He once considered using that method to burn the whole thing down.
YouTube has a seven-part video takedown on why The Phantom Menace is an objectively bad movie, not just “a bad movie compared to the original trilogy.” It is bad for reasons of character, plot, pacing…basically, a mess because no one was willing to say “no” to anything George Lucas suggested.
An example from one of the later videos: describe Han Solo without describing what he looks like. Easy: roguish, brash, bold, a smuggler, but still has a heart. Okay? Now, do the same for Qui-Gon Jinn. “Err…” And this is the character who’s at the center of the story!
The Oscar nominations were for effects and sound, by the way, which can be great irrespective of how awful the rest of the movie is.
I don’t need 70 minutes of some youtuber telling me why it’s a bad movie. I could tell that in real time the first time I saw it.
What IS the fascination with video reviews that are as long as the movie? And video reviews of new products, like plastic model kits? What the heck is wrong with still pictures? kids these days and their videos! grumble
That reminds me of another one, if you are willing to stretch the definition of sequel to include a TV-series revival: Last year’s revival of The X Files.
You know the big alien conspiracy arc that took up 9 years of your lives, and created more mysteries that it ever answered because the show was just making it up as they went and kept getting renewed after the show runner wanted to end it? Yeah, well, that was all misdirection and lies from the ***real ***conspirators who are ***really ***up to this new (even stupider) evil plot.
Grrr… At least the standalone episode with the Weremonster was excellent.
It’s funny because it’s true (and also, the cat with diarrhea comment made me snerk). I honestly cannot think of a sequel that is more of a blatant, cheap attempt to ride on the popularity of the first without any regard whatsoever to connecting it the original in story, tone, etc. Not only that, but as Max pointed out, it rips apart the original premise that the BWP was actual found footage, which is pretty much the reason for its existence and what made it such a hit.
I think most sequels tend to ruin, or at least cheapen the originals. Maybe not adventure / superhero type stuff, as that’s how they originated in comic book form, but if a story revolves arounde a particular conflict and we’ve invested two hours in watching characters struggle to resolve the situation - even if it ends badly for them- I think it’s almost more . . .respectful . . . and definitely more effective to let it stand on its own. I guess I’m not expressing it properly but it feels like showing us how life went on after whatever “the Big Thing” was in the first one just seems to dilute it somehow.
YOUTUBE!:eek::eek::eek::eek: Ohmy, yes, your masterful cite has convinced me!:rolleyes:
I dunno, you’re the one trying to convince people that it wasn’t a bad film based on a below-average RT score, a couple technical award nominations and the fact that a long anticipated, much hyped film from a very popular franchise sold a bunch of tickets.
Yep. All those things show it was a OK film. Not a Good film, not a Horrible film, but one that did OK.
Point being that a whole bunch of people disagree and you’re the one who brought up being tired of hearing about it. It’s not on them to convince you that it sucks if you’re the one upset. You laughing off a YouTube review doesn’t convince anyone that the movie doesn’t suck.
May I propose a compromise: both The Phantom Menace AND Youtube suck.
Now, everybody is happy. 
Of course i dont hope to convince anyone that they didnt like the film. Many people didn’t, and their opinion of why they didnt like those films is perfectly valid.
Hell, there are many films that won Best Picture that people have a valid opinion that they hated that film. But if a Film won Best Picture, then by definition, it is not a bad film, just a film you didnt like.
But saying that because ““Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.”” that makes the film horrible, is wrong.
How can a movie ruin another movie? Not sure how that makes any sense.
If I have a bad dinner at a restaurant does that ruin a dinner I had at the same place a few years before? Or if my car has a lot of problems does that ruin a car I owned 5 years ago? If my favorite sports team gets blown out in a game does that mess up the championship they won last year?
I enjoyed the second one too, and I think the mistake might have been filming 2 and 3 at the same time. If the Wachowskis had taken a few years after Reloaded to work on the the third, they might have nailed it.
But in each case, the later bad experience can certainly ruin your recollection ofg the good earlier event.
say I had a great meal yesterday at a restaurant. Not only was the meal great, but so is my recollection of it for the next day.
But the next day I have the same meal at the same restaurant, and it’s terrible. Now my memory of a meal at that restaurant is terrible. And not only my most recent meal – my recollections of the earlier meal are tainted by the bad one, since they’re linked by the many similarities. And the memory ever after will continue to be tainted that way. It doesn’t help that I had good memories for a day – I’ve got a forever of bad memories that more than cancels it out.
It doesn’t help if I’ve seen a bad totally unrelated movie – that doesn’t taint my memory of a good movie seen earlier. But if I see a bad sequel to a good movie, it will forever taint the memory of the good movie. It doesn’t help that I had good recollections of the first movie until I saw the sequel – I’ll always remember the horrible thing they did to my beloved character/terrible plot twist/other distasteful association because they involve the same characters and settings and other associations. You can try and put it out of your mind – like trying to forget that the third and fourth Alien movies ever existed. But in the back of my mind, I know they’re still there.
I can remember more than 1 event at a time. It’s not that hard. It’s not like a computer file where things get overwritten.
Yup. I remember the earlier event, too. But it gets combined with more recent memories. Unlike a computer, the human mind doesn’t selectively and consciously erase the memories it doesn’t want*
It doesn’t help that I remember Aliens when I can still perfectly recall Alien[sup]3[/sup] and Alien Resurrection. The best I can do is try to ignore them.
*A la Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which I don’t entirely want to forget.
To use the Aliens example, there’s less satisfaction in seeing Newt, Hicks, Bishop and Ripley saved at the end if you know the epilogue is “Then three of them died just because why not…”
As noted, you can try to compartmentalize and pretend that’s not the canon but it still casts a pall over it for a lot of viewers.
I think it’s more like - you go to a restaurant and have an awesome steak. Best steak and meal you ever had. Then, later, you go to the same restaurant and order the same steak. But they don’t have it, they only have horse meat. And they tell you, Sorry your previous meal was ALSO horse meat, with rat mixed in. You might not enjoy the memories of that first meal as much anymore.
While I don’t believe a sequel can ruin the original film I think a bad movie could tarnish the original subject matter, specifically if it’s adapted from a book.
If you mention the name Howard the Duck to anyone, they’ll immediately think of the lousy movie and will forever tie it in with it. Unfortunately, the comic series it was adapted from was very good. From the art by Gene Colan to the satire of writer Steve Gerber.
I personally know that the movie won’t ruin my memory of the comic series, but because of the stink it gave the subject matter, it may prevent others from seeking out and reading the original material.
I don’t think it ruins the experience of viewing / the memory of the first one, but I think it can change the meaning or impact of the first one. Like **Max Torque’**s excellent example of Blair Witch II, the whole impact of that film is that we’re supposedly watching the last days of these three hikers’ lives. That’s the universe we work within, the reason the end shot is so impactful. To be told in the sequel that the original film was never meant to be real totally contradicts what we saw before and completely changes the meaning of it. I saw BWII and thought it sucked tremendously all on it’s own pathetic self and while it didn’t diminish the enjoyment I got our of the original it just felt somehow *disrespectful *for lack of a better word.