PDA

View Full Version : Episode I worst sequel ever?



Battle Droid
05-27-2003, 12:40 AM
From, www.imdb.com

'Phantom Menace' Is "Worst Sequel Ever"

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace has been voted the worst movie sequel of all time in a poll by American TV network E!. The highly anticipated 1999 prequel beat off fierce competition from the likes of Batman & Robin, Speed 2: Cruise Control and Jaws: The Revenge, to be crowned king of disappointing follow-ups. The Phantom Menace - made over 15 years after George Lucas' original Star Wars trilogy - starred Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor alongside a cast of computer-generated creatures. Jeff Reid of E! says, "Liam Neeson gave the old Jedi a try, but Ewan McGregor looked like he was still in Trainspotting. And the convoluted storyline didn't help. If there's one sure thing about Hollywood and sequels, it's that no matter how bad a movie is, it can always be re-made worse. In Tinseltown, imitation is not the sincerest form of flattery - it's an established path to commercial success. But all-too-often, part deux is really part doo-doo."




It's not even a sequel, but anyway.

James Boba Fettfield
05-27-2003, 12:44 AM
No, that title goes to Robocop 3, or Kickboxer 2 with that guy from Step by Step.

Beast
05-27-2003, 12:53 AM
Like you said, it's a prequel. And there are a hell of a lot worse movie sequels then E1. Hell, the three they mentioned it was up against are shakespeare compared to some of the crap out there. Apperantly they left the real crap off the list. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Pendo
05-27-2003, 05:34 AM
It wasn't even that bad a movie, not even that bad a Star Wars movie. I LOVED this film, not the best Star Wars movie ever made, but still very enjoyable. The reason why so many dislike it is because they had such high expectations for it, expectations that would almost be impossible to achieve.

No way does this movie deserve the worst sequel award. I'd say that should go to Scary Movie 2, but does that count as the first movie was also awful?
It could have gone to Rocky V :).

PENDO!

Rogue II
05-27-2003, 07:25 AM
TPM is my least favorite Star Wars movie, but I can think of plenty of sequels that are worse. If anything, Episode 1 was only "dissapointing."


Just of the top of my head:
Any of the Iron Eagle films
Jurrasic Park 2
Any Batman film after "Batman Returns"
Any movie that begins with "Earnest..."
I assume that the Flintstones sequal was bad. I hated the first one.

stillakid
05-27-2003, 10:57 AM
I'm not sure about this one. Batman and Robin was bad to the core. But I think that Rogue II is on the right track. TPM had a lot to live up to and failed miserably, so the justifiably high expectations that audiences had, contributed a great deal to the tremendous, and deserved, scorn that is heaped upon that film.

So, while something like Batman and Robin was indeed bad from the get-go, it's not really like anyone expected greatness out of it in the first place. The bar was never set very high.

Whereas there was absolutely no excuse for the execution of an installment of a Star Wars movie to be as poor as it was, given the history of the franchise. Given that, I'll second that idea that TPM is indeed the worst sequel ever. :cry:

PS, Oh, and a sequel is any movie in a series made after a previous one is a series, typically the second in a series. The use of "prequel" is merely a way of further defining the "time period" in which the sequel's story takes place. So, yes, the descriptor is accurate.

JediTricks
05-27-2003, 04:43 PM
I think both Joel Shumacher Batmans and Speed 2 are way worse sequels than TPM.

And Stilla is absolutely correct that TPM is definitely a sequel, because it was made after the first film, even if in the story it comes first. Look at Godfather 2, it comes both before AND after, yet it's considered the best sequel ever (though that should be after ESB ;)). The word "prequel" has only been put in some dictionaries very recently and there has the root of "pre-+(se)quel".

El Chuxter
05-27-2003, 04:44 PM
My money's on Batman and Robin. Or Mortal Kombat: Annihilation.

Why? Simple. I didn't see anyone walk out on TPM. I saw people walk out of the other two, and would've done so myself if I wasn't determined to get as close to my money's worth as possible.

Batman and Robin: a reference to Bat-Shark Repellent would've dramatically improved the "script," and I'm not even joking. Nothing short of an insult to Batman (and especially Bane) fans everywhere.

Mortal Kombat: Annihilation? I've seen better graphics on my Atari 2600. This may be the only film I've ever seen where I could easily make out the individual pixels on the big screen.

These two suckfests make even Highlander: The Quickening look like Citizen Kane.

DarthChuckMc
05-27-2003, 05:27 PM
How can any movie that makes $431 million at the box office, $100 million in VHS sales in 48 hours, and another $17 million on it's 1st day of DVD release, all in a span of 3 years be considered the "worst sequel ever"? Obviously a ton of people like it. Did they only submit this poll on the "I hate Jar Jar" website? Something smells funny about this icky icky poo.
I think they are having a slow news day, and posted the article to get 50 million e-mails from p***ed off STAR WARS fans.

wedgeA
05-27-2003, 06:12 PM
I can't even say that TPM is the most disappointing sequel ever. In the past few years, several "franchises" have hit the skids pretty badly.

After reviving the Bond franchise with Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies, The World is Not Enough promptly sent the series back to Dalton-ville.

Star Trek Insurrection is the worst in the series, and it followed the solid First Contact. F(U) Murray Abraham is the worst Trek heavy ever.

The Godfather Part III- This was the first GF I saw so it seemed pretty good. Watching it again after seeing the first two put the film in it proper place: spread out over a sheet of toilet paper. I never thought Coppola could get any worse...until "Jack".

As said earlier, Jurassic Park 2 was one of the worst films I have ever seen, and I really liked the first one. This one probably ranks as the worst considering Spielberg is actually responisble for this train wreck.

And IMO, after hearing all the hype, I was tremendouly disappointed with X2. The first time I saw it, it just seemed mediocre. Unfortunately I saw it again and it was pure garbage.

At least I came out of TPM with a sense of enjoyment for what I had seen, whereas the other films mentioned incite anger and scorn.

mini-rock
05-27-2003, 06:26 PM
LMAO!! You have to wonder if any of the E! people even saw TPM, and JefF Reid should know the correct term for TPM is prequel, not sequel. I think that there shows the lack of intelligence on his part. I have heard countless unfavorable comments made in the past about the OT also, and how all SW fans are 30 year old geeks who still live at home in their parents basement on "E! coming attractions" and other shows on there. It really is pathetic how quickly people will jump on the bandwagon and let someone else do the thinking for them. I know alot of people didn't know what to feel about TPM after seeing it, until "It was a terrible movie" was shoved down their throats by the media. People can't leave Star Wars alone, and that was even before the prequels, and that's why Star Wars once again was chosen b/c they know how HUGE the fanbase is.

These are the same people who try to tell everyone what is in this year or spring or summer, etc., and that's the people who listen to these guy's....people who can't think for themselves. Have many people here went out and bought a new wardrobe b/c of the info they gave? Or based your vacation on what they say is the place to be. Here, I bet none.

stillakid
05-28-2003, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by mini-rock
[B]LMAO!! You have to wonder if any of the E! people even saw TPM, and JefF Reid should know the correct term for TPM is prequel, not sequel. I think that there shows the lack of intelligence on his part.

Lack of intelligence on who's part? Check your dictionary, Sherlock. :rolleyes:


Originally posted by mini-rock
[B]I know alot of people didn't know what to feel about TPM after seeing it, until "It was a terrible movie" was shoved down their throats by the media.
These are the same people who try to tell everyone what is in this year or spring or summer, etc., and that's the people who listen to these guy's....people who can't think for themselves. Have many people here went out and bought a new wardrobe b/c of the info they gave? Or based your vacation on what they say is the place to be. Here, I bet none.

Gee, I for one was intelligent enough to figure what a pile o' crap TPM was on my own. If there's one thing I can't stand, is the consistent rationale of apologists blaming "the media" for everything they don't agree with. While I concur that there a ton of certifiable morons out there, I'm pretty sure they can figure out a well-told story from the alternative without any help. Well, most of them anyway... :rolleyes:

2-1B
05-28-2003, 02:07 AM
I enjoyed The Phantom Menace much more than The Matrix Reloaded.

mini-rock
05-28-2003, 04:35 AM
I agree Caesar, and that says alot of TPM b/c I loved TMR (I know you didn't though).

Again the guy who wrote that though was too stupid to know that the movie was a prequel to the OT, which makes me wonder if he (or they) even saw TPM. EVERYONE was calling it a prequel years before TPM was even released. This guy is an idiot b/c only an idiot would want to call it a sequel when for the past 6 years it's be known by almost everyone (except frikkin idiot mindless wad bags full of crap who want to make a name for themselves and think there word is gold, but really they are just full of ****) that these are the PREQUEL TRILOGY!! You really have to feel sorry for these kind of people though. Who have nothing better to do but bash on TPM or the other SW films consistantly. I'm not sure if it was JR who had said it on E! before, but I have heard plenty of SW bashing on there. It's pathetic really. Get a life, and go out and enjoy it for God sakes.;):p:p:p

JediTricks
05-29-2003, 02:44 AM
Originally posted by DarthChuckMc
How can any movie that makes $431 million at the box office, $100 million in VHS sales in 48 hours, and another $17 million on it's 1st day of DVD release, all in a span of 3 years be considered the "worst sequel ever"? "Batman & Garbage" grossed like $240 million total and $58 mil at the home market, so I wouldn't crow too much about dollars and cents in this issue. ;) Big budget blockbusters of this scale often make big money no matter the quality, it's this type of thinking that tells Hollywood to continue making dreck like "Speed 2: Crap Control" (which, it's my sickening duty to point out, grossed over $150 mil in box office and $25 mil at the home market :eek: ).

