Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Wed Sep 17, 2014 2:30 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes 
Author Message
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3591
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
p604 wrote:
H.I. McDonough wrote:
I'm sure that if we look back at the "old days", we're bound to find sequels that you would consider as "baffling" as those. Besides, both Miss Congeniality and Garfield were box office hits, so sequels were a no-brainer.

Not every box office hit was always almost automatically granted a sequel. Where was "The Goonies 2"? "Sixteen Candles 2"? "Animal House 2"? "License to Drive 2"? The only real head-scratcher of a sequel in can think of prior to the '90s is "Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo." Well, OK, and the "Meatballs" sequels (the last couple of which went straight to video, I believe).

Goonies 2: One eyed Willie's treasure was found. The kids homes were saved. The kids have grown up. Where could they go.
Sixteen Candles 2: Technically, one could argue that The Breakfast Club and Pretty in Pink were indeed sequels.
Animal House 2: There was a tv series. Does that count.
Licence to Drive: I think drug addiction put an end to any sequel to any Corey Haims film.[/quote]
Some of Haims films did get sequels, there was a sequel to Dream A Little Dream and Watchers got three sequels.


Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:00 pm
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7416
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
Vexer wrote:

Sixteen Candles 2: Technically, one could argue that The Breakfast Club and Pretty in Pink were indeed sequels.


No, technically you could not argue that. That's the opposite of what technically means. Effectively, you could, but technically you could not

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:31 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 1478
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
Quote:
The only real head-scratcher of a sequel in can think of prior to the '90s is "Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo." Well, OK, and the "Meatballs" sequels (the last couple of which went straight to video, I believe).


The Sting 2
Amityville 2
Cannonball Run 2
Smokey & the Bandit 2
Cocoon 2
Poltergeist 2
Psycho 2
Karate Kid 2
The Fly 2
F/X 2
Teen Wolf 2
Revenge of the Nerds 2
Arthur 2
Short Circuit 2


Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:57 pm
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:35 pm
Posts: 730
Location: Puerto Rico
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
calvero wrote:
Quote:
The only real head-scratcher of a sequel in can think of prior to the '90s is "Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo." Well, OK, and the "Meatballs" sequels (the last couple of which went straight to video, I believe).


The Sting 2
Amityville 2
Cannonball Run 2
Smokey & the Bandit 2
Cocoon 2
Poltergeist 2
Psycho 2
Karate Kid 2
The Fly 2
F/X 2
Teen Wolf 2
Revenge of the Nerds 2
Arthur 2
Short Circuit 2


Jerk Too
Mannequin Two
The Last Days of Patton
Return from the River Kwai
A Dangerous Man: Lawrence After Arabia (starring Ralph Fiennes)
The Two Jakes
Butch and Sundance: The Early Days
Eddie and the Cruisers II
Return to Oz
Death Wish 2-4
Delta Force 2
Missing in Action 2
Iron Eagle 2
Walking Tall 2-3
Futureworld


There's always been a market for this shit.

_________________
"Get busy living, or get busy dying"

Visit my site: Thief12 profile


Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:11 pm
Profile WWW
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:09 pm
Posts: 1292
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
Thief12 wrote:
calvero wrote:
Quote:
The only real head-scratcher of a sequel in can think of prior to the '90s is "Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo." Well, OK, and the "Meatballs" sequels (the last couple of which went straight to video, I believe).


The Sting 2
Amityville 2
Cannonball Run 2
Smokey & the Bandit 2-3
Cocoon: The Return
Poltergeist 2
Psycho 2-4(?)
Karate Kid 2-3
The Fly 2
F/X 2
Teen Wolf, Too
Revenge of the Nerds 2-3
Arthur 2: On the Rocks
Short Circuit 2


Jerk Too
Mannequin Two: On the Move
The Last Days of Patton
Return from the River Kwai
A Dangerous Man: Lawrence After Arabia (starring Ralph Fiennes)
The Two Jakes
Butch and Sundance: The Early Days
Eddie and the Cruisers II: Eddie Lives
Return to Oz
Death Wish 2-4
Delta Force 2
Missing in Action 2-3
Iron Eagle 2-4
Walking Tall 2-3
Futureworld


There's always been a market for this shit.

OK, OK.

Image


You forgot "Force 10 from Navarrone" and "Texasville" (sequel to "The Last Picture Show"). One could probably include the "Police Academy" and Ernest movies as well. Still, I'd argue only maybe half of all these titles were made for purely financial reasons. You can't tell me "The Two Jakes," "Texasville," "Cocoon: The Return," etc. didn't also have some artistic intention behind them like their predecessors.


Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:14 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:42 pm
Posts: 1418
Location: Bangkok
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
OT a bit, but still relevant I guess. This Old Boy remake's poster makes me laugh:

Image

This combined with the fastness of the Boston bombing movie makes me a bit down on movies' state today.


Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:59 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3591
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
peng wrote:
OT a bit, but still relevant I guess. This Old Boy remake's poster makes me laugh:

Image

This combined with the fastness of the Boston bombing movie makes me a bit down on movies' state today.

The image isn't showing up for some reason, personally I like the poster. I'm not "down" about the state of cinema at all, and i'm not totally against the idea of a film being made about the tragedy, but I am against it being considered so soon, I say the studios should wait a couple of years before touching that subject.


Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:26 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
The Oldboy poster is hilarious. It looks like a first-year graphic design student assignment.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:33 am
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:35 pm
Posts: 730
Location: Puerto Rico
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
The Oldboy poster looks pretty silly. As for the remake per se, I still don't know what to think. As it is, the remake is unnecessary, but I also don't know if Spike Lee was the right man for it.

_________________
"Get busy living, or get busy dying"

Visit my site: Thief12 profile


Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:30 pm
Profile WWW
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3591
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
Thief12 wrote:
The Oldboy poster looks pretty silly. As for the remake per se, I still don't know what to think. As it is, the remake is unnecessary, but I also don't know if Spike Lee was the right man for it.

I thought the original film had a good premise that was badly executed, Spike Lee wasn't my first choice either, but i'm definitely very interested to see what he does with the material.


Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:52 am
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:49 am
Posts: 105
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
I liked Oldboy.

I don't need to see another American remake of a film I liked. I doubt Spike Lee is going to bring anything amazing to the table.


Wed Jul 10, 2013 6:49 am
Profile
Director

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 1478
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
here's the trailer for the Oldboy remake

http://variety.com/2013/film/news/watch ... gnewsalert


Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:04 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3591
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
calvero wrote:
here's the trailer for the Oldboy remake

http://variety.com/2013/film/news/watch ... gnewsalert

Looks pretty cool, too bad most of the comments are idiotic.


Wed Jul 10, 2013 9:21 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:19 pm
Posts: 622
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
I mostly prefer sequels/prequels to remakes and generally won't watch a remake unless I haven't seen the original. I agree with Vex that sometimes a story can be much more interesting when retold in a more charismatic way, but if the original version was already interesting, a remake doesn't stand much chance of adding anything worthwhile. The only remakes I've seen that I really appreciated were A Fistful of Dollars and King Kong (Peter Jackson's) and those only because I really like Eastwood and Black, not because they improved the storytelling.

I've never held a bad sequel against the earlier entries. Sometimes (actually oftentimes) I'll be disappointed when a sequel doesn't approach the level previously set, but I hold that against the sequel and not the series. Also, sometimes I'll be bored by concept after a few iterations and may not even appreciate or have a desire to watch even a well crafted sequel.


Thu Jul 11, 2013 9:51 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:09 pm
Posts: 1292
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
CasualDad wrote:
King Kong (Peter Jackson's) and those only because I really like Eastwood and Black, not because they improved the storytelling.

Well, I'd say having Ann Darrow actually empathize with Kong and develop some sort of bond with him is a significant improvement in telling that story (yes, I know this was actually done first in the '76 remake... but, of course, everything else about that movie was/is utterly ridiculous :? ). Ann's complete, blind fear of Kong in the original just feels rather simple-minded today, and the great ape's pursuit of her nonetheless, frankly, kind of makes him seem like a stalker. :|


Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:38 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3591
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
H.I. McDonough wrote:
CasualDad wrote:
King Kong (Peter Jackson's) and those only because I really like Eastwood and Black, not because they improved the storytelling.

Well, I'd say having Ann Darrow actually empathize with Kong and develop some sort of bond with him is a significant improvement in telling that story (yes, I know this was actually done first in the '76 remake... but, of course, everything else about that movie was/is utterly ridiculous :? ). Ann's complete, blind fear of Kong in the original just feels rather simple-minded today, and the great ape's pursuit of her nonetheless, frankly, kind of makes him seem like a stalker. :|

Personally I found the 76 version far more interesting then Jackson's bloated mess.


Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:42 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pm
Posts: 1713
Location: New Hampshire
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
I think we need to come up with a list of actual good sequels and remakes. For reference purposes.

_________________
Death is pretty final
I'm collecting vinyl
I'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.


Thu Jul 11, 2013 9:46 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3591
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
Sexual Chocolate wrote:
I think we need to come up with a list of actual good sequels and remakes. For reference purposes.

People will have differing opinions on which sequels/remakes are "good" though.


Thu Jul 11, 2013 9:49 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
That can be a good thing though. Gives us something to argue over.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Thu Jul 11, 2013 9:56 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pm
Posts: 1713
Location: New Hampshire
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
Vexer wrote:
Sexual Chocolate wrote:
I think we need to come up with a list of actual good sequels and remakes. For reference purposes.

People will have differing opinions on which sequels/remakes are "good" though.


That's true. But a consensus can be built. For example, I think it's generally agreed upon that Cronenberg's version of The Fly was an excellent film.

_________________
Death is pretty final
I'm collecting vinyl
I'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.


Thu Jul 11, 2013 9:57 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr