends or had good screen chemistry while filming Gun Runners.

And Highlander IV was just capping off the TV series -- nicely, mind you, but it seemed like it was just wrapping up the series & source movies with a grand finale.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

My inclination is to agree (as usual) with Cal Meacham.

I loved T2 because it was a fun action film all on its own and it even had a nice anti-war theme going on in the middle of the Cold War era. Even the alternative ending was nice and reiterated that theme.

But IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN MADE.

The problem (or lack thereof) was that the original was a perfect temporal loop:

[Spoiler warning, in case for some reason you've never seen this 1984 gem and still want to watch it.]

Reese's boss/friend gives him a picture of his mother and Reese falls in love with her, so he goes back in time to save the woman, diverting her from a career as a diner waitress and setting her on a course that will shape history. Much hilarity ensues, plus Reese gets the chance to express his love for his friend's mother*. In the end, some random kid takes a Polaroid of the heroine, who buys it and will give it to her soon-to-appear child of Reese.

The whole rest of the movie is a giant temporal loop! And there's even an alternate ending (somewhere out there on YouTube and even linked in a thread on these boards), that tightens the technological aspect of the time-loop. Cameron really should not have messed with such a perfect loop. Every subsequent movie (and the TV show) simply added more flaws in the loop and unanswered questions to the story.


--G!
*And, as much as the semi-silhouetted love scene was fun to watch, its inclusion was integral to the story rather than simply gratuitous.
  #86  
Old 06-18-2018, 06:05 PM
Gatopescado's Avatar
Gatopescado Gatopescado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 19,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Asking Questions View Post
You mean, TITanic 2000? !
I so want this!
  #87  
Old 06-18-2018, 06:07 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,052
RoboCop. The sequels we're ridiculously bad where the original was fantastic.
  #88  
Old 06-18-2018, 07:01 PM
typoink typoink is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,526
The problem with The Matrix is that it NEEDED sequels, just not the ones we got. It was clearly written to be Part 1 and left a lot of interesting ground to cover in the followups. But the Wachowskis simply whiffed. They apparently didn't quite process what worked vs what didn't in the original, and the sequels were just CRAMMED with bad CGI, cheesy art design, faux-religious yammering, and a story that just unravels the fun of the original. They probably screwed themselves ultimately with the back-to-back shooting schedule of the sequels. They could have taken the feedback about 2 and used it to course correct for 3 and hopefully land with a flawed-but-forgivable trilogy. But, instead, they were locked in to what they'd already shot and basically had to dump a terrible third movie into a market that was already hostile. Oof.

Star Wars is still the biggest "fall from grace" in my book. The original trilogy are genre masterpieces: career-defining films that told timeless grand adventure stories with an engrossing art design that still works to this day. A perfect mix of sci-fi and fantasy with big dashes of mythology and dream logic. The second trilogy killed every bit of that and reduced the series to cheesy action movies that take themselves much too seriously while also having way too much comic relief. The newer movies are much better, but it's a "horses are already out of the barn" situation for me.
  #89  
Old 06-18-2018, 09:05 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 36,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
RoboCop. The sequels we're ridiculously bad where the original was fantastic.
Did the sequels make the original worse?

No.
  #90  
Old 06-18-2018, 09:19 PM
Ludovic Ludovic is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 28,631
My vote is also for the prequels. For other series I am usually able to compartmentalize and ignore them, and I can even do so with Star Wars, with one exception. Mitichlorians. That took the magic away from the force. The new ones are good but they have to hold their own based on non-forcy stuff. Solo is the best post-RotJ star wars movie for me for that reason. Which isn't to say there aren't forcy elements that are good (especially in Episode 8) but it still just isn't as cool anymore. Imagine how cool the force tricks of Episode 8 would have been if there wasn't something in the back of your mind telling you that it isn't magic but just some organelles?
  #91  
Old 06-19-2018, 06:46 AM
CalMeacham's Avatar
CalMeacham CalMeacham is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 42,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
RoboCop. The sequels we're ridiculously bad where the original was fantastic.
Agree 100%. Also the remake, while technically gorgeous, was abysmal.
__________________
It was then that he noticed that the Thing in the room with him consisted of a mass of hideously twisting tentacles and pseudopods, writhing in all directions, each of them an unworldly shade of green or yellow, with a nacreous glossy sheen.
---The Call of Chihuli
  #92  
Old 06-19-2018, 07:13 AM
aceplace57 aceplace57 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CentralArkansas
Posts: 24,090
Look Who's Talking with John Travolta and Kirstie Alley was very good.

The sequels were terrible and really hurt the reputation of the original.

Almost derailed Travolta's career. He didn't rebound until getting the role in Pulp Fiction.
That only happened because Tarantino requested him.

Last edited by aceplace57; 06-19-2018 at 07:15 AM.
  #93  
Old 06-19-2018, 08:21 AM
Finagle Finagle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Somewhere near Boston
Posts: 9,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityChuck View Post
I can't think of any film diminished by its sequels. The original still exists and its quality is unchanged. It may be dated, but sequels don't cause anything in the original to change: no new scenes, no new dialog, no new characters. The original is exactly what it was to begin with.
Gonna have to disagree with you there. Take Aliens and Aliens 3. Aliens was all about Ripley saving Newt and the whole climactic "Get away from her you bitch!" scene. In Aliens 3 -- welp, kid is dead and the alien is back. I don't think you can go back and watch 2 and not feel cheated.
  #94  
Old 06-19-2018, 08:29 AM
Ashtura Ashtura is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ecks View Post
Successful films get sequels, it's a fact of life. Most film series also get worse as time goes on, sometimes drastically so, sometimes even destroying the goodwill created by the original. What film is most diminished by it's sequels? I would pick Rocky. The sequels utterly ignore the whole point of the original.
The Matrix, by a mile.
  #95  
Old 06-19-2018, 10:07 AM
GESancMan's Avatar
GESancMan GESancMan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Portland
Posts: 3,161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
My vote is also for the prequels. For other series I am usually able to compartmentalize and ignore them, and I can even do so with Star Wars, with one exception. Mitichlorians. That took the magic away from the force. The new ones are good but they have to hold their own based on non-forcy stuff. Solo is the best post-RotJ star wars movie for me for that reason. Which isn't to say there aren't forcy elements that are good (especially in Episode 8) but it still just isn't as cool anymore. Imagine how cool the force tricks of Episode 8 would have been if there wasn't something in the back of your mind telling you that it isn't magic but just some organelles?
The mitichlorians thing doesn't bother me, I can ignore that. My problem with the prequels is that I simply cannot reconcile that Anakin and Darth Vader are supposed to be the same person. I can't wrap my brain around the idea that the person in the black suit is supposed to be that whiny brat. So when I watch the originals, I find myself trying to picture Anakin in the suit, and my brain can't accept it. Thus the original is diminished... until I let it go and think of them as separate people.
  #96  
Old 06-19-2018, 10:08 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 194
John Carpenter's original "Halloween" was a stone classic and wet-your-pants scary. But all its sequels (and copycat ripoffs) ran the formula into the ground and diminished the impact of the original. When I watched it with my teenage son he said, "What's the big deal? It's like every other horror movie ever."
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.

Last edited by Akaj; 06-19-2018 at 10:08 AM.
  #97  
Old 06-19-2018, 08:36 PM
Flare4roach Flare4roach is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 63
Frankenstein deserves a mention here. The original is a masterpiece, especially considering this was made in 1933. While the story is a bit hokey and the dialogue seems to be taken from a stage show, it really was outstanding for its time. Compared to other "horror" films, Frankenstein remains a classic for a reason. Karloff touches upon something that nobody has really topped. He provided a sympathy for the monster. He's confused and lost and is abused by Fritz for whatever reason. What Karloff does with his hands and evocative whimpering is just beautiful. We feel for the creature. Watch the fear that sets in when he tosses the little girl in the lake and realizes she's not coming up. He panics, scrambles and finally runs. He didn't mean to kill her but he knows this is bad news and heads for the hills. I don't know...it just gets me every time. Something about his facial features just kill me.

Obviously the sequel (Bride of Frankenstein) is pretty good too. Some say it's better but I don't know if I agree with that but I will say every single Frankenstein after that has sucked. So badly that it's just a waste of time to see if anyone can live up to the original. No one has every touched upon Karloff's portrayal with the same approach. I realized over time that while I like the story of Frankenstein, it's Karloff who put his stamp on the franchise that made it so great in the first place. He did a wonderful job.
  #98  
Old 06-20-2018, 01:15 AM
The_Peyote_Coyote The_Peyote_Coyote is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 3,030
I agree with you, wonky. I gave up on the Star Wars franchise after the abomination known as Jar-Jar Binks.
  #99  
Old 06-20-2018, 08:42 AM
CalMeacham's Avatar
CalMeacham CalMeacham is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 42,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flare4roach View Post
Frankenstein deserves a mention here. The original is a masterpiece, especially considering this was made in 1933. While the story is a bit hokey and the dialogue seems to be taken from a stage show, it really was outstanding for its time. Compared to other "horror" films, Frankenstein remains a classic for a reason. Karloff touches upon something that nobody has really topped. He provided a sympathy for the monster. He's confused and lost and is abused by Fritz for whatever reason. What Karloff does with his hands and evocative whimpering is just beautiful. We feel for the creature. Watch the fear that sets in when he tosses the little girl in the lake and realizes she's not coming up. He panics, scrambles and finally runs. He didn't mean to kill her but he knows this is bad news and heads for the hills. I don't know...it just gets me every time. Something about his facial features just kill me.