Beast
05-29-2003, 03:02 AM
Of course it's harder now adays for many movies to do massive box office. Since not many people do repeat viewings anymore. Or even bother to see the movie at the theaters at all. Since they can wait six months for the DVD or download it off the net. :(

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

stillakid
05-29-2003, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by JediTricks
"Batman & Garbage" grossed like $240 million total and $58 mil at the home market, so I wouldn't crow too much about dollars and cents in this issue. ;) Big budget blockbusters of this scale often make big money no matter the quality, it's this type of thinking that tells Hollywood to continue making dreck like "Speed 2: Crap Control" (which, it's my sickening duty to point out, grossed over $150 mil in box office and $25 mil at the home market :eek: ).

Exactly. The opening weekend is important for two reasons. The first is financing. Typically, foreign buyers (which tend to represent a large portion of the money that gets the movie made in the first place) want to know how well the film opens in the States first or they will wait to see after the fact. Without a huge opening, they won't commit money at all.

Second is the proliferation of "word of mouth." Nowadays, word tends to spread much faster about the quality of a film. If it sucks the opening weekend, chances are the numbers will drop quickly after that. There isn't any more of this "let it find an audience" stuff. It just doesn't work that way anymore. Instant gratification is the name of the game

...that and action figures. Even children's programming can't be sold unless there is a merchandising tie-in. We're not making movies anymore. We're making franchises. It's gotta make money in a variety of platforms, starting at the box-office, then moving to toys, video games, and amusement parks if possible.

TheDarthVader
05-29-2003, 01:34 PM
I enjoyed TPM, and I do not believe that its a bad movie. There is no way that it is legitamately the worst "sequel" ever. And although it was made after the OT, the story goes before the OT, thus the prefix pre, meaning before. Pre- prior to. And Lucas has said before that he had to think of the prequel story before he knew what kind of story to tell for the OT. I believe it is on the VHS of the OT (1997 anniversary releases) of Return of the Jedi. Therefore, prequel is accurate as far as the movies are concerned.

mini-rock
05-29-2003, 01:56 PM
You're right, he does say that in the interview (part 3) at the start of ROTC VHS.



Also it was brought up 23 years ago in an interview with Harrison Ford and Mark Hamill (saw it on A&E) when they were talking about ESB, and the success of ANH. They were asked about the 3rd film ROTJ, and both Mark and Harrison said there was this whole other back story that George has to the current films, so ROTJ would be the end of the story, but the begining hasn't even been told yet. Like said, that was way back in 1980. :)

stillakid
05-29-2003, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by TheDarthVader
Therefore, prequel is accurate as far as the movies are concerned.

It may be accurate to some degree, but the issue that was introduced was whether or not the writer of the article was "lacking intelligence" because he called it a "sequel." Technically, he is correct, any film made after a previous one is a sequel. Prequel is merely an additional adjective to also describe the time period in which the story itself takes place.

Don't agree? Let's take a hypothetical film (because I can't think of a real one right now) in which the original is made in 2002. Two years later, a "sequel" is released in which the characters are 10 years older. The kicker is that in the course of the story, it flashes back continually to a point in the past prior to the events that occurred in the story that was shown in 2002. Is this a "sequel" or a "prequel"?

Anyway, the original insulter was technically incorrect as "sequel" is the accepted term for any film that is made and exhibited after the a previous one. :)

Kidhuman
05-29-2003, 08:29 PM
There were a ton of worse sequels than this. It just didn't live up to the expectaions of SW. Godfather three and many of the before mentioned sequels should take this cake not EP1

mini-rock
05-29-2003, 08:38 PM
I got into a discussion with a few of the other geeks this afternoon at the theater (went to see Matrix Reloaded again) after over hearing them talking about Star Wars. I mentioned the E! poll about TPM being the worst "sequel" and not only did every one of them disagree that TPM is not the worst but every one of them agreed that the correct term for the EP1&2 is prequel, not like that idiot who got it wrong with sequel....pllllleeeeaaaaase! What a moron. It was a nice group, and they all felt the same way I do about the prequels being beter films, but they also seem to like the OT in it's original form, and hope when the OT is released on DVD that the origial unaltered versions are included. I hope they aren't.:)

TheDarthVader
05-29-2003, 11:13 PM
I hope that the original OT is not on the DVD too. I already have it on VHS anyway. GEEZ, some of those scenes are just horrible! (no offense to anyone) They just lack continuity (vader saber is red, *boom* now its white) and many shots need to be fixed.

stillakid
05-29-2003, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by TheDarthVader
I hope that the original OT is not on the DVD too. I already have it on VHS anyway. GEEZ, some of those scenes are just horrible! (no offense to anyone) They just lack continuity (vader saber is red, *boom* now its white) and many shots need to be fixed.

