pfunk Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 I am so tired of the trilogys, instead of being in "tune" with eachother, they suck Heres the formula A) Dump a shitload of cash into a movie and a hell of a story line and actor lineup B) insert a sequel at 1/2 the cost of the original and get a diferent director since the last one cost too much C) write last story on a napkin at a bar after you couldnt pick up a single chick so you have nothing better to do,,,anyways, the people that saw the 1st 2 movies needs to see how everything ends,,,oh, and make sure each movie in sequnce costs lesser then the one before it,,,,,thats bang for the buck D) last but not least, retire on the cash your grossing on the DVD's that you release as "extended" (bad shots and such cut from the original) I friggin hate hollywood Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imode Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 /me smells an I hate Matrix thread coming on. Thank the lord for Lord of the Rings. Purists be damned, LOTR is the best thing since sliced bread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent ONE Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 The only trilogy I can think of that fits this discription is the Matrix... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfunk Posted November 17, 2003 Author Share Posted November 17, 2003 The only trilogy I can think of that fits this discription is the Matrix... T3 comes to mind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent ONE Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 The only trilogy I can think of that fits this discription is the Matrix... T3 comes to mind As much as I don't want to, I can see what you are saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uxi Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 Except was T3 half the cost of T2? Much less the original ("T1?")? And it wasn't that noone could afford Cameron, wasn't it the fact that he didn't want to do it? I get your point, but aside from Nick Stahl, T3 was pretty good. Nowhere near the "Da biggest hit of da summah" like T2 was though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightbat Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 B) insert a sequel at 1/2 the cost of the original and get a diferent director since the last one cost too much hmm what was the budget of T2 compared to T1? Who directed T1 and T2? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imode Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 B) insert a sequel at 1/2 the cost of the original and get a diferent director since the last one cost too much hmm what was the budget of T2 compared to T1? Who directed T1 and T2? Both Cameron i believe. He just bailed on the third one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent ONE Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 Yeah, but when Cameron did the first one, they didn't have to pay him much... T1 made him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaine23 Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 (edited) Why blame trilogies? As a general rule - all sequels pretty much suck. There are exceptions, but they are few against many, many, many atrocities of film. Did not Rocky 2-5 suck tremendous ass? How about the Rambo flicks? Or Highlander? Hell, Legally Blonde counts, in my book. Let's face it, folks... most ideas weren't designed to be more than 1 movie. In the 80's (and now) the money people in Hollywood try to replicate success and make more money. It's much, much easier than predicting what new ideas might actually be blockbusters. I pretty much feel the same way about the "remake" trend. But, why let it get you down? There are plenty of other movies to see besides Hollywood blockbusters. EDITED - for no other reason than to piss off the Major. Okay, because I'm a grammar nerd. Edited November 17, 2003 by Blaine23 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowlightman Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 T1 and T2 buck the trend, because for most people T2 is "Terminator," not T1. T1 was just a well-done B-movie, T2 was one of the first really big Hollywood summer blockbusters and actually had a decent plot to make it worthwhile. Probably one of the few cases where the sequel wasnot only deserved, but actually better... and widely regarded as being better, both critically and otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightbat Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 Back to the future I, II and III now that was a nice trilogy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caufield Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 Back to the future I, II and IIInow that was a nice trilogy I second that! love those movies.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent ONE Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 ...EDITED - for no other reason than to piss off the Major. ... CROM laughs at your editings! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfunk Posted November 17, 2003 Author Share Posted November 17, 2003 tell em like it is CROM! i cant spell anyway They totally did it for cash, it was an original idea that made a few bucks then someone decided, "HEY, lets expand on this" Im sure most were done on a bar napkin like a get rich quick pyrimid scheme At least they didnt come out with a sequel to Stargate,,,,,,,$hit, they made a series Unless the original writer had in mind the whole story when 1st writen, I think its destin to suck donkey privates. like Starwars for example (not the friggin prequels either,---- preparing to get slammed----) Lucas had the whole trilogy in mind for one story,,,it was just too long. Im just pissed movies are starting to be like mini-series to get more money from consumers, One other thing that pisses me off is the damn superduper extended with comentary DVDs when they allready released one, talk about a scam <_< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ali Sama Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 movies with at least 1 sequal that where good. superman 1 and 2 rocked star wars ep 4-6 indiana jones 1-3 back to the future 1-3 x-men 1 and 2 star trek 1 had 2,3,4,6, adn 8 which just kicked ass james bond terminator (part 2 rocked) Alien (aliens kicked ass the rest sucked) leathal weapon . I enjoyed leathal wpaon 2 and 3. 4 was ok bevely hills cop 1 and 2 rtocked 3 sucked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JELEINEN Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 Thank the lord for Lord of the Rings. Purists be damned, LOTR is the best thing since sliced bread. Pedantry Time! LOTR isn't a trilogy. It's a single book divided into three parts. By definition, each individual part, of the three, has to be able to stand on it's own with out the other parts for a work to qualify as a trilogy. As for the film versions, I thought the first one was excellent, but the second was weak. I'm hoping the extended edition will be better. As a fan of the book, I really don't have any problems with the changes to the events in the translation to film. Most of them were to be expected. The complete re-write of some of the characters' personalities (Merry, Pippin, Elrond, Faramir, Gimli, et al) does bother me. The changes were unnecessary (lame jokes involving Gimli or making Elrond a bigot do nothing for the pacing or length of the films nor required impossible special effects) and were a disservice to the characters (Faramir was made into an a-hole). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeszekely Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 Why, at the beginning of this thread, everyone's like "oh, he's talking about the Matrix!"? The Matrix trilogy had the same directors the whole way through. Yeah, I guess it's true that if a movie kicks ass, a studio will go for an easy money sequel, even if the original crew doesn't want to get involved. But for what it's worth, I kinda liked Reloaded and Revolutions. And I didn't care for any of the LotR movies yet. The first one was boring, and the second one had rotten pacing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myk Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 (edited) The only trilogy I can think of that fits this discription is the Matrix... T3 comes to mind The Terminator story line is not a trilogy! There will be more Terminator movies in the future! And I suppose sequel bashers would prefer that there weren't any to even complain about? Maybe Star Wars should've just ended with "A New Hope". Say what you will about sequels and trilogies, but we all know that we need to have and see them-they're as much a part of our lives as is paying taxes...Rambo 9? Jaws 6? Piranha 11? Bring it on! Harry Potter, on the other hand........ Edited November 18, 2003 by myk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolly Rogers Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 The only trilogy I can think of that fits this discription is the Matrix... Except the first Matrix cost only a fraction of either of its sequels. The directors were untested for all practical purposes and I think Warner only gave them about $40M to $60M to do the first Matrix. After it blew away all expectations Warner pretty much gave them a blank check for the sequels and no adult supervision (bad move). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolly Rogers Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 movies with at least 1 sequal that where good.superman 1 and 2 rocked star wars ep 4-6 indiana jones 1-3 back to the future 1-3 x-men 1 and 2 star trek 1 had 2,3,4,6, adn 8 which just kicked ass james bond terminator (part 2 rocked) Alien (aliens kicked ass the rest sucked) leathal weapon . I enjoyed leathal wpaon 2 and 3. 4 was ok bevely hills cop 1 and 2 rtocked 3 sucked Eh? How did you leave out The Godfather (Part 2)? Evil Dead also had a good sequel or two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfunk Posted November 18, 2003 Author Share Posted November 18, 2003 movies with at least 1 sequal that where good.superman 1 and 2 rocked star wars ep 4-6 indiana jones 1-3 back to the future 1-3 x-men 1 and 2 star trek 1 had 2,3,4,6, adn 8 which just kicked ass james bond terminator (part 2 rocked) Alien (aliens kicked ass the rest sucked) leathal weapon . I enjoyed leathal wpaon 2 and 3. 4 was ok bevely hills cop 1 and 2 rtocked 3 sucked Eh? How did you leave out The Godfather (Part 2)? Evil Dead also had a good sequel or two. right, but some of those, most of those on that list were written as one story and the story line couldnt be broken down enough to fit into one movie. even Indiana Jones was a cash cow. If my memory serves me right, they even made a cartoon that bombed. Dont get me wrong, I like the sequels and they are intertaining, but its basically the same thing,,,gets the girl, saves the world,,or part of it. IMO its just the good acting work of Harrison Ford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.