Obviously the sequel (Bride of Frankenstein) is pretty good too. Some say it's better but I don't know if I agree with that but I will say every single Frankenstein after that has sucked. So badly that it's just a waste of time to see if anyone can live up to the original. No one has every touched upon Karloff's portrayal with the same approach. I realized over time that while I like the story of Frankenstein, it's Karloff who put his stamp on the franchise that made it so great in the first place. He did a wonderful job.
I'll agree with this (although, nitpick, the film was released in 1931). Karloff did a heluva job with the creature. He thought it was a capital mistake to let the creature speak in Bride, and I think he was right.

The movie [B]Frankenstein[/I] is something odd. as an adaptation of Mary Shelley's original novel, it's terrible. It not only doesn't follow the original, but subverts it at several turns. The story of how the movie achieved its present form is pretty twisted, starting with Peggy Webling's play (itself, the outcome of earlier versions, and enacted originally by the same crew that dramatized "Dracula" for the stage, with the same actors ). But, even though they said the used her play as the basis for the film, they eventually jettisoned almost everything she had, and many other hands contributed to the film (including Richard Florey, who added some bits that remain, but whose film would've been abysmal). That the movie ended up coherent and watchable at all is amazing, that it turned out a classic is incredible*

Nevertheless, the film ended up creating its tropes that had nothing to do with the original t all - the scientist's laboratory with its extensive scientific gear in an old watchtower, the twisted assistant, the monster himself with that iconic flat head with bolts in the neck. And, of course, the "abnormal brain". This is a far cry from Shelley's undergraduate student creating his monster on the floor of his garret lodgings all alone without having to sew body parts together. Or his Byronic, eloquent creation. Karloff's mute creature seems much more believable.

The sequel was a wholly different film, with Valerie Hobson in place of Mae Clarke as Elizabeth, that lush Franz Waxman score in place of the original's haunting silences, Una O'Connor's comic bits, and Ernest Thesiger as the wonderfully flamboyant Dr, Pretorius -- a man who LOVED being a Mad Scientist. But the film, for all its visual flair, is inconsistent and disappointing in its resolution and looks, for all its polish, cobbled together.




*Hollywood in that period got away with this more times than it deserved. Casablanca and Wizard of Oz were similarly monstrosities with multiple hands pulling them in completely different directions and without a single guiding vision, which nevertheless turned out to be classics. Most of the time, the product ended up not being memorable. there are plenty of forgotten films from that period.
__________________
It was then that he noticed that the Thing in the room with him consisted of a mass of hideously twisting tentacles and pseudopods, writhing in all directions, each of them an unworldly shade of green or yellow, with a nacreous glossy sheen.
---The Call of Chihuli
  #100  
Old 06-20-2018, 01:43 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,200
I thought of a good example this morning: Trainspotting.

In the original movie, Renton was a heroin addict whose social circle consisted of other heroin addicts. Everyone in the movie was shown to be following a self-destructive path to an early death. Most of the characters avoided thinking about this by not thinking about the future. Renton was shown to be different; he could see he was heading towards an early death and wanted to change. He tried to quit heroin but his friends led him back into it. So at the end, he betrayed and abandoned his friends. He knew it was an immoral act but he justified it by thinking it was the only way he could save his own life and that his friends, by their own choices, were not going to be able to save themselves and would take him down with them.

Then a sequel, T2 Trainspotting, was made twenty-one years later. I'll admit I haven't seen the sequel but the trailer reveals one of the key facts of the movie; the characters from the first movie are still around twenty years later. That fact alone invalidates the first movie. It means Renton was wrong. His friends were doomed to die; they apparently either quit using heroin or they have been using it for twenty years without dying. Either way, Renton wasn't facing the extreme choice that he felt justified his act.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017