have we reached the end of the eara of good sequels

[juggernut]

Okay after transformers two and alot of bad mojo floating around about Ironman 2, I think that the "geek" movies having good sequels is coming to an end, think about the nerd sequels of the past, where we were actually surprised that they were good.

Spiderman 2
X-2 X-men United
Hellboy 2
Pirates of the Caribbean 2
Incredible Hulk
The Dark Knight

But now sequels are giving us utter crap like Transformers and Punisher Warzone (screw you, Personally I love the Thomas Jane Punisher). Dont even get me started on 3rd movies

Spiderman 3
Pirates 3
X-men 3 (and to a further extent wolverine)

all horrible, as amazing as Dark Knight was I am just scared for batman 3, remember what happened to the other batman franchise on its third movie. And I'm predicting spider-man 4 to be the next Batman and Robin.

So dose anyone else think that we should go back to the old days of not hoping sequels will be good, I have no expectations for Ironman 2 other then 2hrs of Robert Downy Jr. being awesome.

[gm_wil]

I liked Indiana Jones 3 a helluva lot more than 2 . . . and 4 doesn't even exist to me so I guess that's not a good example.

Personally, I think sequels should be handled by a different director.

-

[joeyrock]

Yes... No... who the hell knows! I don't see how this is an answerable question in anyway shape or form. If anyone can give an accurate answer and predict a future movie trend there are probably a few thousands Hollywood execs who would like to talk to you.

Good films comes and go.. the superhero thing makes them money, when it stops then they'll stop making them. How good they are is irrelevant. I'd say it's always been shear luck whether a comic book movie is any good. They are such a massive unwieldy monster. Creative types try to calm down the beast on one side and the studios are jabbing at it from the other with a cattle prod. Whether or not the monster craps on the audience standing watch at the ass end is anyone's guess.

Saying that I'm quite excited for Iron Man 2. If Scarlet Johansen is in something tight and cleavagey then I'm there.

[gm_wil]

If Scarlet Johansen is in something tight and cleavagey then I'm there.

(not to be a post whore, but am I the only one that doesn't get the draw of her?)

-

[az0madman]

What's this bad mojo surrounding Iron Man 2?

As far as bad sequels, since the Dark Knight came out after X3, Spider-man 3, and Pirates 3, doesn't that mean it broke the trend of bad sequels, at least for that year? And I've never seen Hellboy 2, but you said it was good and that came out 2008 as well.

[tokenuser]

Hellboy 2? Good?? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Who is anyone to judge what is good bad or indifferent when it comes to a movie.

Personally, I enjoyed Pirates 3, Spiderman 3, and X3 United. Not exactly award winning arthouse cinema, but they were fun popcorn flicks.

I wouldn't consider The Incredible Hulk a sequel. It didn't pick up where the previous one left off. It was a new version (alternate reality?).

I enjoyed it as much as the one with Eric Bana.

I have no fear about the third new batman movie, or the Iron Man sequel.

Its entertainment, not life or death. Grab a jumbo coke and popcorn, leave your brain at the door, and enjoy.

[joeyrock]

Its entertainment, not life or death. Grab a jumbo coke and popcorn, leave your brain at the door, and enjoy.

I've heard the argument of 'who cares if these "spectacle" pictures are any good in the traditional sense' quite a bit lately, mainly because of Transformers 2... it's a bit of fun, who cares! It's like a motion picture theme park ride. I agree with that to a certain extent; but they spend $200 million+ on these movies now. They shouldn't really be excused from delivering a coherent plot when there's a small city of people working for years to make it. For the aforementioned Transformers 2 they spent 9 months setting up a single explosion; is it too much to ask for them to get some guy, who knows what he's doing, on a typewriter for half that time to crack out an interesting story strung together with some good dialogue? (Maybe he could use a computer and enable the "racism/sexism" checker)

Really it's not a case of "awesome actiony CG explodo fun" OR.. plot and interesting well rounded characters; the two can live together fairly easily. Hell, it's a crazy notion, but some people actually think that if you are invested in the characters and the plot then the action is better because you end up caring about an outcome of a fight etc.

