jesslloydfan > 07/10/2011, 02:47
(07/10/2011, 01:58)Chillblane Wrote: Empire Strikes Back is not a sequel, it's the continuation of a story and there for doesn't count. Even though it was far better than the original Star Wars film.I don`t get how you think sequals are by definition not as good as the originals,
Sequels are by definition not as good as the original. Looking at the comments here i'd say you guys have made the point quite well for me already. Terminator 2 was good, But not a patch on the original, and if you think otherwise you need to watch the first one again and take a moment to remember that even though there are a couple of dodgy special effects in there the film was a masterpiece that cost less than most romantic comedies do these days.
Anyone mentioning Aliens will need to go slap themselves too. The original was so atmospheric that nothing cameron did could have matched it, although the second in the franchise was by far the best sequel to the original.
There is one film however that proves me wrong and i'm stunned that nobody has mentioned it, Star Trek 2: the Wrath of Khan.
One of only a handfull of films that ever managed to pwn the original in the face, and that was mainly due to the original being soo poor that whatever came next was bound to be an improvement, having said that Wrath was a great film in it's own right and deserved to be noted as possibly the best Star Trek movie ever made.
As for those of you who like less geek filled movies, try the Godfather part 2 or even The Dark Knight (Possibly the best movie ever made)
dVIOUS > 07/10/2011, 09:19
humiliateme > 07/10/2011, 11:19
(07/10/2011, 01:58)Chillblane Wrote: Empire Strikes Back is not a sequel, it's the continuation of a story and there for doesn't count. Even though it was far better than the original Star Wars film.
Sequels are by definition not as good as the original. Looking at the comments here i'd say you guys have made the point quite well for me already. Terminator 2 was good, But not a patch on the original, and if you think otherwise you need to watch the first one again and take a moment to remember that even though there are a couple of dodgy special effects in there the film was a masterpiece that cost less than most romantic comedies do these days.
Anyone mentioning Aliens will need to go slap themselves too. The original was so atmospheric that nothing cameron did could have matched it, although the second in the franchise was by far the best sequel to the original.
There is one film however that proves me wrong and i'm stunned that nobody has mentioned it, Star Trek 2: the Wrath of Khan.
One of only a handfull of films that ever managed to pwn the original in the face, and that was mainly due to the original being soo poor that whatever came next was bound to be an improvement, having said that Wrath was a great film in it's own right and deserved to be noted as possibly the best Star Trek movie ever made.
As for those of you who like less geek filled movies, try the Godfather part 2 or even The Dark Knight (Possibly the best movie ever made)
Chillblane > 08/10/2011, 01:15
(07/10/2011, 11:19)humiliateme Wrote: can't really comment on the star trek films, yes i've seen them all, but i'm not a massive star trek fan. also with the star wars points you made, yes i think you are technically correct but it is a little picky to say that they're no sequels.
humiliateme > 08/10/2011, 12:06
(08/10/2011, 01:15)Chillblane Wrote:(07/10/2011, 11:19)humiliateme Wrote: can't really comment on the star trek films, yes i've seen them all, but i'm not a massive star trek fan. also with the star wars points you made, yes i think you are technically correct but it is a little picky to say that they're no sequels.
True enough about Star Wars, was just testing the water to see if anyone would go ape at me for pointing it out. I'm also not a massive star trek fan, but I do know a good film when I see one
jesslloydfan > 09/10/2011, 19:21
(08/10/2011, 12:06)humiliateme Wrote:(08/10/2011, 01:15)Chillblane Wrote:(07/10/2011, 11:19)humiliateme Wrote: can't really comment on the star trek films, yes i've seen them all, but i'm not a massive star trek fan. also with the star wars points you made, yes i think you are technically correct but it is a little picky to say that they're no sequels.
True enough about Star Wars, was just testing the water to see if anyone would go ape at me for pointing it out. I'm also not a massive star trek fan, but I do know a good film when I see one
i never really paid enough attention to them to remember which ones were good and which ones weren't, also doesn't kelp i''ve only seen them once each
allsta > 09/10/2011, 19:50
jesslloydfan > 09/10/2011, 20:31
(09/10/2011, 19:50)allsta Wrote: some good debates going on here lool i do like the star trek movies the latest ones pretty good but am more of a star wars fan emperor strikes is prob best but i perfer return of the jedi, terminator 2 is best 1, aliens is alrite i like aliens vs predators while on subject no ones mention predator heres another harry potter lolI think technically the newest star trek was starting again although i do like it, but even the older ones the sequals seem to generally be considered better than the first movie,
Chillblane > 09/10/2011, 23:42
jesslloydfan > 10/10/2011, 00:21
(09/10/2011, 23:42)Chillblane Wrote: As you say it comes down to personal preferences, i find in may ways that a lot of sequels are not as good because you have a level of expectation after seeing the first one that is often not met.
Take the Matrix as a case in point, the first one was seminal in so many ways, it broke the mould, pioneered new effects that had never been seen before (like the Abyss & Star Wars both of which were perfected in later films: Terminator 2 and Empire strikes back) and even though it borrowed heavily from things like Alice in wonderland and many other places it was forgiven because these references were not all it had to offer.
Now lets look at the sequel, Reloaded. They ignored the new tech in favour of some massively expensive stunts that were not that convincing. They ignored then broke Lore established in the first film but that was ok as they were setting us up for something bigger right? Wrong. They hinted at another level of the matrix for those who wouldn't accept the original layer and then failed to deliver the promised pay off. Yes it looked pretty and yes it had all the cast back and yes there were some more stars to dazzle us with but that doesn't mean they can ignore the most important thing, the story, and that is where most sequels fall over.
The sequels you quoted as being better than the original T2, Empire, Aliens all have one thing in common that ever X2 lacked, A story that was as good at least as the original, and it was different in enough of a way that made it new to the watcher.
Why X2 is not as good as the original (even though it's a better film?)? Talk to any of the comic book's fans and they will tell you the same thing, They F****D up the Phoenix story well and truly, and that fail started in the second film. It's not as fail as seeing Proffessor X still alive at the end of X3 (after the credits roll if you missed it) but it's still wrong on a level that the comic book fans can't forgive.
Just so we are clear, I enjoyed T2 and Empire and Aliens immensely, and I am aware that many people feel that they are better than the original films, but the original films were a differen concept, Terminatior was about an unstoppable machine, T2 was about a boy. Empire was about evil, Star Wars was good vs evil and Aliens was a Vietnam war movie in space (James Cameron's own words, not mine), Alien was a claustrophobic thriller.