|
Post by Brainstem on Nov 9, 2011 1:01:53 GMT -5
You're forgetting that WK didn't say that there are no good sequels, he said that bad movies don't get good sequels.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Nov 9, 2011 6:59:53 GMT -5
Conan the Destroyer better than Barbarian? Ah... no.
The rest of those, yeah, pretty much. I might disagree about the Mad Max movies, of which I enjoyed all 3, but in honesty I haven't seen any of them recently, so I couldn't make a fair judgment on it.
|
|
|
Post by roxolid on Nov 9, 2011 8:30:57 GMT -5
Conan the Destroyer better than Barbarian? Ah... no. The rest of those, yeah, pretty much. I might disagree about the Mad Max movies, of which I enjoyed all 3, but in honesty I haven't seen any of them recently, so I couldn't make a fair judgment on it. Well I didn't say that Destroyer was better than Barbarian (which was excellent, in hindsight, and well worth a repeat viewing. I can only cringe so far through Destroyer before turning it off. Olivia D'abo whining her way through, the thief guy (malak) needing a good solid punch through the back of his head, Toth Amon being a pushover, and the dialogue was piss poor) but the genre has so much garbage (usually with big haired bare breasted women stood about) it actually stands out as a better Sword and Sorcery film, sadly I'll rack my brain for a truly bad movie that got a good sequel, but I'm struggling, admittedly.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Nov 9, 2011 8:44:01 GMT -5
Bad movies that got sequels? Oh man... do they make sequels to RomComs?
|
|
|
Post by roxolid on Nov 9, 2011 8:48:49 GMT -5
You could argue that Hugh Grant plays the same wimpy, foppish idiot in every one of his films and that they are all sequels of the previous crap he turned out, especially recently. Some of the earlier stuff where he's less known was pretty funny and watchable though.
|
|
|
Post by Hypester on Nov 9, 2011 13:53:00 GMT -5
Meet the Parents, iiuc, is a romcom that got some sequels. Why did I get married is an arguable example.
Street Fighter 2, is a sequel to a bad video game. Terminator 2 is a sequel to a largely unremarkable movie.
My Google Fu presents me only one result: The Rescuers Down Under, a Disney cartoon that I remember as a child. The first one, the Rescuers I watched eventually and understood quicklky why I had never heard of it. Boring to the nth degree, and animation that didn't hold up ten years ago.
That said, I thought X-Men First Class was a very well put together movie, with it's only real offenses being 1)throwaway supporting characters and 2) Bad best prostheses. The most panned attributes, the continuity train wreck and the litany of changes from the 616 universe, aren't really faults of the movie itself, that is, they don't make it a lesser film, even though I personally didn't enjoy much.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Nov 9, 2011 14:05:23 GMT -5
Why don't the changes from the 616 universe count against the movie? They made a movie about the X-Men, specifically called First Class, that wasn't about the actual X-Men, nor about the First Class. It literally isn't what it claims and tries to be.
Take Moira MacTaggert, for example. The only thing she has in common with her comic book character is her name. If they had named her Jane Swanson, would you have for one second mistaken her for Moira MacTaggert?
Why wouldn't you hold that against the film?
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Hypester on Nov 9, 2011 14:43:43 GMT -5
Because they're not a problem with the film, in and of itself, only with the context the film is viewed in. There are no actual X-Men and no logical reason to hold 616 as a quality standard. It's personal preference, I believe.
In other words, if The Matrix was called Superman (Agent Luthor: "I'm going to enjoy watching you die, Mr. Kent."), it wouldn't be a worse movie, it'd just tee off comics fans. The other reason I wouldn't hold the changes against the film is because Batman made a ton of changes, and it's great, so change, in and of itself, can't be the real problem, imho.
|
|
|
Post by roxolid on Nov 9, 2011 15:10:30 GMT -5
I suppose when Movie studios make these superhero films they take their best shot at guessing what will work for non-nerd fans (cause, there's only like, 8 of us in the world according to their market research) and come up with a storyline that will appeal to everyone. Then no one goes to see the film* and they can't understand why.
Oh yeah, it's because there's more than 8 of us, and we care about the storyline staying true to what was a good storyline in the comics, not some shit you scraped off your heel and wiped on a sheet of paper.