I agree. For example, the original trilogy tells us that Obi Wan was taught by Yoda. What a joke! Everybody knows that it's Qui Gon. What the heck was George thinking way back then?

Beast
05-29-2003, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
I agree. For example, the original trilogy tells us that Obi Wan was taught by Yoda. What a joke! Everybody knows that it's Qui Gon. What the heck was George thinking way back then?
And he was taught by Yoda. But if I say I was taught by Ms. Shimansky, it doesn't mean she was the only one to ever teach me my entire life. Yoda did train Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon only finished his training. How long are you going to nitpick that into the frickin' ground. :p :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

stillakid
05-30-2003, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
And he was taught by Yoda. But if I say I was taught by Ms. Shimansky, it doesn't mean she was the only one to ever teach me my entire life. Yoda did train Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon only finished his training. How long are you going to nitpick that into the frickin' ground. :p :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks
What nitpick? I was agreeing with you guys. :)

JediTricks
05-30-2003, 04:27 AM
Originally posted by stillakid
Second is the proliferation of "word of mouth." Nowadays, word tends to spread much faster about the quality of a film. If it sucks the opening weekend, chances are the numbers will drop quickly after that. There isn't any more of this "let it find an audience" stuff. It just doesn't work that way anymore. Instant gratification is the name of the game

...that and action figures. Even children's programming can't be sold unless there is a merchandising tie-in. We're not making movies anymore. We're making franchises. It's gotta make money in a variety of platforms, starting at the box-office, then moving to toys, video games, and amusement parks if possible. You forgot the increasingly-powerful "foreign market", which Hollywood seems to be able to prove to itself time and time again that this market will lap up anything with a big enough star no matter the content. This is dangerous because the power of the foreign market can green-light junk like Wild Wild West without concern for actual quality since they know it'll destroy at the overseas box office and home market.


Originally posted by TheDarthVader
And although it was made after the OT, the story goes before the OT, thus the prefix pre, meaning before. Pre- prior to. And Lucas has said before that he had to think of the prequel story before he knew what kind of story to tell for the OT. I believe it is on the VHS of the OT (1997 anniversary releases) of Return of the Jedi. Therefore, prequel is accurate as far as the movies are concerned. "Prequel" isn't a real word, it's only been added to a handful of dictionaries in the last few years thanks to Episode I. The word is a colloquialism, it's basically a contraction of "pre-sequel", it's still a sequel, it's just a sequel whose story comes before the previously-made film. Just because Lucas had the vague concept of TPM in his head 28 years ago doesn't mean he made TPM 28 years ago, he didn't make TPM first therefore it was made after the first movie, hence, it's a sequel. The root word of "sequel" isn't "quel", it's from latin sequela/sequit/sequi - to follow; you don't add "pre" to "historic" and get "prestoric".

keith koth
05-30-2003, 09:19 AM
I agree that the corect term is sequel. I believe that when the movie first began getting mentioned in the news, it was called a prequel-sequel (probably a more fitting designation).

The Overlord Returns
05-30-2003, 11:29 AM
Hmmm.......while I would strongly disagree that TPM is the "worst" sequel ever *cough* Lethal Weapon 4 *cough*, I think a distinction should be made between "worst" and "dissapointing".

I would suggest that TPM is a contender for "most dissapointing" sequel ever.

Think about it, 16 years of build up and wait and fan expectations and thoughts and hopes of what the movie "would" or "should" be. No film could do anything BUT disssapoint. Throw in the fact that TPM was a flawed (though enjoyable, IMO) film, and yes, it could easily be the most colossal sequel dissapointment in history. However, it could not be considered "worst" when you look at the playing field out there:

Every Halloween film after the first one
2010: the year we make contact
Superman 3 and 4
Batman Forever
Batman & Robin
Godfather 3
Lethal Weapon 4
Rambo 2
Rocky 3 - 5

Need I go on??


However, in terms of dissapointment, do this survey again in a year and "Matrix: Reloaded" could very well be the new champion ;)

Kidhuman
05-30-2003, 03:28 PM
Goota agree overlord, those are some pretty sad sequels there. In terms of dissappointment, I don't know. Many of those could take the cake as well since there were horrible in their own right. I will say it was probably the most anticipated sequel, and because of the long wait and all, it made it more dissappointing. But the Matrix Reloaded, that should go under the sequel that should of never been made. The first one was horrible beside SE.

Jon
05-30-2003, 07:37 PM
I like TPM right after seeing it the first time. Each time after that I started to see more weak points but I still like the movie, there are many sequels that are worse. Movies like Speed 2 & Batman & Robin I thought people could just tell from the previews that they would be pure crap.

Actually, can't you usually tell from a preview what sequels are going to be just absolute crap. Sometimes there is a surprise good sequel when the preview looks bad but most sequels you can just tell. I never even thought about seeing Speed 2 it looked so bad. And any Bad News Bears sequel or Police Academy 7 should win any sequel anyway. Major League 3 sucked too.

James Boba Fettfield
05-30-2003, 07:49 PM
I think you have to look at what the film is a sequel to. Like Police Academy sequels, they weren't exactly following anything great to begin with. The same can be said about Batman and Robin, it was following some subpar Batman Forever and Batman Returns.

In the case of TPM, it was following one of the greatest movies to be created. That's why I think it could be labeled worst, instead of something like Speed 2 or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 3.

Jon
05-31-2003, 11:58 AM
That's a fair point. Personally I like the first Police Academy and each sequel got progressively worse. As far as a sequel to an excellent movie or franchise that is expected to be great and completely bombs, I still would not put TPM in that category. There are quite a few Star Trek or Bond movies that are much worse and those are both considered successful franchises. The Phantom Menace ultimately failed in the eyes of many because of what it was supposed to deliver. The new birth of Star Wars. Star Wars was a phenomena in its time. I think that time has passed. X Men, LOTR, Harry Potter, Super Hero Movies, Matrix. These movies are what people like now, a noticeably different breed of movie.

Exhaust Port
05-31-2003, 12:30 PM
TPM can't be deemed the worst sequal ever until we've seen the next movie. I'm optimistic that it will be good after seeing the improvements made between TPM and AOTC but we won't know until we see it. Out of the 5 movies so far, TPM is probably at the bottom of my list with ESB.

James Boba Fettfield
05-31-2003, 01:45 PM
I agree Jon, I'm not saying TPM is the worst in any case. I enjoy the movie still.

Beast
05-31-2003, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by James Boba Fettfield
In the case of TPM, it was following one of the greatest movies to be created. That's why I think it could be labeled worst, instead of something like Speed 2 or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 3.
Hey now, I'll agree with you on the Speed Series. But TMNT was kickarse, and TMNT II would have been great also. If they wouldn't have had Super Shredder at the end. TMNT III is disliked, but I think if they would have used the costumes from the early films it wouldn't have been quite so bad. Especially since the plot of TMNT III has some similaries to one issue of the Mirage Comic where Mikey is writing a story in his journel about himself being lost in feudal Japan. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

JediTricks
06-02-2003, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by Exhaust Port
TPM can't be deemed the worst sequal ever until we've seen the next movie. I'm optimistic that it will be good after seeing the improvements made between TPM and AOTC but we won't know until we see it. Out of the 5 movies so far, TPM is probably at the bottom of my list with ESB. The idea of "worst sequel ever" is talking about individual films. I think you cannot fairly judge a sequel film based upon that sequel film's sequel or any other part of a series that comes after the sequel in question - you can judge a sequel only upon its merits and how they apply to that which was/were made before them in the series. IMO, it'd be like saying "ANH is terrible because ROTJ is so bad".

stillakid
06-02-2003, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by JediTricks
The idea of "worst sequel ever" is talking about individual films. I think you cannot fairly judge a sequel film based upon that sequel film's sequel or any other part of a series that comes after the sequel in question - you can judge a sequel only upon its merits and how they apply to that which was/were made before them in the series. IMO, it'd be like saying "ANH is terrible because ROTJ is so bad".

You bring up an interesting question that crossed my mind earlier. Do you count ROTJ as the sequel to ANH or to ESB? Or is it a sequel to both?

But to me, honestly, the term "sequel" doesn't accurately apply to any of the Star Wars films. Rather "episode" is a better description in this specific case. In my mind, a true sequel is a film that is kind of an afterthought when the studio sees how well the original has done. Since Lucas always more or less had the idea to make this an episodic saga, it isn't a series of sequels at all.

Something like Nightmare on Elm Street or the Jaws series would easily qualify as sequels.

Thoughts?

Kidhuman
06-03-2003, 03:31 PM
That is a very interesting point Stilla. It is a chapter from the same book. ANH to me was the most boring out of all the OT. It progressivly got better with each new chapter, all the way until the end of ROTJ. The new trilogy is going the same way so far. It will all lead up to a big climax, with Anakin turning to the dark side. After all three movieas are out, then I say look at them as a whole story and then judge.

Dar Basra
06-03-2003, 03:53 PM
For those of us a little older, some of the more deplorable sequels of yesteryear:

Guns of the Magnificent Seven
The Magnificent Seven Ride!
Force 10 from Navarone
Futureworld (sequel to Westworld)

Someone stop me, before I start listing Airport movies ...

kool-aid killer
06-04-2003, 07:41 AM
I noticed nobody mentioned the Scorpion King. That was craptacular. The Mummy and its sequel had action but werent too serious and had funny parts in them but SK was horrible. They made him out to be a good guy but it just left me wondering what makes him turn into a bad guy.

Exhaust Port
06-04-2003, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by JediTricks
The idea of "worst sequel ever" is talking about individual films. I think you cannot fairly judge a sequel film based upon that sequel film's sequel or any other part of a series that comes after the sequel in question - you can judge a sequel only upon its merits and how they apply to that which was/were made before them in the series. IMO, it'd be like saying "ANH is terrible because ROTJ is so bad".

What I meant was of the 3 PT movies (one still pending) we can't decide which of those 3 movies is the worse without seeing all 3. Rereading my post, episode would have been a better word to use. I didn't consider the 3 movies as a group. It's possible that the 3rd PT movie could suck but we'll have to wait and see.

JediTricks
06-09-2003, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by kool-aid killer
I noticed nobody mentioned the Scorpion King. That was craptacular. The Mummy and its sequel had action but werent too serious and had funny parts in them but SK was horrible. They made him out to be a good guy but it just left me wondering what makes him turn into a bad guy. That was a prequel, I guess that's why it wasn't mentioned. ;) :p The Mummy Returns was a weak sequel for my tastes, so I didn't even bother seeing SK but it LOOKED like a bad sequel - and I mean Lethal Weapon 4 bad. :D


EP, thanks for clarifying, that makes sense. I don't know if Episode III will be the worst one of the prequel films (obviously, how could I? ;)) but I get the general feeling that Lucas would have to really screw up royally for most people to consider it a worse movie than TPM. And even if he did, I think the expectations from that view of TPM would lessen the damage of Episode III, so even if Ep3 was the worst of the 6, Ep1 would still be considered the worst sequel in SW (and thus, in cinema). That's not how I gauge the title, but as my prior post said, I don't think TPM is the worst sequel in cinema anyway.

Besides, this sequel story came out before Ep3. ;)

Jayspawn
06-16-2003, 10:06 AM
Phantom Menace was a great film. And since it's one of the highest grossing films of all time, how can it be 'the worst'? It is a set up film and there's LOTS of little and big information to get out.

stillakid
06-17-2003, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Jayspawn
Phantom Menace was a great film. And since it's one of the highest grossing films of all time, how can it be 'the worst'?

Since when do dollars equate with quality? :confused: TPM made the money it did because of the enormous expectations created by the vastly superior (writing and execution) of the Original Trilogy films. Had the OT been just so-so, then the box-office wouldn't have been half as much. But TPM had a built-in audience that was going no matter what. The significant decline in B.O. for AOTC is testament to the widespread disappointment felt across the land.



Originally posted by Jayspawn
It is a set up film and there's LOTS of little and big information to get out.
The ol', "it's a 'setup film' " argument. ;) Are we to excuse it's shortcomings merely because it attempted (but failed) to deliver 2 hours of exposition? (what "little and big information"?) It is entirely possible to integrate everything an audience needs to know within the confines of an exciting, plausible, and intelligently written story. ANH did it just fine.

mini-rock
06-17-2003, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
Since when do dollars equate with quality? :confused: TPM made the money it did because of the enormous expectations created by the vastly superior (writing and execution) of the Original Trilogy films. Had the OT been just so-so, then the box-office wouldn't have been half as much. But TPM had a built-in audience that was going no matter what. The significant decline in B.O. for AOTC is testament to the widespread disappointment felt across the land.

So the significant decline in BO for ESB would also be testament to the widespread disappointment of ANH?



Originally posted by stillakid
ANH did it just fine.

In your opinion ;). IMO ANH is just gawd aweful. I admit I enjoyed it for years, but it wasn't until TPM came out that made me realize how bad ANH really is. Just my opinion though.

stillakid
06-18-2003, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by mini-rock
So the significant decline in BO for ESB would also be testament to the widespread disappointment of ANH?

Ahh, no. Not in the way you imply. ANH burst onto the screens and offered tired audiences a new way to watch science fiction and movies in general. Indeed, in much the same way TPM received a great deal of box office return, the curiosity factor among "non sci fi" fans undoubtedly drew them to the theater...for well over a year at that time. Naturally, some of the audience share is bound to drop off after the initial rush sifts out those who aren't that taken by it. By the time ESB rolled in, again, the anticipation and expectation level was still enormous, but, again, naturally, a small percentage of those who had seen ANH (the innovator of the genre) and didn't appreciate it, declined to go to the sequel.

The difference between that scenario and the Prequels is that by the time 1999 rolled around, those "older" loyalists were still excited by the prospect of a film which A) continued the saga they fell in love with, and B) matched or exceeded the quality of the originals. So, in response to choice "A", those 30-somethings dragged their own children and spouses to the newest film with the full expectation of fulfilling choice "B." Lo, it didn't happen, so not only was there a widespread letdown, some of the disappointed audience publicly scorned the film while a majority simply packed their bags and left in search of another franchise to get into (enter MATRIX, LOTR, HARRY POTTER, and X MEN). Not to mention the children who have consistently shown significantly more interest in Pokemon, Digimon, and Yu Gi Oh in the past few years, with just a flicker of interest in Star Wars.

While indeed ROTJ has had it's share of ridicule, my own memory and the heaps of articles that (for some reason) I kept from that time bear little resemblence to the harsh critique I've seen leveled upon the Prequels...and for good reason. While the OT might have its minor problems (some people aren't fond of Ewoks...I've never figured out why exactly), the Prequels have genuine story structure problems that have been pointed out by many other people besides me.

This isn't to suggest to anyone that they NOT like whatever they choose. While I can see how some people view ROTJ as too "cartoony," I never let that bother me. While some people view ESB as "the best," I always believed that it was too cold and impersonal in some key sequences. But that's all just opinion stuff. Quite unlike the Prequel critiques which go beyond opinions about acting quality and the like. There are definitive story structure problems that audiences (probably unconsciously) realized were there, which turned them off...well, at least didn't turn them on as much as they expected they would be anyway.





Originally posted by mini-rock
In your opinion ;). IMO ANH is just gawd aweful. I admit I enjoyed it for years, but it wasn't until TPM came out that made me realize how bad ANH really is. Just my opinion though.

Maybe it is "my opinion," however in a myriad of threads on this forum for the past couple of years, I've laid my cards on the table time and time again, showing not only what I thought, but more importantly why. While your OT hatred has been noted, it would be a significant contribution to the discussion if you would expand upon those statements and back them up. In other words, why do you dis-like the OT films? Specifically, which scenes, characters, dialogue, SFX, Production Design, Music, Direction, Actors, etc contribute to your opinion that the OT films are "gawd awful"? Similarly, which scenes, characters, dialogue, SFX, Production Design, Music, Direction, Actors, etc contribute to your opinion that the Prequel films are the best that Star Wars will ever be? Please be highly specific in quoting scenes, dialogue, and related articles and/or interviews to back your claims. Thanks!

bigbarada
06-18-2003, 02:02 AM
I've defended TPM in the past and I will continue to do so. And it's not just mule-headed stubbornness, since AOTC and ROTJ have not withstood the test of time IMHO. I genuinely liked TPM, if it was a stand alone movie, it wouldn't get even a fraction of the criticism it gets now.

Disappointing?

Here's the big problem I find with people's expectations of TPM. Star Wars came out in 1977 and changed moviemaking forever; but people seem to forget one simple fact: GL never intended for Star Wars to have the effect that it did, his most optimistic estimates of the movie were $30 million in ticket sales and one sequel (Splinter of the Mind's Eye would have been the sequel if Star Wars performed poorly). ANH was such a hit because it took the world completely by surprise. In the same manner, ESB surprised everyone also, since little was expected of sequels in 1980.

Flash forward to 1999, the entire world EXPECTS Phantom Menace to change the world and filmmaking forever, just like ANH did 22 years earlier. With expectations that high, a movie can do nothing but fail.

mini-rock
06-18-2003, 02:38 AM
BIG B!! Good to see you back!

LOL stilla, If you want an essay go elsewhere. I have stated what and why I feel the way I do about the OT, and EPs 1&2 in previous posts. Even though I have plenty of time on my hands why in the crap would I want to elaborate? Consistantly bashing. Beating a dead horse. No, I'll just give MO/POV and move on. No need to do the militant stuff, aye (cough cough) stilla (cough cough)? :p

stillakid
06-18-2003, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by mini-rock
BIG B!! Good to see you back!

LOL stilla, If you want an essay go elsewhere. I have stated what and why I feel the way I do about the OT, and EPs 1&2 in previous posts. Even though I have plenty of time on my hands why in the crap would I want to elaborate? Consistantly bashing. Beating a dead horse. No, I'll just give MO/POV and move on. No need to do the militant stuff, aye (cough cough) stilla (cough cough)? :p

You have? How 'bout some links to those posts then.

If your only purpose is to type in the same unsubstantiated opinions, why not just put the same one or two statements you keep making into your sig line. That would save you even more of your precious "retirement" time. ;)

I thought this was a "discussion" forum...not just a "here's my opinion" forum. :confused:


Welcome back, BB! :) I don't think anyone really expected TPM to change anything. Granted, the progress in CG since 1983 was enormous, so there was a natural expectation that George would utilize the new technology as a tool to enhance...and here's the key...a great story. So, yeah, the FX were alright and enabled him to accomplish some things on screen that he otherwise might not have been able to, but he became so wrapped up in that aspect of the filmmaking process that he forgot that the FX are only skin deep.

So, no, I don't agree that we all expected the Prequels to "change the world and filmmaking forever." Maybe you did, or maybe you think that it's a convenient excuse to lay on the detractors of the Prequels, but I'm fairly confident that myself and others only wished for and expected a well written story of the same quality that the first three films delivered. :)

mini-rock
06-18-2003, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
You have? How 'bout some links to those posts then.