I suppose it comes down to whether or not a film's wasted potential is something that bothers you. :confused:

......

gm_wil, yes, that's just you. :p

[tokenuser]

I suppose it comes down to whether or not a film's wasted potential is something that bothers you. :confused:To be honest, I rarely see a movie at the cinema these days. I love my bigscreen TV, and my home theatre experience. I am happier renting a movie at Blockbuster most of the time instead of sitting at my local megaplex.

If I want plot, I'll get something to enjoy at home - not many movies with redeeming storylines last at the cinema these days.

So, why do I go to the megaplex? I go for the big booms, and CG explosions. no matter how good my system is at home, I want the spectacle of the summer blockbuster.

I want to escape. I don't want a life lesson. I don't want philosophical diatribe. I want an immersive fantasy world - and I don't care if Michael Bay want to blow it up.

[tsmith15]

I think sequels generally suffer from trying to make it so much more grand than the first. I think pirates is the best example. #2 brought in more characters, more ships, more effects, and a more complicated plot, and then #3 made #2 look inconsequential.

I am a huge proponent for not needing to amp it up a whole lot because normally I feel that's the cause for ruining things. At a certain point it usually begins to feel unbelievable (TV shows usually run into this in later seasons).

James Bond is a really good example of a series that does not follow sequel-itis or the expanding-sequel idea i've been talking about. To be fair its more a franchise and less a series, but I think you can see my point.

[quantumtheory]

hellboy 2 wasn't that great of a sequel, or movie, tbh. and pirates 3 was amazing. Lots of sequels fail because they over exaggerate stuff you've already seen from the previous movies.

Transformers for example. All they did was blast more explosions and shiney/pointy/ jumbled transforming crap in your face. Yet the acting and parts of the story were just meh or not the road it should have gone down.

I guess it just comes down to who is making these movies. Some writers/directors/producers may just suck at making sequels. If JJ abrams was directing Transformers, can you even imagine how good those movies would be?

[gm_wil]

gm_wil, yes, that's just you. :p

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ki5EPOdCHyM/SJ3Y3Bhxh-I/AAAAAAAAABQ/BJj91YdOx2o/s400/inconceivable.jpg

Inconceivable!

-

[tokenuser]

James Bond is a really good example of a series that does not follow sequel-itis or the expanding-sequel idea i've been talking about. To be fair its more a franchise and less a series, but I think you can see my point.Best example I have of a sequel that just kept building on the one before it (besides the obvious LoTR) is the Bourne movies.

It really was a story told in three parts, each standing alone, yet building upon the previous movie. Some might say that that was because it was based upon a series of novels. Those people obviously never read the books then - because the only semblance to the books was the character names and the opening sequence with Jason being pulled from the water on a fishing boat.

I am with you on the Bond movies though. Not sequels. Franchises. Same goes for the Batman movies.

[poltah]

Crappy sequels aren't anything new. Firstly, I weren't surprised Pirates 2 was good. I was surprised how bad it was. That movie sucked. And I LOVED the first one.

But come on. Godfather 3? Jurassic Park 2 and 3? Star Wars 1,2,3 (prequels, but still).

Crappy new movies in a series is nothing new.

Sometimes they're good. Sometimes they're bad.

[kzap]

I suppose it comes down to whether or not a film's wasted potential is something that bothers you. :confused:
Agreed it bothers me so much, a film should't just be a vessel for explosions, it can be so much more, it is an art-form and if that's all you are getting out of it you are being cheated out of a films full potential.


So, why do I go to the megaplex? I go for the big booms, and CG explosions. no matter how good my system is at home, I want the spectacle of the summer blockbuster.

I want to escape. I don't want a life lesson. I don't want philosophical diatribe. I want an immersive fantasy world - and I don't care if Michael Bay want to blow it up.
So why not just watch a show-real of building demolitions, I'm sure you can find them on youtube.
That's why I don't see the point of these 'leave your brain at the door' flicks and movie can be so much more, if it's not a good one is there any point for a storyline at all, why not just watch a series of fights scenes and explosions one after another?
As for an 'immersive fantasy world' how can you immerse yourself in a world if the story is bad, I personally find it impossible to imerse myself fully into a film unless it has decent well written story and a point.
Maybe that's just me but a movie can be a work of art and I think it's a waste when it's just eye candy.
Leaving your brain at the door is a cheap line to hide the fact a movie doesn't make sense or intelligent people can't enjoy it (without forgetting there own intelligence for ones).

[joeyrock]

Saying that I'm quite excited for Iron Man 2. If Scarlet Johansen is in something tight and cleavagey then I'm there.

Looks like I've got to go now.. :p

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/7308/ironman2ew.jpg (http://img210.imageshack.us/i/ironman2ew.jpg/)

[tokenuser]

So why not just watch a show-real of building demolitions, I'm sure you can find them on youtube.I am sure I could find them ... but you missed the point. They are more spectacular on a big screen. If you could give me a film reel of 35mm cinematography with a kickass THX sound track ... I'd be all over it.

Make it a car chase, and I'll be first in line.
That's why I don't see the point of these 'leave your brain at the door' flicks and movie can be so much more, if it's not a good one is there any point for a storyline at all, why not just watch a series of fights scenes and explosions one after another?
As for an 'immersive fantasy world' how can you immerse yourself in a world if the story is bad, I personally find it impossible to imerse myself fully into a film unless it has decent well written story and a point.As I said, and was carefully ignored, if I was to watch a movie with a plot and a well developed storyline, I will watch it at home. I watch most of my movies at home, and enjoy them far more than going to the movie theater.

I only go to the theatre for a very specific type of movie these days - one that benefits from the big screen experience. Two thumbs up for the Dark Knight. One thumb up for Quantum of Solice. A "no opinion eitherway" on TF2 (didn't love it, didn't hate it, didn't fell like I'd blown my cash/time watching it)

Maybe that's just me but a movie can be a work of art and I think it's a waste when it's just eye candy.I didn't say that a movie can't be a piece of art. I did say that I appreciate them more when viewed in the privacy of my own home.

Leaving your brain at the door is a cheap line to hide the fact a movie doesn't make sense or intelligent people can't enjoy it (without forgetting there own intelligence for ones).Part of going to the movies, or reading a book, or watching TV, is that you are asked to suspend you beliefs for a period of time and are invited to enter an alternate world. Was TF2 complete crap, eye candy, or a dichotomy of good vs evil portrayed via the retelling of a story that has been popular since the first Greek Tragedy was performed.

As an intelligent person, I know its not real. It doesn't have to be believable. It is eye candy ... and thats what I went for.

You might dismiss movies such as this as not having redeeming social values, but I knew that walking in the door, I expected nothing more, nothing less.

I also appreciate art. Spent days wandering through the Louvre, and the Musee Dorsay <sp> in Paris, the Getty in LA (love it both artfully and architecturally), my local MOMA, the National Gallery in Canberra, the Tate in London (and the lesser know Dali Museum nearby), Parc Gueill in Barcelona, the Academe in Florence, the Vatican Museum in Rome ... and a multitude of lesser know galleries (and churches) across Europe. I do stained glass, and can identify a Tiffany Lamp vs a lamp done is a Tiffany style. I read classic novels as well as trashy pulp fiction.

AND ...

I like a popcorn flick - and expect nothing more from it than a couple of hours of escapist entertainment. Its not a question of intelligence. Its not a question of "art". For me the problem with this discussion is that someone tries to tell me what I can and can't like and why.

[infinity_man]

Looks like I've got to go now.. :p

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/7308/ironman2ew.jpg (http://img210.imageshack.us/i/ironman2ew.jpg/)

I feel ya, as I have a red head fetish, and I think Scarlett is a lovely girl, but having said that, ...no.

