How to make certain movie series' perfect... — Page 2

Overrated films for me:

Forrest Gump - I just don't get it.  I am definitely in the minority because the movie was beloved that summer of 1994, but I just never thought it was a great movie.

The Departed -  I liked it, but this doesn't even rank in the top 5 for Scorcese for me.  Goodfellas is light years better then The Departed, yet The Departed won the damn Best Picture Oscar!

Independence Day - To this day, I will never understand how this movie was such a hit.  It is such a piece of crap, it isn't even a good 'guilty pleasure' movie, but again I am in the minority because it made a boat load of money.

I like Forrest Gump, but agree that it's overrated.

I did, however, love The Departed, so I can't even remotely agree with you there (though Goodfellas is better, and Casino is better than both).

And Independence Day is a guilty pleasure, like The Day After Tomorrow and probably 2012.  Oh, Roland Emmerich ... I still think his only legitimately decent film has been Stargate, but most of his others are still guilty pleasures of mine (minus fucking Godzilla ... )

Another way to make Star Wars perfect is to pretend George Lucas died prior to 1995 and all the projects made after were done by somebody else.

Jedi is pretty close to the PT, if it wasn't for the chemistry of the original cast the parallel would be more obvious.

This thread is odd to me.

Isn't the idea of a 'perfect' film series, really just a way of saying 'Sequals are almost always not as good as the originals." In almost every case people mention here, they just eliminate the later entries in the series (with the exception of Temple of Doom).

Isn't that the nature of sequals; not to be as good as the original?

For the first movie in a series to be good enough to fully warrant a sequal, it almost by definition needs to push the boundaries of how much good story a certain concept can have, or else it will feel watered down and unimportant. Very few great films leave you feeling "Wow! That movie is sure open-ended!"

In the extremely rare cases of sequals that are highly respected (Bride of Frankenstein, ESB, Godfather II) they acheive that level by taking an original film that wasn't terribly deep character-wise, and exploring the all-ready beloved characters.

But usually a sequal is forced to find some way to dilute or reinterpret the original tale in order to continue it (Matrix, Highlander, Terminator). If not a diluted continuation the sequal either tries to go a different direction to mixed results (Temple of Doom, Back to the Future III, Futureworld) or is just a glorified remake (Rocky II-XXIII,  ROTJ, the Jurassic Parks, French Connection II).

Oh yeah, and I love ROTJ.

TheBoost said:

 

Isn't that the nature of sequals; not to be as good as the original?

 I would have no problem if any of the movies above didn't have any sequels.  99% of the time, sequels are not as good, and they usually lead to more sequels where the series usually get stale to the point of the movie is a joke.  Batman & Robin anyone?

Even I dare say that the sequels for SW has put a damper on the series?  Stay with me on this one:

If Star Wars never had any sequels, I guarantee we would all have a copy of the Original Original Star Wars in Pristine DVD quality, and awaiting a BluRay release in the next year or two.  There may have been a SE, but the demand would not be there for it on DVD, so THAT would be the alternative version.

Now we have the SE'97, SE'04, OOT, PT, EU, and none of us as fans are happy! None of us can really enjoy the movies anymore on DVD because Lucas is headstrong on the SE 2.0 as his present day SW version.

I know we are giving up ESB, and for many who love ROTJ, you are giving that up too, but if Lucas stopped in 1977, Star Wars would essentially be like ET. 

What do you think?

CO said:

TheBoost said:

 

Isn't that the nature of sequals; not to be as good as the original?

 

 I would have no problem if any of the movies above didn't have any sequels.  99% of the time, sequels are not as good, and they usually lead to more sequels where the series usually get stale to the point of the movie is a joke.  Batman & Robin anyone?

Even I dare say that the sequels for SW has put a damper on the series?  Stay with me on this one:

If Star Wars never had any sequels, I guarantee we would all have a copy of the Original Original Star Wars in Pristine DVD quality, and awaiting a BluRay release in the next year or two.  There may have been a SE, but the demand would not be there for it on DVD, so THAT would be the alternative version.

Now we have the SE'97, SE'04, OOT, PT, EU, and none of us as fans are happy! None of us can really enjoy the movies anymore on DVD because Lucas is headstrong on the SE 2.0 as his present day SW version.

I know we are giving up ESB, and for many who love ROTJ, you are giving that up too, but if Lucas stopped in 1977, Star Wars would essentially be like ET. 

What do you think?

 Im on the record as liking (or hating less) the PT more than most on this board... but even if I hated them with a burning passion beyond reason I wouldn't trade ESB or ROTJ for anything.

And yes, Lucas is a douche about not releasing the OOT, but even if I could have a pristine 5 disc Blu-Ray retrospective of Star Wars, I wouldnt trade ESB or ROTJ for that.

I also wouldnt trade "Batman Returns" for never having seen "Batman and Robin." I simply wish I had my $6 back, and never watch it again. 

FanFiltration said:

Nanner Split said:

C3PX said:

Bingowings said:

T2 is possibly the most over-rated film in history.

 

 

Nope, the most over-rated film in history would most definitely be The Matrix. Hands down. IMHO, of course.

I'd go with Fight Club, personally.

 

 

"Titanic" all the way.

Seconding TITANIC.

Oh. Infernal Affairs Trilogy > The Departed.

xhonzi said:

TheBoost said:

This thread is odd to me.

Isn't the idea of a 'perfect' film series, really just a way of saying 'Sequals are almost always not as good as the originals." In almost every case people mention here, they just eliminate the later entries in the series (with the exception of Temple of Doom).

Isn't that the nature of sequals; not to be as good as the original?

Most movies are not very good.  So the fact that a lot of sequels are not very good, I think, is more an extension of the fact that most movies suck- and sequels are movies.

Honestly- I think sequels have the potential to be the best kind of movies.  They are unsadled by the burden of establishing milieu, or establishing character...  They can focus on plot development (and twists!) and character development, arguably the better parts of story telling.

 

Sequels...

Do you think the LotR could be as epic if they had crammed it into one film?

 I don't think the LOTR films count as sequals. FOTR wasn't a complete film. The three were designed to go together. No one said "Wow, this compelte story sure made a lot of money, let's find a way to continue it!"

(which brings up the issue that every filmamker ever is now pulling a Lucas and saying "No, I had a trilogy in mind when I first started writing the first successful film")

Call them what you wiill, but the flaws that are usually in sequals, most notably extending a story past it's dramatic/emotional conclusion and having to invent a new conflict, are absent from LOTR due to it's nature as being three parts of the same story (which is also how the novels were published, due to paper prices).

SW, ESB, and Jedi are not three parts of one single story. They weren't concieved that way and each is a stand alone story.

I agree that Sequals have the potential to be great. X-Men 2 is one of the best movies ever, built on the back of the somewhat pedestrian X-Men. It's just that the vast majority of sequals lack the dramatic spark (and the advantage X-men had of picking the best bits out of 35 years of published material).

I was only skimming this thread and wouldn't have even noticed if you hadn't mentioned it.

:P