Here's a hint.....SEARCH! Give it a try. But if you are incappable of finding "SEARCH" let me know.


Originally posted by stillakid
If your only purpose is to type in the same unsubstantiated opinions, why not just put the same one or two statements you keep making into your sig line. That would save you even more of your precious "retirement" time. ;)

Ooooooo! Uptight with a hint of jealousy. Classic stilla:p. You might want to take your own advice though, then maybe you'd have more time for the gym;).


Originally posted by stillakid
I thought this was a "discussion" forum...not just a "here's my opinion" forum. :confused:

Or in your case a prequel bashing forum.

stillakid
06-18-2003, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by mini-rock
Here's a hint.....SEARCH! Give it a try. But if you are incappable of finding "SEARCH" let me know.
Yeah, I did that. Thanks for the heads up though.




Originally posted by mini-rock
Ooooooo! Uptight with a hint of jealousy. Classic stilla:p. You might want to take your own advice though, then maybe you'd have more time for the gym;).
Jealous? You wish. But that's beyond the point. What I was saying, which you chose to ignore, is that myself and others take the time to explain our opinions fully while you choose to just lay out the opinion with nothing further. Based on your previous posts here and elsewhere, I do understand that you seem to lack basic comprehension skills, so I'll make the attempt to be thoroughly clear with my posts to you in the future...that is, until you act like a 2 year old and start ignoring me again in order to evade any difficult questions that you'd rather not answer.




Originally posted by mini-rock
Or in your case a prequel bashing forum.
This is what really bothers you, isn't it? That people don't enjoy the films as much as you do? It's only "bashing" to you...to me and others, it's called critique. Bashing would be what you do to the OT...simply coughing out unsubstantiated opinions. Critique is an examination of the various elements, good and bad, and discussing them in detail. But you are either incapable of such a thing, or unwilling. Either way, the result is the same.

gibbyhayes
06-18-2003, 02:30 PM
Fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight!

mini-rock
06-18-2003, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
Yeah, I did that. Thanks for the heads up though.

Anytime.



[i]Originally posted by stillakid [i]
Jealous? You wish.



Denial, but I will give you credit for admitting you are uptight. Try a vacation, go get a piece of the cookie. Do something! Just try & relax guy.


Originally posted by stillakid
But that's beyond the point. What I was saying, which you chose to ignore, is that myself and others take the time to explain our opinions fully while you choose to just lay out the opinion with nothing further.

Again from your POV.


Originally posted by stillakid
Based on your previous posts here and elsewhere, I do understand that you seem to lack basic comprehension skills, so I'll make the attempt to be thoroughly clear with my posts to you in the future...that is, until you act like a 2 year old and start ignoring me again in order to evade any difficult questions that you'd rather not answer.

ROTFLMAO!:p:p:p Man, I must have really hit the mark earlier. It's gonna take the jaws of life to unbunch those panties of yours kid.



Originally posted by stillakid
This is what really bothers you, isn't it? That people don't enjoy the films as much as you do? It's only "bashing" to you...to me and others, it's called critique. Bashing would be what you do to the OT...simply coughing out unsubstantiated opinions. Critique is an examination of the various elements, good and bad, and discussing them in detail. But you are either incapable of such a thing, or unwilling. Either way, the result is the same.

Uh, ditto.

stillakid
06-18-2003, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by mini-rock

Denial, but I will give you credit for admitting you are uptight. Try a vacation, go get a piece of the cookie. Do something! Just try & relax guy.
You're seeing things again. I "admitted" to being "uptight"? When did that happen?

Do us all a favor and lay off the crack before you hop on the computer.

However, after thinking it over, I'm still not jealous of your "retirement" status, and certainly not of you, but I am curious as to the cause of your inactivity, if you'd be so kind as to share.

Is it:
A) Lottery winnings
B) Trust fund baby
C) 30-something geek still mooching from the parents
D) Self-made millionaire
E) Welfare case


Originally posted by mini-rock
ROTFLMAO!:p:p:p Man, I must have really hit the mark earlier. It's gonna take the jaws of life to unbunch those panties of yours kid.
Hit what mark? You are truly delusional. :rolleyes: Turn off the computer now, go outside and find some friends.

Then come back to the forums when you have something to contribute beyond your meager attempts at wit and sarcasm. The rest of us would like to actually discuss a variety of topics. Thanks! :)




Originally posted by mini-rock
Uh, ditto.
Wow! You actually agree with me that you don't explain yourself and have no comprehension skills? Either that or you didn't fully understand my post, which again would lead back to proving the point. Un-f'ing-real. :rolleyes: Am I on Candid-Camera? :sur:

mini-rock
06-18-2003, 03:55 PM
Post erased by JediTricks independent of the edit by original author - JT