Yeah, just like the header says, I never got the chance to write a film review this week. Perhaps I can entice you to read some old ones? They do get a lot of traffic actually. In the meantime, uh, yeah. Tell me some sequels you like better than the original and why. I'll start with
Robocop 2. It feels like a better story, being free of the sappy origin story in the first. Directed by Irvin Kershner and written by Frank Miller, it's just a lot more fun. Is it a better movie? No. But it's more fun to watch.
Hmmmm…sequels I like better than the originals. If I rack my brain, this is what I come up with:
ReplyDeleteTerminator 2 – but actually, this one doesn’t edge out the first one by as much as you’d think. The first one was a great chase movie with a dark, fatalistic edge to it (there isn’t any suggestion that the nuclear war can in fact be changed). The second one takes the ideas of the first one and brings them to a somewhat hopeful conclusion, at least until T3 said, “hey, the nuclear war’s happenin’ anyway, deal with it.” *Groan* Anyway, T2 highlighted Cameron’s ability to make a great roller coaster ride of a movie, as well as using Arnold to possibly his best.
Aliens – Great continuation of the first one’s storyline, fun characters, awesome action, and of course, the alien queen. It also helps I’m more partial to action than horror, which is what the first one was, a horror flick, whereas Aliens was a war movie at heart.
Lethal Weapon 2 – “I got a dead guy with a surfboard where his face used to be.” And of course, “Diplomatic immunity!” BANG! “Just been revoked.” Great movie.
Toy Story 2 and Toy Story 3 – I like Toy Story, but I can’t say I loved it. Maybe I just found the plot of Buzz Lightyear not knowing he’s a toy rather tedious. The two sequels, OTOH, have much better developed stories, great humor, and some truly touching moments.
Ice Age: The Meltdown – Funnier than the first. The next two, however, were really so-so.
Kung Fu Panda 2 – Surprisingly good sequel that extended the story of the first one and didn’t feel too much like a retread.
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation – Though this doesn’t beat out National Lampoon's Vacation by very much (but it beats out European Vacation by a good mile).
Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey – Bill and Ted get killed by evil Bill and Teds from the future, give Death a wedgie, escape Hell, go to Heaven, meet a Martian scientist, create good robot Bill and Teds to fight the evil Bill and Teds…you know, this really does make the first one kind of low-key!
Riddick – Never saw The Chronicles of Riddick, but I did see Pitch Black, so I can at least compare those two. Riddick wins this one for me, mostly because I think the supporting cast was more fun, and it knew how to use Riddick to good effect, even making him a little sympathetic at times (but not TOO much, believe me).
Jason, I agree about Terminator 2, Lethal Weapon 2 and Toy Story 2. I am not a fan of Bill & Ted 2 though.
ReplyDeleteAnd yeah, Christmas Vacation blows away European Vacation.
I can't comment on Robocop 2 because I haven't actually seen it all the way through. I tried once, but I think I came to it about 5 minutes in, and I was less than impressed. That's too bad because I like Irvin Kershner movies better than Verhoven's dreck. Which reminds me (since SOMEBODY'S gotta say it)...
ReplyDeleteEmpire Strikes Back. I still say that Star Wars is my all-time favorite film, but in some ways I like ESB better. It's a better movie on so many levels. It was the least-changed of Lucas' "Special Editions", for obvious reasons. (The cynic in me says it was because it was the one over which he had the least control.) And of course, it had a twist than ranks up there with the original Planet of the Apes, The Crying Game, or The Sixth Sense.
T2 and Aliens...well, never let it be said that Cameron skimps on action. They are both better than their originals, but this doesn't mean that I have any desire to see the forthcoming Avatar 2: Electric America-Bashing Boogaloo.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn is still the best of the franchise, be it Original, Next Gen, or Reboot.
Simple, the best sequel is The Road Warrior.
ReplyDeleteMad Max was a good drive-in flick, but it was a very successful, cheap movie. With The Road Warrior, they had Hollywood money, but the director still had solid control over the film...
We won't mention Thunderdome ... ever.
I liked Batman Begins, but I liked The Dark Knight more. Hmmmm. What else? I lot have already been mentioned such as ESB and The Road Warrior. I for one think the first Terminator is a better movie. Can I count The Two Towers or is the Lord of the Rings considered all one movie? I'll throw one out there. Addams Family Values.
ReplyDeleteBetter than original: Wrath of Khan, The Dark Knight, The Road Warrior, Empire Strikes Back, Lethal Weapon 2, Toy Story 2 & 3, Christmas Vacation, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, Hot Shots: Part Deux,
ReplyDeleteOn par with original: Terminator 2, Batman Returns, Aliens, Hellboy 2, Back to the Future: Part II, The Godfather II
Special mention:
I rank Addams Family Values on par with The Addams Family only because both are so excellent, it's hard to pick a clear champion.
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is, for all its flaws, on par with Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. However, neither outstrips Raiders of the Lost Ark. What's a "crystal skull"?
A Fistful of Dollars was a good movie. For a Few Dollars More was even better. But The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly stands head and shoulders above both.
Kill Bill: Vol. 2 might edge out Vol. 1 but they are really just two halves of one whole, not a true sequel.
The 007 franchise is a bumpy road, and difficult to classify in terms of true sequels. I'm not going to get into any cross-Bond-ination because we've had that convo several times.
Sean Connery kept improving the role through Thunderball before he got lazy. (However, Donald Pleasence is easily the best Blofeld in You Only Live Twice.)
The only other Bond to improve during his run, IMO, is Daniel Craig. While I found Quantum of Solace middling, Skyfall ratcheted up the character from Casino Royale.
Disagree (and I reserve the right to add to this list):
Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey seemed incredibly strained. That isn't to say it didn't have a good premise. And I love the character of the Grim Reaper. But it just tried too hard to outdo the original and sorta backfired. It might have pulled ahead if it were pulled back a bit.
Beyond Thunderdome is still better than Mad Max. It just isn't better than The Road Warrior.
Andrew -
ReplyDeleteYou really think the origin story in RoboCop is sappy? I've heard many adjectives used to describe that film but "sappy" isn't one of them. But I suppose I'm biased - I think it's a near-perfect movie: a great combination of action, science-fiction, western (the lone gunslinger cleaning up a town), and satire. Besides, no movie with the line "Bitches leave" can be considered sappy! :-)
I do like the second film but it's missing that extra bit of... weirdness that Verhoeven brings to everything he does. Frank Miller's name might be on the film but he was heavily re-written (ditto for the third film). He later published his original story in comic form though it received mixed reviews. And he was only hired after the first film's writers wrote a script which was rejected by the studio. And Kershner was hired only after the original director quit during pre-production.
Having said that, I agree with many of the posters above. I will also throw in Gremlins 2, in which the studio let Joe Dante and Co. go crazy.
(We're in between cable companies so I have no Internet at home - I'll chime in if/when I can.)
I'll toss Lord of the Rings in there. It may seem like a cheat, because the production plan to produce the entire story trilogy within a short period - so that it's like one really long movie. Also, the first had the origin story baggage to deliver and Tollien is like a old time locomotive - gotta build up the steam before you can leave the yard.
ReplyDeleteAll that said, Peter Jackson does a masterful job of interpreting the books to screen and, thanks to the production plan, he is able to maintain a visual consistency from one movie to the next - unlike, say, Star Wars, where Lucas was discovering new Jedi fighting powers and able to fiddle with the technology from one movie to the next. And then fiddle again before the Dvds came out, then again for Blue Ray, and - well, I just know he's doing it again.
HAN SHOT FIRST!!!
Sorry, that just had to get out.
Well, that's my point: they did this one right. Knowing the sequels would have to come out, they didn't leave them hanging from one movie to the next. They signed one director, one cast and crew to all three movies and they chose their talent well.
I will also cast a vote for Spiderman II, the best of all of them, because Doc Ock is perhaps the most compelling supervillian I've seen on the screen. His transition from good hearted researcher to villian is understandable, believable and forgivable. Alfred Molina breaks your heart. Also, brilliant use of CGI to support the cast and story. Lucas should have watched this move before writing his prequels.
Tolkien, not Tollien - but you all knew that. Forgot to check spelling.
ReplyDeleteI though Wayne's World 2 was way funnier than the first. There is a part where Garth has to imagine the most painful thing in the word and he envisions himself getting his teeth drilled while at a Kenny G concert
ReplyDeleteDave, I have the same view about Empire Strikes Back. Star Wars is my favorite, but Empire is the better film.
ReplyDeleteMycroft, Totally agree, including your desire to never mention that third thing.
ReplyDeleteDwizzum, Excellent choices. I too like the Two Towers better, and The Dark Knight is much better than Batman Begins.
ReplyDeletetryanmax, Nice breakdown! I agree with most of it, though I do prefer Mad Max to Thunderdome. I agree about Craig too, he's gotten better and better as Bond.
ReplyDeleteOn Gremlins 2, it's just so different from the first, I have a hard time even thinking of it as a sequel. As such, I'd call it "on par."
ReplyDeleteScott, I think the origin story in Robocop is sappy and cliched. The film would have been better off without it. Just make him single, lose the family and take it from there. Right now, those moments just drag the film down, especially as they have a completely different feel than the rest of the film.
ReplyDeleteKRS, Absolutely Han shot first... who said he didn't? ;-)
ReplyDeletedjskit, I liked the first a lot better actually. To me, the second suffered from a lot of material.
ReplyDeletetryanmax, True. Gremlins 2 is so different than the first that it's hard to see it as a sequel. That said, I thought 2 was pretty bad all around.
ReplyDeleteNot too much to add, given what's already been said. But here's my two cents.
ReplyDeleteFor the obvious, "Dark Knight" and "Empire" are definitely better than their predecessors.
I want to say that "Batman Returns" might be better than "Batman" (1989), because it actually tried to have characters and a plot. However, it's a mishmash that goes nowhere and is pretty much on par with its predecessor. Maybe it's proof that Burton, like Lucas, really needs an EP to keep him from going off the rails.
Friday the 13th Part VII is better than the original Friday the 13th- and only because Jason is at his monstrous best in that one.
I must vehemently disagree with everyone claiming T2 is better than T1. I believe I said in a previous thread that T2 is rehash mixed with filler. (That is, a remake with meandering, meaningless scenes just to kill time.) Whereas the first movie has a flowing script and is a great melding of sci-fi, horror, mystery, and action, the second is a straightforward action film where the plot exists only to get from one action sequence to the next. The characters (with the exception of Miles Dyson) are awful. In fact, it was this movie- along with 'Titanic' and 'Avatar'- which convinced me that James Cameron should be officially known as George Lucas' Slightly More Competent Older Brother.
Rustbelt, I'm with you on T1 being better than T2. In part because, at the time the relentless pursuit by an almost impossible to destroy cyborg was an entirely novel concept. It really created an unprecedented experience. When T2 popped out, I really liked it, but it had lost its unique perspective and was engaging established tropes like the substitute father figure, the sacrifice of the father figure, extraordinary destruction and impossibly powerful skinny girl archetype.
ReplyDeleteGood action movie, but unable to shock your senses like the first.
KRS, Amen!
ReplyDeleteAnd it gets worse. Clearly, having the T-1000 as a cop was (if you'll forgive the pun) a cop-out. He just checks the computer and finds John Connor's location via arrest record. What if John doesn't have an arrest record? What if he's a good kid or is just smart enough not to get caught? You can just hear Cameron saying, "look, this a remake and you saw the first one. I'm skipping a lot to get to my Bay-esque action scenes." Not exactly the fearsome predator the T-800 was.
And not only is T-1000 lucky instead of smart, he's lazy. He's takes the second act off after stealing the bike. What was he doing? -bathing in motor oil with a copy of Popular Mechanics? Of course, some nerds will say he's listening to the police band to find the heroes when they commit a crime. But that's just LAPD bandwidth. What if they're outside the jurisdiction in another community? Or city? (San Fran, Vegas, Tuscon, etc.) Or country? Is he just going to circle LA forever and hope for the best? And what if the heroes don't commit a crime? SYSTEM FAILURE.
As for Sarah's Connor's trope...oh, Lord. Is it just me, or is her only function to get John into trouble? The T-1000 nearly kills John when he comes to save her. She nearly kills the Dysons. She helps blow up a building and attract the T-1000. She's used as bait by the T-1000. Heck, she's more dangerous to John's health than Skynet. (And no, her telling John not to save her isn't an excuse. She's made herself the center of his fractured life. She should've seen this coming. I don't need Sigmund and Carl to explain how Sarah's parenting style led to John's decision to want to save her and nearly get himself killed.)
Plus, when she tries to kill Dyson, she apparently does so without compassion, or pity, or remorse. She's just going to keep at it until he's dead. Remind you of someone? They had a perfect chance to play a theme of becoming like the very thing you're trying to destroy, but instead throw it away because that would keep us from another action scene. Remember, this is a Cameron movie. The closest he's ever come to depth is the water in 'Titanic.'
You just don't understand my vision. The terminator was originally meant to be tall and blue and I wanted to rip off, er homage Benji Go Home but the studio wouldn't let me. So I mailed it all in. So stop looking for things that don't make sense!
ReplyDeleteRB - I totally missed that bit where Sarah was turning into a terminator. What a great concept! Too bad James Cameron (not Andrew Price) chickened out for the action.
ReplyDeleteYou're making me want to rewatch T2 to pick out the errors. Must ... resist ... put remote ... down...
There were no errors. Those were all intentional to make a statement about mankind's desire to oppress machinery. What do you mean that doesn't make sense? Of course it does. Look at my shiny Smurf and you'll understand why... look at the shiny Smurf... watch the shiny Smurf... you are getting sleepy.
ReplyDeleteIn all seriousness folks, the whole idea of T2 has holes. I would go back in time before the first Terminator arrived and team up. Secondly, with the liquid metal stuff, there are so many ways he could have killed the good guys but didn't because he still acted like a human body that was flexible rather than a metal machine that only assumed a human form.
ReplyDeleteAs for themes, yeah, forget those, Cameron doesn't do depth.
That said, I just enjoy 2 more than 1. It's more fun to watch.
Andrew, it looks like we've hit a crossroads concerning T2.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I guess we can call it even by either pondering whether or not the 'Friday the 13th' got better as it went on...
or we can do what we do best and just bash George Lucas and Stephen King for a while.
And KRS, beware: the remote usually wins. My solution is to outsmart with a better movie. Maybe...John Carpenter's The Thing, or Clue.
Rustbelt, I'm always up for Lucas/King bashing! LOL!
ReplyDeleteI think that Friday the 13th did get better as it went along, but Halloween got worse.
Out of curiosity, have you ever seen Vanishing Point?
Andrew, I've never seen Vanishing Point, but your review makes it sound interesting. Maybe it's all the mobster bios I've been watching on Youtube recently, but my initial reaction is that he's in trouble with organized crime, maybe thinks it'll be his last meeting, and doesn't care what happens en route because he's done for anyway..
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think that when a movie is shot like that, the director has a reason, but is letting the audience get involved by allowing them to ask questions and come up with possible answers. Sort of like the motion picture version of a sing-along.
I'm going to have to watch the movie in order to give a better answer.
As for Friday the 13th/Halloween, I agree. The former never tried to be more than it was. (Jason just went from deformed killer to zombie and got cooler in appearance.) The latter actually tried to pretend that there were mysteries going on, but, in the end, it was all just prelude before the slashing started.
And now here's a mystery for anyone who can give me a decent answer. After watching a couple horror films last month, can anyone explain to me why AMC is allowed to show more gore than SciFi/SyFy? (I've confirmed this by watching both 'The Fly' and 'Hellraiser' on both channels.) I just...this doesn't make sense.
Just 23 comments,but so much food for thought! Since it's the topic at hand,I hated T-2 for several reasons. I only watched it once,when it came out, and I don't remember most of it,but here goes.
ReplyDeleteThe no kill rule. This was just stupid and made no sense.
The ending where Arnold says "Now I know why you cry." He was a machine! Machines don't have emotions.That was cheap sentimentality.
Edward Furlong just annoyed me.
But the number one reason why I don't acknowledge T2 is this - The Terminator is a completely self contained story. The war is already won. The mission of the T800 is SkyNet's last chance HailMary attempt to win by killing John Connor's mother before John is born. The mission failed. The future was set. Period. There was no reason to make T-2.
The Dark Knight and The Road Warrior were both great sequels that were truly great films in and of themselves,as well as being improvements on their predecessors. I'm one of the people who like Thunderdome. It wasn't the equal of The Road Warrior and it had it's faults,but it wrapped up the trilogy. I liked the end, with Max walking towards the lights of the new city. It wasn't as bleak as the end of TRW. Besides that, Tina Turner just oozed badass cool and sheer sexuality. That chain link shirt she wore weighed 70 lbs and in order for her wig to fit they had to shave her head. the fact that she went along with that is just cool as far as I'm concerned. The fight in Thunderdome is a classic by any standard.
Magnum Force wasn't as good as Dirty Harry but it was a fine sequel that addressed criticisms of the first film and could work as a stand alone film in it's own right.
Having said all that, the greatest sequel of all time is Rocky II. Think about it. It does everything a sequel is supposed to do. It built on the foundation of the first film and expanded the world that the first movie created. All the characters are expanded and deepened without changing who they were in Rocky. Adrenne is still quiet and shy but she has a quiet forcefulness that shows her influence on Rocky. The relationship between Rocky and Mickey is deepened. And it would have been the cheap way out to make Apollo a one dimensional caricature but Stallone,who wrote and directed it,didn't. While Creed was the antagonist who drove the piece he was shown as a champion responding to the diminishment of his skills rather than as just a villain,like Clubber Lang was. It also had the best training sequence in movie history. Just go to youtube and see how it makes you feel. It also works as a stand alone film. I saw it before I saw the original and 10 minutes into it I was completely emotionally invested in the characters. Rocky II wins the title of best sequel ever on it's own merits and by default. Since it's the greatest movie ever made, it must be the best in it's category. :)
GypsyTyger
Rustbelt, If you watch it, let me know your thoughts. On the one hand, it's just a silly movie about a guy running away from cops. But there's something really fascinating going on throughout the film related to religion and the ending is really strong. I won't say more at this point, but I'd love to hear people's theories.
ReplyDeleteGood question about AMC v. SciFi. As an aside, I have to say that I'm really disappointed with the choice of films this Halloween month. If it hadn't been for AMC, there would have been almost no horror films, and AMC just showed the same 10-15 over and over and over and over and over. It was a weak October.
P.S. - I always forget something. The gloves from Rocky II are in the Smithsonian Institute. And isn't it funny that while Aliens is the sequel to Alien they're completely different types of films? You really can't say which was better because they're really different genres.
ReplyDeleteGypsyTyger
GypsyTyger, I agree about Rocky 2. I enjoyed it a lot more. It somehow flowed better. Is it the "better" movie? Probably not, but I enjoy watching it more.
ReplyDeleteOn Alien, I've always viewed the first movie as a bit of a stand-alone because of that. It was a horror film and a great one, and everything that followed was actions films. So to me, it's impossible to compare them as well. But on the plus side, it also means that the later Alien films don't tarnish the original for me.
"...mankind's desire to oppress machinery.". That kinda relates to a story idea we discussed on a separate thread, Andrew. Gotta think about that.
ReplyDeleteBut on the plus side,it also means that the later Alien films don't tarnish the original for me. Very good point.
ReplyDeleteGypsyTyger
Oh, and RB, with regard to time travel movies where the mission to the past fails, I have always wondered, "why just one sortie?". I mean, if you have to change the past wouldn't you send several teams at intervals to ensure success? The TV version of the Terminator series suggests this and that humans do the same thing - a real temporal war. The possibilities are vast.
ReplyDeleteGypsyTyger, There's always a silver lining! :D
ReplyDeleteKRS, I believe I recall the discussion.
ReplyDeleteTime travel movies are often fraught with problems... why not go back further in time, why not send more people, the obvious paradox, etc.
Time travel movies are fraught with problems for all those reasons. I always thought that Cameron tried to address those problems by having Reece say "their defense grid was smashed. We'd won. Taking out Connor then would makeno difference." Because of that line I've always thought of the T800 as a last gasp shot by a desperate organization just before it crashed,rather than as a part of a reasoned out plan by an organization that had time to launch multiple missions. Kind of like Jor-el launching Kal-el into space as his planet died. He didn't have the opportunity for a do-over. Neither did SkyNet. They were so dominant,and therefore so arrogant,that by the time they realized hey were beaten they only had time for the one last hope. That's hoe I've always viewed The Terminator.
ReplyDeleteGypsyTyger
P.S. Can you tell I'm getting tired? My spelling's starting to suck. :
ReplyDeleteGypsy
GypsyTyger, That's how I always took it too. Otherwise, they would have sent back a bunch of terminators or bunches to different timelines.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, that kind of means T2 creates this problem that someone everyone then decides to wait a few years as the develop the new liquid metal terminators and then sends exactly 1 of those back... before sending a third. Something doesn't add up.
You're right,and that's one of the things that pissed me off about T2. Cameron messed with the mythology he'd created. When Reese is explaining the story to Sarah he tells her that the rebels discovered the time displacement equipment after the T800 had been launched. That explanation,coupled with the comment "their defense grid was smashed" means that the rebels were in possession of SkyNet's facilities because they used the same machine to launch Reese that SkyNet had used to launch the T800.Cameron crossed up his own story.
ReplyDeleteGypsyTyger
I know. Unfortunately, that's all too common in Hollywood where they rarely seem to care about consistency.
ReplyDeleteAndrew, caring about consistency? What are you talking about?
ReplyDeleteSincerely,
The Makers of the Matrix sequels
One COULD make a case for '2010: The Year We Make Contact' over '2001: A Space Odyssey,' because the sequel was more understandable, had another cool ship, and was a scary recreation in part of a movie made over a decade previously. 'Force 10 from Navarone' and 'Conan the Destroyer' come to mind as sequels that may at least be mentioned in the same breath as their originals... "Monsters University,' 'Despicable Me 2' and most of the later Harry Potters are definitely either superior or equal to their originals. Are we including prequels, though, I wonder...
ReplyDeleteWith apologies to Harry Plinkett, the novelization of T2 explained it better. Having just sent Kyle Reese to 1984, the rebels were just about to destroy the time displacement equipment when they discovered that a second Terminator had been sent back as a contingency against the first Terminator's failure, later in John Connor's timeline. And since it was an advanced prototype, they hotwired and reprogrammed a T800 to serve as a protector. Knowing this explains not only the "holes" in the movie, as well as why I don't get laid that often.
ReplyDeleteThe rough draft of T2 also had an extended sequence in the future that shows an adult John Connor sending Kyle Reese back and then preparing to send the T-800 back to protect his younger self. It doesn’t strike me as a big story problem.
ReplyDeleteFor me, some sequels complement the original, so I can’t say I like them better than the first. For example, I’d say Empire Strikes Back is a better movie compared to Star Wars: A New Hope, but I don’t necessarily *like* it more. The first is a rollicking fun adventure, the second a dark, more adult story. To me they’re equal in enjoyment. I’d probably put Superman-Superman II or the Back to the Future trilogy in the same vein. I might have added Raiders and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, but I find LC’s beginning a little overlong and threw in the origin of too many of Indy’s defining character traits in one sitting to be believable (Indy’s chin scar, fear of snakes, the whip, his fedora, etc).
I didn’t mention Temple of Doom because that’s a prequel. :)
Regarding The Road Warrior, I wonder how many people have actually seen Mad Max 1. I still haven’t.
Andrew -
ReplyDeleteMany (including myself) would argue that those family scenes and the whole sense of loss are what make RoboCop better than your average 80s exploitation/sci-fi flick. It helps ground the movie - for lack of a better word - and gives the movie a heart it wouldn't otherwise have.
There were more family scenes in the second film but they were cut.
Rob -
ReplyDeleteI recently watched again 2010 (and I've bugged Andrew to review it, too!)... and it's just too different in tone and execution for me to compare it to 2001. Some folks above had trouble comparing the Gremlins movies... well, I can't compare these two.
I'm not gonna say one is filet mignon while the other is a hamburger - that would be elitist, but they're just too different. It might be better to compare 2010 to movies made around the same time.
And if/when they make 2061 into a movie, it will no doubt be totally different as well.
I have not watched Robocop II for years, and only watched it once. There was a scene in there that was one of the most disturbing and unsettling scenes I have ever had the displeasure of watching.
ReplyDeleteI can't stand the scene where an adult has his Little League team robbing a stereo store and little boys and girls are looting, stealing and actually viciously beating the owner with baseball bats! Baseball bats! That scene just makes me despise this movie.
Never watched it again.
Okay, I held back as long as I could: I don't like any of the Robocop movies because they creep me out. I don't know what it is exactly. I'm fine with pretty much every other cyborg movie or character, but Robocop gives me the willies.
ReplyDeleteAlso: He drives a Ford Taurus = FAIL!
ReplyDeleteScott, Many would be wrong. ;-P Just kidding. I get why they are in there, they just feel misplaced to me, especially given the whole tongue in cheek world that Verhoben has created it feels like it belongs in another film.
ReplyDeleteBTW, check out the new review someone left of the Trek book. It's pretty funny. He clearly is not a TNG fan! LINK
LOL! I think "Pinko STTNG Picardites" needs to be entered into the Commentaramanary.
ReplyDeleteTechnically speaking, tryanmax, he drives a 6000 SUX... not a Taurus. ;-)
ReplyDeleteI can see why it would creep you out. There is a creepy vibe to the whole thing.
It does, doesn't it? I love that review!
ReplyDeletePikeBishop, Each of the Robocop movies is all around beyond extreme and passes into the ridiculous. If I took any of it seriously, I would probably be offended by all of it.
ReplyDeleteAndrew, I am no shrinking violet when it comes to violence, but that just went so far over the line for me. I guess it passed some invisible acceptance barrier. I cringe just thinking about it.
ReplyDeleteMaybe if they were just stealing and verbally taunting the owner, but whacking his knees with bats. Sorry, there's that line for me.
ReplyDeletePikeBishop, I see your point and I agree that it's not a scene I like. But like I said, if I took any of this seriously, I would honestly be offended at almost everything in each of the films. They are top to bottom pretty sick.
ReplyDeleteKRS, sorry I'm late with a response.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I don't know how the whole "sortie thing" would work out. Personally, I think the whole situation of 2029 would've changed instantly when the T-800 went back in time. I'm not sure the resistance would've had a chance to send Reese back. He probably would've had to follow the T-800 by milliseconds. As for extra sorties...first, how would they know if they're needed? And second, every time travel would potentially change the present (as in 2029). Those people would have no knowledge of what happened if the timeline is altered and no reason to see their deeds as contingency plans- if they get that far and the future is anything like the future that never happened. (Whew!) As Andrew mentioned, this is one of the great problems with time travel stories. Events are changed and the future/present is altered. The situation in 2029 would be different and only the time travelers would notice the changes. Given that, I don't see the TV series as viable. (I've only seen it as an excuse to show hot chicks as lethal robots- always guaranteed to get sex-starved nerds to watch TV.)
And I agree with GypsyTyger. T1 DID make it sound like the T-800 was a last-second Hail Mary pass from the half field. If what Reese says is true, Skynet wouldn't have had a chance to send the T-1000 back.
And Dave, with all due respect, I must side with Mr. Plinkett. With the cost of tickets these days, people shouldn't have to rely on another medium to fix plot holes. And given my explanation from above, I still don't see how it makes sense. To me, it's all just a bad retcon in attempt to get around the self-contained mythology GypsyTyger described.
(continued...)
Now, that doesn't mean retcons can't be done well. One of the best sequel series of all time, 'Frasier,' did a good job of clearing things up.
ReplyDeleteOn 'Cheers,' Frasier told Sam that he was an only child and that his father had passed away. (Frasier's mother actually appeared once on the show.) On 'Frasier,' Sam shows up in the second season and meets Frasier's dad, Martin. When Sam asks the obvious question, much to Martin's shock, ("You told him I was dead?!") Frasier says the two weren't getting along at the time (well established in the 'Frasier' series) and he didn't want to acknowledge him. He also admits to lying about Martin's job as a cop. ("You told him I was a researcher?" "You dead to him, It didn't matter.")
Of course, he also admits that animosity between him and Niles led him to not acknowledge his brother. ("At least you were dead to him! As far as he was concerned, I never existed!") Okay, that line isn't in the episode, though I though it was for a while until I re-watched the show. Would've been good, though, don't you think?
So, you see, retcons can be handled well if carefully thought out. 'Frasier' was; T2 wasn't.
YES!
ReplyDeletetaking Halloween weekend off? :-)
ReplyDeleteFloyd, Yep. Sadly, the day job got me. I've been busy redrafting an emergency government contract for the past few days. Things will return to normal soon though. :)
ReplyDeleteWho knew that CIA operatives had enough time to do movie websites?
ReplyDeleteRustbelt, It is entirely possible that since he failed the timeline didn't change and they would know the timeline didn't change.
ReplyDeleteDave, Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Talk about nonessential personnel.
ReplyDeleteSaw Ender's Game last night. It was ok. Not great but not terrible.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to support OSC then watch it. Otherwise, I'm not sure.
Now, if you want a great movie then check out Gravity in 3D. Amazing movie.
My friend saw Ender's Game with his son - it was exactly what he expected, which wasn't a good thing. His opinion was that they drained much of the life out of it and while they didn't show certain things from the novel, they treated the characters as if those things had still happened in the movie (or words to that effect).
ReplyDeleteHaven't seen Gravity yet.
I did, however, Redbox Now You See Me. It was entertaining and my on-screen alter ego (Jesse Eisenberg) was good, along with everyone else. But I found many of the events completely implausible and I have a problem with movies about magic acts where they're obviously using CGI to create said acts.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteThe movie Ender's Game felt rather sterile and lifeless at times.
Rustbelt - The point of the multiple sorties would be to blast operatives back at the same time landing in separate dates. All of them working independently in separate periods of time and only focused on preventing just the one event. They have plenty of time to do this because they have a time machine - otherwise, John Conner would have disappeared the moment the T800 went into the past. Several methods might be applied, including removal of parentage of Skynet developers. In fact, I thought the primary weakness in T1 was that Kyle Reese was sent back to do battle with the Terminator and not to an earlier period where he might have prevented the development of Skynet - through assasinations, if nothing else. But if we do that, we don't get the story we want.
ReplyDeleteFor any of this to work, time has to be monodirectional and subject to change the moment it is polluted by a loop. In other words, of course you can kill your grandfather and still exist because the continuum remains intact after the loop back, just directed onto another path.
Of course, for a TV series, this means that all the sorties (except, perhaps, the last one) will have to fail by some natural means. This method can be used to suggest to the viewer that time is inviolate and can't be changed, or you can hold to the concept that events are preordained or the timeline self-corrects in some fashion.
This last concept was used very effectively, I think in the 2002 version of The Time Machine, where Guy Pierce's character is completely incapable of saving the love of his life - she keeps dying by a new method - and realizes that time is inviolable. This is well done and highlights, I think, the key requirement in time travel fiction - the author has to decide what the rules of temporal physics shall be and rigorously stick to them.
Lots of potential drama in my idea, but few shiny machines, so I suppose we judge it Classic Fail.
"Ender's Game" is probably as good a two hour version as anyone can make. Unfortunately , it would be better served by a mini series. Maybe something like HBO's "Game of Thrones" format.
ReplyDelete