|
|
Post by petea on May 21, 2024 6:38:58 GMT
If I'm being honest I really can't abide sequels or prequels Jules (or remakes), 99 times out of 100 they suck. They're lazy, unoriginal and just some studio accountant working out on spreadsheet the odds of it making money, with minimal effort. As Francis Ford Coppola said a long time ago . . . it's factory film making. I just don't get it, but I am interested in a different viewpoint as I can't see it from here? And yet... "The Godfather Part II".  One horse's head for Paul coming up! |
|
|
|
Post by Tim on May 21, 2024 7:35:21 GMT
And yet... "The Godfather Part II". Absolutely, but Coppola was referring to the modern trend of sequels and prequels, with an array of directors and writers, which I think he's qualified to do as he actually made a good one . . . arguably better than the first? But then Godfather III sucked, so that's why I said 99 out of 100. Of the countless that get churned out there might be one every few years that's generally accepted as good; Aliens, Terminator 2, The Empire Strikes Back, Godfather II, Toy Story 2, Blade Runner 2049, Top Gun: Maverick . . I guess my dislike of sequels is the current trend to grow them into a wider expanding universe, which for me undermines what made the first film so special, the Alien franchise being a good example. I like thought provoking ambiguity, don't need a backstory or want to know what happens next - probably why I don't like TV drama? But I'm not a fan of Hollywood/Disney anyway, thinking the majority of what they currently produce is garbage, so I'm going to be a lone voice in the wilderness around here  |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on May 21, 2024 11:42:17 GMT
And yet... "The Godfather Part II". Dune 2, Aliens, Blade Runner 2049, Terminator 2, Mad Max 2 all excellent sequels. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim on May 21, 2024 11:57:32 GMT
Dune: Part 2 a sequel Martin? The spin off TV series maybe, but Dune is one entity only broken into two parts because of studio funding restrictions and it's size. It was always intended to be a whole, as long as part 1 didn't flop financially. I wouldn't call Lord of the Rings sequels either, even though it's 3 films. I'm not sure you chaps are understanding my point, but no matter |
|
|
|
Post by julesd68 on May 21, 2024 13:37:28 GMT
C'mon Tim, you're forgetting Lethal Weapon 2!
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on May 21, 2024 15:39:17 GMT
Haha, never saw it so can't comment old bean My point was though that the pool of good ones we can all think of off the top of our heads, is a swimming pool compared to the oceans of dreck. |
|
|
|
Post by rfan8312 on May 21, 2024 15:52:43 GMT
Sorry Tim. Sounds like you've gone off into the weeds in this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on May 21, 2024 16:11:26 GMT
My point was though that the pool of good ones we can all think of off the top of our heads, is a swimming pool compared to the oceans of dreck. We did understand your point, Tim. Our few are the exceptions that prove the rule. When I see some of the dreck coming out of Hollywood, never mind the sequels, it just represents the appalling IQ of many viewers and their microscopic attention spans. Knight and Day, anyone? |
|
|
|
Post by Slinger on May 21, 2024 16:19:08 GMT
Knight and Day 2 was much better. |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on May 21, 2024 16:19:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by julesd68 on May 21, 2024 16:38:35 GMT
Surely one of the worst sequels ever has to be "Speed 2: Cruise Control". Nuff said.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on May 21, 2024 21:02:15 GMT
Sorry Tim. Sounds like you've gone off into the weeds in this one. Haha, happens a lot - people have learnt to ignore me and my film rants.
Thanks for replying about A Quiet Place, seems we like different ends of the scale here too, not just Mr Ritchie. For me the tension build up in the first film was because you didn't see the creature very much, which the sequel changed. I didn't like that, but it was on a bit of a loser from the get go as I rarely like sequels of films where I found the original great.
Interestingly, John Krasinski and the two writers, Bryan Woods and Scott Beck didn't want to do a second film as they felt it stood alone by itself and was written to be a single work. Krasinski had to be persuaded to do it and the original writers declined, wanting to move on to something else. So AQP II was a studio decision because the first film was a box office success, not an artistic one by the original creators.
After the Day One prequel there is a further sequel coming, A Quiet Place III is in the works for release next year, but I'm done with it now - TBH I wish I hadn't seen the second one.
AQP: Day One has a different director/writer too, Michael Sarnoski and Michael Bay is a producer . . . that's definitely game over for me!
Oh, good luck with Sylvia by the way |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on May 22, 2024 4:24:06 GMT
Michael Bay? Oh dear, the ultimate creator of unrealistic action shite of the first order. One to avoid, like Marvel and DC.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on May 22, 2024 9:37:29 GMT
Can't disagree with any of that MartinT . . . mark the day |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on May 22, 2024 10:48:17 GMT
Thanks for replying about A Quiet Place, seems we like different ends of the scale here too, not just Mr Ritchie. For me the tension build up in the first film was because you didn't see the creature very much, which the sequel changed I loved A Quiet Place, it was original, well written, well performed, and it preserved the mystery. From your description, I am not motivated to see AQP2 at all. By the way, one of the reasons Alien got an A+ from me whereas Aliens got an A is precisely because the horror changed from the unknown to all-out battle, with the latter losing the spine-chilling feeling of WTF is that thing out there. Scott and Cameron both did what they're good at. I forgive Cameron because he gave us The Abyss with two of the most unnervingly realistic performances I've ever seen onscreen. |
|
|
|
Post by rfan8312 on May 22, 2024 14:33:06 GMT
Thanks very much Tim. Regarding AQP2 would it be fair to say that you went in disliking the film from the start?
Was the film given a fair shake?
Edit: sorry you answered this question in your comment. But that's what I mean, Tim . AQP2 never had a chance.
For me it was a thrill because I went in only hoping to get powerful visuals and audio which I got in spades. I also got some powerful performances by the young cast. They were smoldering with hatred and resentment for those monsters.
|
|
|
|
Post by julesd68 on May 22, 2024 14:45:03 GMT
The games up Robert.
When you meet the lovely Sylvia don't mention your adoration of AQP2 or it could be a very short evening ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on May 22, 2024 15:18:14 GMT
Was the film given a fair shake?
Actually yes Robert, I hoped it wouldn't live up to my expectation of sequels rarely being equal to the original, as I thought the original was exceptional - I don't normally even go to see sequels. I also really like Emily Blunt and Cillian Murphy, so I was surprised by how bad it was I thought it was. I didn't learn about Krasinski not wanting to do it and the writers turning it down until sometime after. Although had I known that beforehand, I probably wouldn't have gone. But the studio accountants were right, it made money and they're a business not creative artists and you're proof they made a good business decision. I'll watch anything and approach it with a clean slate, but I'm also quite unforgiving it I think it's poor. I gave Rocknrolla a fair chance too, but just didn't like it . . . I never mentioned it, but after you posted about Alien: Romulus and seemingly being excited because Fede Álvarez was the director and had made Evil Dead, I gave that a go too. I'd never seen Evil Dead before and wasn't really aware of who Fede Álvarez was, or that remake. I'd only seen the Sam Raimi original which is a classic . . . you don't want to know what I thought of Evil Dead!  I often see films expecting them to be bad and it's great to be proven wrong. I saw Challengers recently and expected that to be a lame rom-com, but it's actually very good. Great performances by the three main characters, especially Josh O'Connor and some really stunning cinematography. That's a film I'd watch again.
I always 'hope' a film is going to be good as I love cinema and don't want it to die, but it's traversing some very choppy waters right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slinger on May 22, 2024 15:41:52 GMT
How about Gus van Sant's Psycho remake? That surely has to be the absolute worst premise for a remake ever. Van Sant's pitch was to remake the film shot-for-shot, which Casey Silver, then-head of production at Universal Pictures, felt was "...a very strange idea. The idea of remaking a classic like Psycho just seemed like a dangerous business to get into".
When asked why he wanted to remake the film in this manner, Van Sant responded: "Why not? It's a marketing scheme. Why does a studio ever remake a film? Because they have this little thing they've forgotten about that they could put in the marketplace and make money from".
According to Wikipedia the Budget was $60 million, and the Box Office take was $37.2 million.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on May 22, 2024 16:02:36 GMT
Holy crap . . the Psycho remake was an absolute abomination. Hard to cock up a shot by shot reproduction you'd think, I mean the works already been done . . . but nope, they absolutely f***** it up big time.
By why, why, why is the question? Dumb idiots.
|
|