Did you see the Spirit? Scarlett does not do accents well. Her "acting" in that film made me terrified of ever hearing her try another accent. Russian?!? Oh my god, I think I can hear it in my head, and someone must make it stop before it kills me.

A lovely woman, a kind spirit it seems, full of life and good humor. Is she amazing to look at, and even competent in her acting with certain roles? Yes. Is she suited to play a russian double agent? Not so sure. I will give her a chance though, and god knows that I hope she proves me wrong.

[joeyrock]

I didn't see the spirit because I heard it sucked.. I have a feeling you might be right, her British accent in The Prestige was pretty terrible as well. Hopefully she'll be undercover as an American as she's Stark's assistant.

The thing that is bothering me most is that clearly plastic Iron Man suite in the picture (and other pictures), lets just hope that's down to there being no special effects done yet. One of the things with sequels is that they make the budget the same or less and triple amount of CG and action... which leads to lots of crappy looking CG.

[darthender]

The thing that is bothering me most is that clearly plastic Iron Man suite in the picture (and other pictures)It's pretty clear in that picture that Downy isn't even WEARING that suit. It's either a plastic model they put in front of him or its something they just photoshopped over his picture.

[dh_jin]

ahhh man... i love scarlett johansson. she is soooo hot. anyone else seen vicky christina barcelona? that was like hot. i don't really care if she does accents bad, after vcb nothing she can do wrong.

i reckon most sequels have sequel-itis. trying to recapture the "magic" of the first one and ultimately failing. quantum of solace was pretty amazing, i'm sure iron man 2 will be at least super fun if nothing else.

[heyseuss]

This 'era' you speak of, is only relevant to you and your age.

[scoobydiesel]

I see it as hit and miss, some are great some are not, the third films and more you get into them it does get harder to find a gem, but it happens.

[blacksymbiote]

Someone early on mentioned that they thought sequels should be given to new directors... I wonder what Transformers 2 would have been like if it was given to a director that primarily shoots racing movies, like Fast and the Furious. It seems a real waste that there are no chase scenes to really speak of in a movie filled with pimped out cars and trucks. Everyone here seemed to be really into Speed Racer a while ago... and the highway scene in Matrix 2 was pretty good... what do you think of a Transformers movie by the Wachowskis?

[tsmith15]

Someone early on mentioned that they thought sequels should be given to new directors... I wonder what Transformers 2 would have been like if it was given to a director that primarily shoots racing movies, like Fast and the Furious. It seems a real waste that there are no chase scenes to really speak of in a movie filled with pimped out cars and trucks. Everyone here seemed to be really into Speed Racer a while ago... and the highway scene in Matrix 2 was pretty good... what do you think of a Transformers movie by the Wachowskis?

That's actually a really interesting point. And Speed Racer was the sleeper flick of eternity imo. I normally tend to forget how important a director is to a movie, unless it's huge names because I just assume they have a big impact because they're famous. I think I remember at least one movie where it was like a series of 15-20 minute shorts each done by a different director with a common theme, and you really got a sense of each different director by how their bit went. Anyway, speaking of the Wachowskis, what are they working on now?

[satori]

we have reatched teh ends of gooder spellink

[blacksymbiote]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ki5EPOdCHyM/SJ3Y3Bhxh-I/AAAAAAAAABQ/BJj91YdOx2o/s400/inconceivable.jpg

Inconceivable!

-

You're not the only one. I'm certain they could have found a better actress, however, if that meant paying them amounts of money that would have affected the FX budget or something else important to a movie like this, then let her have her day. But I can totally see her screwing this movie up.

[trunolimit]

pssshhh, Hangover 2

Answer = hell no

[tsmith15]

pssshhh, Hangover 2

Answer = hell no

If you read the critical reaction out there to Hangover 2, it's one of the most despised sequels of all time.

[trunolimit]

If you read the critical reaction out there to Hangover 2, it's one of the most despised sequels of all time.

I was being somewhat sarcastic. Although I liked the movie I can completely see why others wouldn't.

This is a very old thread I just happened across and thought it was funny how well it fits in with the whole hangover 2 talk.