This is the sequel to our previous discussion on sequels... part 2.
Now we abandon the Grantland article in favor of our own movies we need to talk about as well as going into further detail on our own sequel philosophies.
Are you prepared for part 3 of this conversation? Too bad. It stops now.
Download here!
Btw, I adjusted the comment settings on the blog, so see if it works now. Start with a one-word comment just to make sure.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Zo, you said that First Blood had your second-favorite Stallone performance. What is your first? Please don’t say “Stop, or my mom will shoot!”
ReplyDeleteI was really surprised that The Lost World didn’t end up on Grantland’s list as well. It was a huge box-office hit, it was actually based off of a book by the same author as the first (although, it was written after the first movie was released, so maybe the second book was the first sequel to the first movie…?)
Then, I got to thinking…. The Lost World wasn’t very good. I mean, I somewhat enjoyed seeing Vince Vaughn in an action movie, but it had serious issues. Did the actors who played Lex and Tim in the first one fail to take any sort of acting lessons between the first and second movie? Their cameo appearance at the beginning of the second movie was one of the most awkward on-screen moments in the history of cinema.
It’s like Jeff Goldbloom’s character had molested them during their time in the electric ford explorer, and they didn’t know how to react. You could see it in their eyes that they remembered what he had done, and he knew it. He knew it.
Listening to my list being read on the podcast was bitter-sweet. Thanks for the shout-out, but having it read aloud, it hit me that I had two fantasy movies in my top five. What the hell? Definitely take HP: Deathly Hallows II off of that list. Maybe it ends up in my top twenty, but not my top Five. I think I was so bothered that not ONE Harry Potter movie ended up on the Grantland list, that I was trying to overcompensate for the oversight by ranking it so high on my own.
I stand by my choice however to include LOTR: ROTK. There were moments of Two Towers that were great (the battle at Minas Tirith at the end was better than the battle at Gondor at the end of ROTK), however as a movie, it suffered the same fate as most middle movies. There wasn’t much of a start or an end. Granted, the ROTK made up for that with several endings, but as Scott pointed out, that was nothing compared to the books. Plus there were too many slow parts in Two Towers, namely most of everything that happened at Rohan (that’s the Horsey-land, for all of you non-initiated into nerd-dom)
I’m not a fan of the fantasy genre at all. I have read the HP and LOTR books (the LOTR movies were much better than the books BTW), but that is the extent of my Fantasy genre love (but not my love for my fantasy, if you catch my drift…#Demimoore)
I normally don’t like all the wizardry and gnomes, and trolls, etc… However, with both of these series, those are not the main focus, especially with LOTR. HP has much more of a focus on the “magic”, but even that is just often used as a means to an end. I stand by the LOTR at the top. A great movie, that is incredibly watchable again and again.
Jeremy, thank you very much for your appreciation of this movie. While we might disagree on the Bad Boys II front, I’m glad you are a man who values a dwarf with a sword.
The Sequel Sequel Comments: The Sequel: Part II
ReplyDelete(Blogspot won't allow for comments more than 4096 characters... I guess I need to learn the meaning of brevity)
Now for a few random thoughts, presented in no particular order:
Young Guns II was very entertaining. I think it was Scott that said it was great at 15, not so great now. I’ll give you that. Still, if I watch the first one, I’m definitely going to watch the second right after, which is more I can say for a lot of sequels (Grease 2, Staying Alive (directed by Sylvester Stallone…WTF?), any other John Travolta associated sequels…)
Zo mentioned an awesome idea for a sequel… Face/On. I want you to elaborate on what this sequel would entail… That idea had me laughing.
The Avengers, while not a direct sequel, could definitely count as a sequel if the same definitions of a sequel already stated are used… ie. Same characters, same universe, same source material, etc.
However, I understand it is meant to be its own series, although if it were classified as a sequel, it would definitely be a sequel Thor more than anything.
Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel. How terrible is that. I had to endure this steaming pile of monkey poo while driving to SLC from St. George, so I couldn’t even watch it and had to suffer through one of the worst audio tracks ever to grace a portable DVD player. I think I earn a bit of sympathy for that one.
And finally, I’m with the crowd that likes the Fast and Furious movies… well, except the second and third ones. Fast Five was excellent. Very entertaining. Zo, you can suck it. :-)
So I have a few quick comments. I can literally walk to Adam's desk, but I figured I should make an official record of these comments for posterity sake. Let me rank out my favorite Stallone performances.
ReplyDelete1. Copland
2. Rambo: First Blood
3. Rocky, even though I love Rocky IV more
4. Oscar
5. Is a three way tie between Tango & Cash, Cobra and Cliffhanger
Daylight almost made my list, but as the worst piece of garbage ever. What a terrible movie. Here is the thing about the SECOND movie in a series of films, it generally has a story arc which can't begin or end, due to the fact it is a movie that connects the film before it to the one after it. What sets apart the best sequels of all time from the rest, is the ability of the best sequels to have their own story line and to be a stand alone film, but still have the connectivity with the other films in the series. The best sequels are their own films, not just bridge films that merely tie a series together.
My biggest problem with LOTR: ROTK is the fact that the damn thing would not end. I felt like there were alot of things that did not translate well to film, that Jackson put in the film to be true to the source material. I get being true to the source, but with literature a lot of that material feeds the imagination, which is great, but in film what we get is the imagination of the director captured through sight and sound. So Peter could have shortened the whole series, to give it better flow and make the films less cumbersome.
Adam I am glad that you changed some things around. It was pretty gay that you had both HP and LOTR in the top five. I get the HP, because for a series that has made 800 mill per movie they deserve some love.
Fast and the Furious is all just terrible. As Jon has mentioned, they are the only films where stealing shit is made easier while said shit is moving, and not in a building. Also Paul Walker in Timeline was the best of the Fast and Furious series. He is just ass. Now a movie in which he is phenomenal is Running Scared, he nails it.
For my list I really wanted to focus on the second movie. I believe that the second film is the true sequel, because you are adding on to a film that was made with an original idea. The second film is so important because it can make or break a series. If the sequel sucks or bombs then generally, but not always, the films will cease, plans will be scrapped, mass hysteria dogs and cats living together....
And then you have sequels that were so terrible that they should have cancelled all plans for the series but continued. So I rank my top 10 worst sequels/only the 2nd movie. I do so in no particular order, because all of these are just the worst.
Transformers 2
Fast and the Furious 2
Crank 2
PIRATES 2, this is shit. Just a steaming coil
Be Cool
The Fly 2
Matrix Reloaded
Star Wars Phantom Menace
Staying Alive
Caddyshack 2
Except for Crank, I loved the first film of each of these sequels. But the studios should've coat hangered these ones while still in the production process. I never saw Speed 2, Teen Wolf Too or Blues Brothers 2000, or Crank 2, but let's be honest no one should have.