So the movie studios take heed of bad reception/low return and the next film they resolve to stay true to the comics.
In between making the film and releasing it someone at the movie studios says "Hey we got some market research says only 8 people in the world know who the original X Men were. We had better change this." They hastily re-write, and the cycle of garbage continues anew.
That said, we have moved on from the days of Daredevil, Fantastic Four and Ghost Rider, with the general consensus that this years crop (X men, Thor, Cap America, even Green Lantern) have generally been at least average rather than utter rubbish, so we shouldn't complain too much.
*by no one, I mean it's not a blockbuster and barely makes a profit for the studio
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Nov 9, 2011 15:40:10 GMT -5
Because they're not a problem with the film, in and of itself, only with the context the film is viewed in. There are no actual X-Men and no logical reason to hold 616 as a quality standard. It's personal preference, I believe. In other words, if The Matrix was called Superman (Agent Luthor: "I'm going to enjoy watching you die, Mr. Kent."), it wouldn't be a worse movie, it'd just tee off comics fans. The other reason I wouldn't hold the changes against the film is because Batman made a ton of changes, and it's great, so change, in and of itself, can't be the real problem, imho. Ah, okay, now I see what you mean. However, I don't think it's quite as easy to remove First Class from its source material as, say, the recent Batman movies. The title First Class is quite specific - they could have called it "X-Men Begins" or something, but they chose to emulate something that already exists. And failed. I think a better comparison would be if The Dark Knight hand been named "Batman: The Killing Joke", and it had Barbara Gordon as the Mayor of Gotham just so that she'd be in it, because she was in the comic. Those decisions start to hurt the movie as they aren't made for the sake of the story, but as some half-assed (let's face it, quarter-assed at best) attempt to mirror the source material. That's why I feel that you can't really ignore it. The movie suffers for it, and would probably have been better if they either chose to ignore canon material entirely (ditch the name Moira) or stick much more closely to the source. It may seem that people who have never heard of the X-Men will enjoy the movie regardless of how closely it mirrors some comics they've never read, but even if they don't know why, the movie will still be worse off because of these decisions. EDIT: First Class also suffered from a similar identity crisis in that it was originally supposed to be a movie just about Charles and Magneto, and then they added the whole First Class thing and could never really decide which movie they were trying to film. Plus, they couldn't really decide (and are still sending mixed messages) about whether it was intended to be a prequel or a reboot. Again, someone who didn't know that the project began as "Origins: Magneto", or who had never seen X1, X2, or X3 might not know WHY the movie sucked - but it still sucked because of these things. ~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Hypester on Nov 9, 2011 15:57:13 GMT -5
I still don't get how, even "Batman: The Killling Joke" would be a worse movie with a female mayor named Barbara Gordon. The name, even the gender in most cases, doesn't change anything about the story, as far as I know. There are exceptions, I'm sure, but for the most part, switching labels around can't inhibit the story. You'd have to change an event or character dialogue or action in order to change the story quality.
((Edit: Call me crazy, but I would have enjoyed the title immensely))
I do see what you're sayin about being divided with the kids. It did produce literally throwaway characters. I think they did a good job giving the kids side stories, as with any teacher-classroom movie ("Dangerous Mutants?") while keeping the main story on the teacher(s), but it didn't ever really come back together, as those types of movies tend to. I can see that flaw being read as not knowing which movie they were making, but I think, with their choice of climactic events they were very clear on who the movie was about, but the side stories didn't feed it very well.
|
|
|
Post by Beacon on Nov 9, 2011 16:36:10 GMT -5
Most of the complaints I’ve heard (well, most of the legitimate complaints) about First Class continuity are that it contradicted the other movies (especially Last Stand and Wolverine). I’m fine with that as those two were awful.
I’m not really sure if First Class is supposed to be a reboot or a prequel. I don’t know if anyone at Fox does either. They seem to intentionally stay away from a lot of the more recognizable X-Characters* so I’d assume prequel but there’s still just enough weirdness that it seems like a reboot. I suppose it could be a Superman-styles half-reboot (only the first two count).
*They were so intent in using EVERY SINGLE recognizable mutant as either a main character or an Easter egg in the first four movies that they couldn’t use any of them in a 60s period piece. Instead they used really obscure mutants like Darwin (from Brubaker’s run), the other Angel (from Morrison’s run), Azazel (from the Austen train wreck), and Riptide (who I had to look up on Wikipedia). On the other hand, that prevented it from being the Wolverine Show starring Wolverine with Wolverine and special guest, Wolverine.
Of course the presence of Beast and Emma Frost are pretty good arguments for First Class being a reboot.
Havok is kind of problematic too. I had the following conversation with a work friend who watches superhero movies but doesn’t read comics.
“So who is Alex Summers to Scott Summers?”
“In the comic Alex is Scott’s younger brother.”
“That really doesn’t work in the movies”
“Yeah, I’m guessing that – if they address it at all – they’ll make Alex into Scott’s father. It isn’t like their actual father would work in the movies”
“Why? Who’s their dad?”
“He’s a Space Pirate”
“Oh”
(I didn’t tell said friend that he became a space pirate because he was abducted by alien birdman. I also didn’t say anything about the hot Catgirl girlfriend. I’d like for this guy to continue to talk to me.)
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Nov 9, 2011 18:09:48 GMT -5
Why don't the changes from the 616 universe count against the movie? They made a movie about the X-Men, specifically called First Class, that wasn't about the actual X-Men, nor about the First Class. It literally isn't what it claims and tries to be. Take Moira MacTaggert, for example. The only thing she has in common with her comic book character is her name. If they had named her Jane Swanson, would you have for one second mistaken her for Moira MacTaggert? Why wouldn't you hold that against the film? ~TWF Is... isn't this the argument that I usually make, and you usually oppose?
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Nov 9, 2011 20:17:12 GMT -5
No, that's something we usually agree on, WK. I really hate it when they slap a brand name on some garbage they cooked up. Deadpool is one of the strongest examples from recent films. It's fine to have a character like that if you want one - but don't call him Deadpool.
And Hypester, I think you're missing my point a little. I'm not saying that a Batman movie would be horrible to watch if it had a mayor named Barbara Gordon. I'm saying that if they decided to cram a Barbara Gordon character into the movie because they're supposed to be making The Killing Joke (only not really), then what you wind up with is a character that either doesn't need to be in the film, or one that should be in the film, but is half Barbara Gordon from the comics and half an actual character that belongs in the picture.
These obligations act like a straight jacket on the script. It's like if you're asked to come up with a poem, but you're forced to use the words "eggplant", "turtle", "serendipity" and "plasticine", and it has to simultaneously be about both trickle-down economics and unrequited love in the context of post-war Japan, you're going to have a hell of a time coming up with something good. Even if you somehow manage to cram all the pieces together in a way that makes a moderate amount of sense, it still probably won't be as good a poem than if you had been given complete artistic freedom.
You can't come up with a good script like that. It's like writing madlibs.
I am willing to bet my left nut that the design process for the Havok character went more or less like this:
"Okay, so, because not one of us has anything resembling a backbone, we aren't going to decide whether or not this is a reboot or a prequel, none of the X-Men from the X-trilogy are on the table. That means no Scott Summers. But hark, didn't one of the pimply interns we hired to actually read the comics mention something about him having a brother? Older, younger, who gives a #%@& - close enough for me. I'm picturing a kid with laser hulahoops because I'm stupid. What are this kid's actual powers? Well tough, because even though I just came up with it 3 seconds ago, I've already made up my mind on laser hulahoops and I'm not even going to run that by a focus group because I think I'm awesome. And I want him to the badass of the group, so he should be in like juvy or something for some reason - can't think why, so let's never explain it. Does that match his past at all? No? Too bad, done deal. What's that? Too many changes? Fine, we'll keep his name and his appearance - wait, the kid's white, right? Blonde even? Okay, phew - yeah, we'll keep the appearance then. If he was black we'd have to kill him off and then this whole minute of work would have been wasted! Now give me another minute to write all 8 of his lines and we'll be done!"
And I'll wager the other nut that the design process for Emma Frost went like this:
"Hey, nice tits! Let's cast some of those."
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Nov 9, 2011 20:34:42 GMT -5
*falls over dead of laughter*
TWF, if I haven't said this recently... you rock.
|
|