Oh Thank God, There's Hope For The Future...

[Brainstem]

lol no there isn't, i'm joking

[takewithfood]

Oh good lord. That is going to be a dreadful movie.

~TWF

[Brainstem]

Ok, here's my deal... it has slight potential.

1. The Hellfire Club is gone; it was one of the biggest issues with the first one simply because it felt so terribly shoehorned into the movie. With it gone, there's a chance that something more coherent can come in. And who wouldn't love to see Omega Red? Okay, I'm joking about that part. Kind of.

2. New writers means the awkward, disconnected screenplay may actually been done better this next go-around.

3. Since the same cast is on board, the supporting actors may have honed their chops since filming the first and can more convincingly play their roles. I know the girl who played Mystique has been in a handful of other projects, so it's possible that she's improved.

In general, I think the movie can succeed if it has more direction than the first. Do I think it will? No. But the series has a more direct aim and may be able to better focus on that instead of bounce back and forth between being a character piece and a popcorn flick. If it picks one and sticks with it, we'll be in better shape.

[roxolid]

Unless it has Wolverine in it, X-Men movies are bound to be dull/unwatched affairs. Much as I dislike the character (and he's been used to death) the rest of the X-men are kinda of stiff. I enjoyed first class but honestly can't remember (without checking) which characters are in it besides Charles Xavier and Magneto. Michael Fassbender was good as Magneto but he's a guy who's star is on the rise - I doubt he'd be in a sequel (unless he pre-signed).

X-men movies need to be flashy wham bam action types to get the audiences' attention. Not saying that makes a good movie, but it puts bums on seats.



Hmmm. Perhaps even wham/bam/action doesn't do that well.

Perhaps the X-men isn't a great franchise for Marvel.

edit: My Eyes! It burns! Ah thats better

[takewithfood]

I think the movie will have a chance if:

1. It isn't written by the same huge committee as First Class. One head writer (even if he's garbage), an assistant or two, and some doctors, tops.

2. If the writer and director can settle whether or not this is a prequel or a reboot. I vote for reboot, as it's already way out of any continuity ever imagined (and that's saying a lot for a comic book world).

3. If they get a little closer to actual continuity. If you want to make up a new character, friggin' make a new one. Don't slap some existing character's name on it and call it a day. I don't see how this is possible, though, given who was in the "first class".

4. If they ecast some characters or just get rid of them - mostly January Jones, but they need to either cut out Beast or hire a new special effects team. He looked like a minor villain from a failed Sentai pilot.

5. If they figure out who the actual goddamn villain is. Hopefully this won't be a problem now that Magneto is teh evulz ftw.

6. If they decide whether this is a story about Xavier/Magneto, or about the students. You can't have it both ways. If you're only going to give a character about 2 minutes of training montage, and a 30 second "oh look how I used that thing I learned in the montage" moment of glory, don't bother.

I don't expect any of those points to actually be met. The more I think about First Class, the more I hate it, and I can't see how a sequel is going to be any better.

~TWF

[WildKnight]

Confused; the first one sucked. Why should the sequel be any different?

[takewithfood]

For the same reason that the first and second X-Men movies were good, but the 3rd one sucked: different people, different movie.

Unfortunately, the people aren't different enough in this case.

~TWF

[WildKnight]

Nov 8, 2011 15:44:21 GMT -5 takewithfood said:

For the same reason that the first and second X-Men movies were good, but the 3rd one sucked: different people, different movie.

Unfortunately, the people aren't different enough in this case.

~TWF

I can't really think of many cases where a sequel was good when the original wasn't, though.

[takewithfood]

There's a reason for that, which primarily comes down to the fact that it's only successful movies that get sequels, and many successful movies are good. In order for the sequel to be better, it has to be better than good.

Try rolling a d20 and rerolling anything that comes up, say, 17 or higher. Almost all of the time the second roll will be worse, even though you're still rolling a d20.

Then factor in that sequels often have smaller budgets. They typically cost more, but after you factor in increased advertising costs, and greatly increased salaries for returning actors, there often isn't much left. Sequels also tend to be rushed, or at least not postponed if/when they really ought to be, to cash in on the recent success of the original. Even the pressure to at least match the success of the first can screw things up, as writers and directors get overly ambitious, and are often rewarded with more control than they should have based entirely on the success of one movie.

I can't think of many sequels that were better the original, either. I think I liked Empire better than A New Hope, but not by much; they're both pretty awesome. Desperado is arguably better than El Mariachi. The Silence of the Lambs is a sequel, but nobody really thinks of it that way.

~TWF

[WildKnight]

I liked El Mariachi, but meh.

Silence of the Lambs isn't really a sequel, is it? I mean, it's more of a reboot or something. Even though Mancatcher was first, it doesn't seem to related to the Silence movie (and in fact, isn't Red Dragon the same story as Mancatcher, but in the Silence of the Lambs movieverse?)

[takewithfood]

Yeah, it's only really a sequel on the technicality that someone had previously made a movie out of the book that came before it. The Bond films are similar in that they're based on the books, but are largely unrelated to one another.

~TWF

[WildKnight]

Nov 8, 2011 16:12:34 GMT -5 takewithfood said:

Yeah, it's only really a sequel on the technicality that someone had previously made a movie out of the book that came before it. The Bond films are similar in that they're based on the books, but are largely unrelated to one another.

~TWF

... except when they reference another one, and you scratch your head and say "I thought we didn't do that in Bond films!"

[roxolid]

Sequel that was better than the original... hmmm... off the top of my head:

Mad Max II - the Road Warrior

The first film set the premise pretty well - cop sees his family murdered hunts down the gang that did it, but the budget was something like $10 and the pacing of the story was all over the place with lots of slow down.

The second?

It starts in top gear with the nitrous turned on and slows down slightly when Max gets busted up, then nails the foot to the floor for the finale.

Easily the best of the series, though I quite liked Thunderdome.

I could mention Empire Strikes back as a sequel but Star Wars was excellent so it doesn't fill the brief even though ESB is the superior film.

Same with Dark Knight - though to be honest I like both Batman Begins and TDK equally for different reasons. First one for the story, second for the action and cinematography. The third will have to go some way to beat the first two but I've a feeling it'll break TDKs record for best grossing hero film. I want to see that one in IMAX.

Other sequels that do the job?

Superman II. Superman 1 was one of Luthors "Failed real estate schemes" as mentioned elsewhere, Superman II was a lesson in pain for the man of Steel. I'd much rather watch the second film than the first again, though the first wasn't bad.

For the most part, sequels are dreadful though. I loved the Mask of Zorro. It was clear that without Anthony Hopkins the second would fizzle.

Conan the Destroyer was fun in a camp but rubbish way, the first film was kick ass as a blood and thunder disengage brain film.

Aha! Found another. Star Trek II, Wrath of Khan. Infinitely better than Star Trek the motion Picture! Ta Daaaa!

I preferred Terminator 2, Aliens and X men 2 but none of those had crappy first films.

[Beacon]

I actually liked First Class.

Of course it was blatantly obvious that the studio had zero faith in the movie so at the end they rushed to get rid of the Charles/Erik friendship that made the bulk of First Class more than just another X-Men movie.

I’d predict that the sequel would be “just another X-Men movie” but apparently this guy was involved in Last Stand so I’m worried it’ll be an awful X-Men movie.

[takewithfood]

That's a pretty good list, Roxolid! I did enjoy the first Star Trek, but it's hard to beat Wrath of Khan. Good call on T2, and The Dark Knight may be the strongest example I can think of, actually.

I think I like Aliens better than Alien, too, now that I think about it.

~TWF