Bossy Monkey
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-30-10 10:09 AM
Original message |
Sequels that DIDN'T retroactively make their antecedent films worse |
|
I've mentioned elsewhere that I'm the idiot who didn't see Godfather 1 or 2, but only 3. However, I am assured on all sides that Godfather 2 qualifies. (3, not so much.) Aliens & Terminator 2 make the cut. Empire Strikes Back does; I bet ewok-haters will question whether Return of the Jedi does. Indiana Jones & the Last Crusade struck me as a return to form. Aaaaand what else? Godzilla movies? 1930s Universal horror movies? I'm stumped. Your thoughts?
|
JTG of the PRB
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-30-10 10:12 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Spider-Man 2 and The Dark Knight come to mind for me. |
|
Both were superior to their predecessors, but made the previous films look better for the kinds of stories they were setting up and beginning to pay off in the sequels.
I'd say the same thing for the Lord of the Rings movies, as each one was better than the last and made the previous ones look better as well.
I guess you could also sat that Stat Trek IV made Star Trek III look better because it was the end of a long, 3-movie-long story arc but... Star Trek III still really isn't all that great.
|
Orrex
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-30-10 10:24 AM
Response to Original message |
2. Lethal Weapon II (not kidding) |
|
Hellboy II: The Golden Army
Also, your question also captures a great many sequels that were awful in themselves but not so awful that they ruined their antecedent films.
|
PassingFair
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-30-10 10:32 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey
|
Rhythm
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-30-10 10:38 AM
Response to Original message |
4. The Godfather, Part II n/t |
azmouse
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-30-10 10:46 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Bruce Campbell is so bad he's good!
|
jobycom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-30-10 10:52 AM
Response to Original message |
|
I didn't like the second one. I hate movies that kill off love interests just to give the hero an excuse to kill more people. The third one made me like the other two more.
|
jobycom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-30-10 11:09 AM
Response to Original message |
7. I didn't like "The Last Crusade." I thought "The Crystal Skull" was better. |
|
"The Last Crusade" tried so hard to be what the first one was that it was formulaic and forced. It really lost me with the chinzy and predictable tank-falling-off-the-cliff scene.
"The Crystal Skull" was more like the first one. Lots of ridiculous action sequences, goofy character interplay, and inside references to other films and traditions. Like the first one, it teased the audience. The most famous scene in "The Lost Ark" was where Jones shot the swordsman, because it mocked so many other films, and I saw more of that type of humor in "The Crystal Skull" than any of the others of the series. Little stuff, like at the end where the hat blows off, and Shia's character picks it up and starts to put it on, and the whole audience expects a "Passing of the torch" scene, and Jones takes the hat back from him. That's the type of stuff that made the first film a masterpiece, and exactly the type of stuff that was missing from the next two, which took themselves too seriously and tried to hard to imitate the first one.
Not that "The Crystal Skull" was as good as the first one. The action sequences weren't creative enough, and the directing and production were just too visible. But it was better than the other two sequels.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed Apr 24th 2024, 01:45 PM
Response to Original message |