Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 37 of 37
  1. #31
    A Wearied Madness Vakanai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    9,747

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Somecrazyaussie View Post
    Tell that to the people who went a saw Highlander 2 or Speed 2. I know a mate who saw the former when it came out in cinemas and legit walked from the cinema. At the time the original was one of his favourite films and that experience really soured his enjoyment.
    Sure, gladly. Tell your mate to join CBR forums and I'll post the same thing. Some people take sequels too seriously, too personally. Some people let shitty sequels ruin their previous love of the originals - but that is on them, it's not on the sequels. I think it's a sign of immaturity if people let sequels ruin other films for them. And that's not an insult by the way - no one is mature in all ways on all things at all times, we all are immature over something - I know I've been childish at times (like my inability to stop myself from talking shit about GvK for the past few months - I should ignore it and move on, but it's hard to resist you know?). Human nature to bitch about the shit we don't like, to take it personally. But we should recognize that about ourselves and not demand that the world bend to our wants (despite my hatred of GvK, you don't see me demanding the MonsterVerse be ended - and yes, I do wish it would end, because any movie they'll make is going to take cues from GvK, and I hate that and I don't want any more movies like it to be made - but despite that I'm not going to get haughty and demand Legendary give up making these awful movies [imo] for the people who like them).


    Again, Highlander 2. The original was done in one. Connor kills Kurgan and wins the prize. The End. Except, because it was a hit, the studio couldn't leave well enough alone. Why was the sequel crap? Well, because there were no threads left over. The story was done. So they came up with contrived means to get the sequel going and that single film started dominos falling from which it never recovered. Hence why they have to now reboot the thing from scratch.
    Again, doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that the original was done in one. It doesn't matter that the sequels sucked and the franchise never recovered. It doesn't matter that it's getting a reboot. At the end of the day most people can still just watch the original and enjoy it just as much as they ever had. At the end of the day some people like some of the sequels or parts of them. At the end of the day the studios made enough profit from enough of the sequels for them to continue pursuing the franchise to the point of making a reboot now. Those are the points that matter.

    Citizen Kane isn't a sacred cow? No. But it is one of the best films ever made and doesn't need a sequel.
    Agreed, it doesn't need a sequel. But also, the original movie isn't needed either. No one needed Citizen Kane. Citizen Kane didn't need to be filmed. It didn't need to be watched. No movie is needed. So, why does it matter if a sequel is needed? Not being needed isn't a disqualification for being made - if it was none of "the best films ever made" would exist to begin with. And it sure doesn't mean that a sequel can't be good or even great. Why do people feel the need to evaluate potential films according to "need" when no film is needed to begin with? It's a weird belief that has no bearing on reality or why films get made in the first place.

    Not everything needs a sequel or prequel. By your logic there should be a sequel to Romeo And Juliet. Count Of Monte Cristo too? All fair game, despite common sense saying it is a bad idea. I could go jump of a cliff without a parachute. I can do it, yes. But I don't need to do it in order to know it is a bad idea.
    Agreed - not everything "needs" a sequel or prequel - but by your logic literally no movie or story on earth should exist to begin with, because they should only exist if they're "needed" and no film has ever qualified as being needed. But yes, all of those are fair game, and indeed a sequel to Romeo and Juliet does already exist - I think ABC made a miniseries back in the early 00s? I only saw like the first couple episodes for whatever reason back then, but I remember thinking it was pretty decent. Also I refute your claim that common sense says it's a bad idea - that's not common sense, that's your own subjective opinion. As for you jumping off a cliff without a parachute, I don't really know you well enough personally to speak on whether that's really such a bad idea after all (I'm joking by the way - I'm not enough of an ass to mean it, but I'm also not nearly mature enough to resist such an obvious joke).

    You're trying to speak as if common sense is the same thing as what you want, or as if it's the same thing as quality - it isn't. To Hollywood making a profit is common sense. To actors, directors, camera operators, etc staying employed is common sense. To an audience, being entertained is common sense. Trying to make a masterpiece every single time, only doing sequels to wildly popular films if "needed" (whatever the heck that means), ignoring possible money making opportunities, all make absolutely zero sense at all. So no, your common sense isn't really all that sensible here. What we may want as fans does not equate to common sense. It's just merely what we want to be the case, and that's a different thing entirely.

    A good sequel can make a franchise, true. But when it comes to The Exorcist, less is certainly more. It is a story of a girl who gets possessed and a priest who is wavering in his faith/more leaning towards science who has his beliefs tested as a result. Ultimately the girl is saved, but the priest sacrifices himself as a result. Lives are changed and we, the viewer, then question our own perspectives. It's beautiful. No further commentary is needed.
    No further commentary is "needed" (bet you know where I'm going with here) but also the first commentary itself wasn't "needed". None of what you posted here matters though - ultimately the point still stands that some people will be interested in seeing a follow up to that story, some people who didn't see the original and considers it "too old" to bother watching it now will give a new film in the franchise a chance because it's part of a "classic franchise but without being an old movie itself" (weird I know but there's a surprising number of people who are this way), and the studio stands to profit from those people. And that's literally all that's "needed" for them to make this movie - and if they do make a profit on it, and if some people do enjoy it, then that trumps everything else. And if it doesn't, then no big deal, it's hardly the worst thing to have happened - plus horror movies are relatively cheap so it's not a large risk.

    "Beautiful" doesn't really amount to much in film. It's all about entertainment and profit, and I won't pretend otherwise. We don't have to like it, but it is the reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    A story that was complete.

    Anything else(Good.../Bad.../Sacred Cow...)?

    Non-issue.
    Complete doesn't matter, a sequel could still follow it and it would still be a non-issue. Complete doesn't mean much of anything in storytelling. It's not like time stops when the story's over, it can always be picked up again. Because stories exist because we tell them - and since humanity hasn't ended as a species yet, that means we can always tell more stories, which means no story truly ends. We can always pick up on a story, even complete ones, and tell more. And yes, that includes Citizen Kane too.

  2. #32
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,083

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vakanai View Post
    Sure, gladly. Tell your mate to join CBR forums and I'll post the same thing. Some people take sequels too seriously, too personally. Some people let shitty sequels ruin their previous love of the originals - but that is on them, it's not on the sequels. I think it's a sign of immaturity if people let sequels ruin other films for them. And that's not an insult by the way - no one is mature in all ways on all things at all times, we all are immature over something - I know I've been childish at times (like my inability to stop myself from talking shit about GvK for the past few months - I should ignore it and move on, but it's hard to resist you know?). Human nature to bitch about the shit we don't like, to take it personally. But we should recognize that about ourselves and not demand that the world bend to our wants (despite my hatred of GvK, you don't see me demanding the MonsterVerse be ended - and yes, I do wish it would end, because any movie they'll make is going to take cues from GvK, and I hate that and I don't want any more movies like it to be made - but despite that I'm not going to get haughty and demand Legendary give up making these awful movies [imo] for the people who like them).




    Again, doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that the original was done in one. It doesn't matter that the sequels sucked and the franchise never recovered. It doesn't matter that it's getting a reboot. At the end of the day most people can still just watch the original and enjoy it just as much as they ever had. At the end of the day some people like some of the sequels or parts of them. At the end of the day the studios made enough profit from enough of the sequels for them to continue pursuing the franchise to the point of making a reboot now. Those are the points that matter.



    Agreed, it doesn't need a sequel. But also, the original movie isn't needed either. No one needed Citizen Kane. Citizen Kane didn't need to be filmed. It didn't need to be watched. No movie is needed. So, why does it matter if a sequel is needed? Not being needed isn't a disqualification for being made - if it was none of "the best films ever made" would exist to begin with. And it sure doesn't mean that a sequel can't be good or even great. Why do people feel the need to evaluate potential films according to "need" when no film is needed to begin with? It's a weird belief that has no bearing on reality or why films get made in the first place.



    Agreed - not everything "needs" a sequel or prequel - but by your logic literally no movie or story on earth should exist to begin with, because they should only exist if they're "needed" and no film has ever qualified as being needed. But yes, all of those are fair game, and indeed a sequel to Romeo and Juliet does already exist - I think ABC made a miniseries back in the early 00s? I only saw like the first couple episodes for whatever reason back then, but I remember thinking it was pretty decent. Also I refute your claim that common sense says it's a bad idea - that's not common sense, that's your own subjective opinion. As for you jumping off a cliff without a parachute, I don't really know you well enough personally to speak on whether that's really such a bad idea after all (I'm joking by the way - I'm not enough of an ass to mean it, but I'm also not nearly mature enough to resist such an obvious joke).

    You're trying to speak as if common sense is the same thing as what you want, or as if it's the same thing as quality - it isn't. To Hollywood making a profit is common sense. To actors, directors, camera operators, etc staying employed is common sense. To an audience, being entertained is common sense. Trying to make a masterpiece every single time, only doing sequels to wildly popular films if "needed" (whatever the heck that means), ignoring possible money making opportunities, all make absolutely zero sense at all. So no, your common sense isn't really all that sensible here. What we may want as fans does not equate to common sense. It's just merely what we want to be the case, and that's a different thing entirely.



    No further commentary is "needed" (bet you know where I'm going with here) but also the first commentary itself wasn't "needed". None of what you posted here matters though - ultimately the point still stands that some people will be interested in seeing a follow up to that story, some people who didn't see the original and considers it "too old" to bother watching it now will give a new film in the franchise a chance because it's part of a "classic franchise but without being an old movie itself" (weird I know but there's a surprising number of people who are this way), and the studio stands to profit from those people. And that's literally all that's "needed" for them to make this movie - and if they do make a profit on it, and if some people do enjoy it, then that trumps everything else. And if it doesn't, then no big deal, it's hardly the worst thing to have happened - plus horror movies are relatively cheap so it's not a large risk.

    "Beautiful" doesn't really amount to much in film. It's all about entertainment and profit, and I won't pretend otherwise. We don't have to like it, but it is the reality.



    Complete doesn't matter, a sequel could still follow it and it would still be a non-issue. Complete doesn't mean much of anything in storytelling. It's not like time stops when the story's over, it can always be picked up again. Because stories exist because we tell them - and since humanity hasn't ended as a species yet, that means we can always tell more stories, which means no story truly ends. We can always pick up on a story, even complete ones, and tell more. And yes, that includes Citizen Kane too.
    We have to agree to disagree. I don't think it will work, but time will tell. I think committing to a new trilogy is a bit much.

    I will agree GvK was crap though (for many, many reasons).

  3. #33
    A Wearied Madness Vakanai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    9,747

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Somecrazyaussie View Post
    We have to agree to disagree. I don't think it will work, but time will tell. I think committing to a new trilogy is a bit much.

    I will agree GvK was crap though (for many, many reasons).
    I don't know if it will work, only that it can work. Time will tell.

    Glad I'm not alone on GvK being crap.

  4. #34
    Extraordinary Member ChrisIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,450

    Default

    I still wouldn't mind a Poltergeist revival, but something better than the 2015 version which basically was more or less an updated (Drones! Ghost hunting TV shows!) carbon copy of the original except with the son getting more importance, some references to the two sequels (tequila worms from II and the III puddles) and the 80s Spielbergisms toned down.


    Unfortunately a decent direct sequel with the returning cast wouldn't necessarily work out, unless they recast Carol Anne which I don't think would go over well.
    chrism227.wordpress.com Info and opinions on a variety of interests.

    https://twitter.com/chrisprtsmouth

  5. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisIII View Post
    I still wouldn't mind a Poltergeist revival, but something better than the 2015 version which basically was more or less an updated (Drones! Ghost hunting TV shows!) carbon copy of the original except with the son getting more importance, some references to the two sequels (tequila worms from II and the III puddles) and the 80s Spielbergisms toned down.


    Unfortunately a decent direct sequel with the returning cast wouldn't necessarily work out, unless they recast Carol Anne which I don't think would go over well.
    Well..thinking out loud here, but they could go the Halloween 4 route and use Carol Anne's daughter instead. That's an easy way to sidestep recasting her, though they'd have to say she died at some point after having a child/children.

  6. #36
    Extraordinary Member ChrisIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nate Grey View Post
    Well..thinking out loud here, but they could go the Halloween 4 route and use Carol Anne's daughter instead. That's an easy way to sidestep recasting her, though they'd have to say she died at some point after having a child/children.
    Poltergeist II sort of explained she had hereditary psychic powers, hence why she and the house were the primary target of the Beast and his ghosts despite most of the neighborhood being built on a cemetery. So that could end up with her daughter as well.
    chrism227.wordpress.com Info and opinions on a variety of interests.

    https://twitter.com/chrisprtsmouth

  7. #37
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,083

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisIII View Post
    Poltergeist II sort of explained she had hereditary psychic powers, hence why she and the house were the primary target of the Beast and his ghosts despite most of the neighborhood being built on a cemetery. So that could end up with her daughter as well.
    They targeted her specifically due to that, yes. But the one pushing for the spirits to do so was Reverend Kane (Poltergeist III took a dump over the second one because Kane crossed over).

    Can't do another without Zelda Rubinstein's Tangina "Carol Anne? Carol Anne?"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •