Fungi Forums
Miscellaneous => General Chat => Topic started by: Glorb on July 26, 2006, 08:22:30 AM
-
There are tons of them: movie/game sequels that simply make you say "Why?" for various reasons. First off, there's the garden-variety, normal-crappy sequel, like half the James Bond movies. But then there's the dreaded Third Movie. For some reason, the filmmakers think that by the third movie, they're invincible. I mean, Terminator, Alien and The Godfather were all good movies; so were their sequels, T2: Judgement Day, Aliens and The Godfather 2. So, naturally, third time's a charm, right? Well, for some reason, it isn't, so we end up with B-movie drivel like Terminator 3, Alien 3 and The Godfather 3.
And then there's the completely unneccesary sequel, whom I have one really good example of: Jurassic Park III. The movie that killed the franchise. You can tell it's a bad thing when you go to see a formerly intelligent, speculative science fiction movie just to see a big, ham-fisted fight between a T-Rex and a Spinosaur. And the T-Rex, the mascot of Jurassic Park, loses. Not to mention the whole spooky, haunted feel of some shots, which is completely unfaithful to the original movies.
But I'm ranting. Anyway, just post about bad sequels here.
-
I just saw The Sandlot 2. That was really pointless. It was the same plot with different characters...it really looked like a remake. There's mine.
-
The Batman Movies were destroyed by the 4th movie: Batman and Robin. It's a shame really, mainly because the third movie, Batman Forever, was excellent. They either should have left the franchise alone (so that they could come back in a few years or so and make a better one) or put more effort into a movie that was sub-par compared to it's three counter-parts.
-
Batman Forever was good? Hahahahahahah
-
Yes, it is.
-
I could mention all the sequels to just about every Disney movie that have been made in the last decade or so. There's also the 11 Land Before Time movies. I saw number 1 in the theater! :)
-
A relatively unknown movie series to many, 3 Ninjas eventually lost their charm too. The first one was a great, funny kids movie that really made them seem like ninjas, but with the kiddie feel so it's not all too serious. All three kids were great.
Then came 3 Ninjas Kick Back where they go to Japan and meet a girl that also helps them save their grandfather, who won this dagger long ago that his old rival wants to steal to open some legendary Cave of Gold, etc. I have to say this: the nurse that is taking care of the grandfather in the hospital was the cook from the movie Clue! Anyway, this movie was actually an alright followup, even though 2 of the 3 ninjas were different actors. It was also annoying how the youngest Ninja did pretty much no karate at all. He couldn't even climb a rope, the other two had to push him up before they started climbing.
After that came 3 Ninjas Knuckle Up. This one was originally filmed before 3 Ninjas Kick Back, so it had the original three kids, which is always better. The movie itself was a bit low on plot and not as interesting. The 3 ninjas are at their grandfather's cabin like they are every summer, and this time they meet this indian girl Jo, who says that this bad man that runs the dump is illegally dumping chemicals on the indian land, which is killing off the indians. The bad man captured Jo's father, because he had some proof on a disk that showed that the evil guy was guilty. So the 3 Ninja's help out! The fighting was entertaining, and the plot gave a nice gesture, but it seemed like it was still just a small-town plot; it was as if the movie was the kind you buy directly on video. When you saw it, you wished more was at stake, or that something would happen at the end that made them seem like real heroes. But then the moral of the movie was that a ninja must listen to the flower when it blooms: (When it blooms, it says nothing! It doesn't want to show off how pretty it is, it just wants to be pretty.)
This is where things really got off track. They made 3 Ninjas: High Noon at Mega Mountain. All 3 kids were different. They don't even look like the original. Grandpa only appears briefly. The bad guys weren't just dumb, they were completely evil and rude and hurting innocent people for money. And Hulk Hogan is in the movie. Bad plot, bad characters, unlike the original. It was just sad, really. I own the previous three, but not this one, and for good reason.
So indeed, sequels are often a lot worse than the original. Or something like that. Go see the original 3 Ninjas, it's like being eight-years-old all over again!
-
Sequels are just made to continue what happened in the original, or to answer some questions that whrere left unanswered. Or mabye because the first was so popular they decide to make a new one.
-
There are too many horrible sequels out there. Lilo and Stitch anyone?
However, one sequel, which I thought would be terrible, ended up being better than the original. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest.
-
There can almost never be a movie franchise that is uniformly good, because every time a good movie in the franchise is made, that movie will be financially successful and a sequel will follow. That sequel might be good, too, but if it is it will just be followed by another sequel. And another. The franchise will not end until eventually a bad sequel is made (usually this doen't take long). The exception is when the movie creators have pre-planned the number of movies they want to make and intentionally end the franchise after that number of movies, e.g. in The Lord of the Rings trilogy.
-
I dislike Disney's obsession with sequels. When they attempted a Toy Story 3, Pixar executives became enraged and took hold of the project so it wouldn't be just another cheap Disney sequel.
-
"Dead Man's Chest" was not nearly as fun to watch as "The Black Pearl". It relied too heavily on CG and not enough on actor talent. I just hope "World's End" will bring back everything the fans loved from the first one (and a few elements of the 2nd) to create a much better sequal.
-
Umm...I thought it was just as good as the first one if not better. /:)
-
I think Dead Man's Chest would have been as good as the first, had it not been a sequel. That doesn't mean I didn't like it; It just means it wasn't as original. Since we were already used to the storyline and type of humor, it wasn't as new and funny as the first, but definitely good.
-
Umm...I thought it was just as good as the first one if not better. /:)
I should have said this before, but there will always be fans who liked the way "DMC" used a different approach. I am not one of them, and thought it would have been better had it not been a sequal.
-
I dislike Disney's obsession with sequels. When they attempted a Toy Story 3, Pixar executives became enraged and took hold of the project so it wouldn't be just another cheap Disney sequel.
Enraged? Hardly.
Pixar wouldn't have had anything to do with Toy Story 3 had they not been bought by Disney. I guess I remember something about them having a partnership arranged before that, but still.
And all the Disney sequels are a case of "hey... we ran out of ideas. Let's make a sequel to every movie we've ever made!!1 Because we aren't already getting enough money I guess"
-
CoTBP or DMC... I love both to death, but it's the principle of sequels... even if the sequel is as good as the original, the original will be better because the contents of the sequel aren't as new. But again, I love DMC to death. And only 10 months till the second sequel, from which we can expect more cinematic gold.
-
I too have often wondered who decides to make so many sequels, not just to movies, but to everything.
Sometimes, they work out. I liked "Toy Story 2" and "Santa Clause 2". Whoever mentioned Disney sequels, though, probably nailed it head on. I've never watched the sequels and have no intention of doing so. For one thing, some of the Disney movies (Cinderella, for example) were based on fairy tales that existed for centuries before the actual movie. Another thing is that when they attempt to remake an older one, the voice actors have either retired or died, and most of the animators are gone as well. I don't know if they've attempted a sequel to "Pinnochio" but if they do I'll be upset, as it is one of my favorite movies of all time and everyone who worked on it circa 1940 is now dead, including Cliff Edwards (the guy who voiced Jiminy Cricket). When I saw a TV promo for another movie sequel, "Little Mermaid 2" (keep in mind I know and love the original--I saw it back in 1989 in the THEATER when it came out!) I was dumbfounded. How could you take an adapted fairy tale that already had a different ending than the original (Ariel dies in the real tale, I read it once) and then come up with a new plot that is nowhere near what the old guys from Europe did back in the day?
I can't say much about the Bat Man, Spider Man, and Super Man sequels you guys talk about. Aside from a few random episodes of Bat Man, I haven't seen any of this stuff really. I preferred to play baseball or soccer on Saturday mornings when I was little, so I didn't really know about or watch most of this stuff. I got educated in this stuff in kindergarten only after a lot of teasing--but hey, I could hit a ball further than the rest of them, so it was just what I liked, I guess. People I know who watch that sort of film have said the sequels are never as good as the first ones. I take their word for it, too.
The biggest sequel in theaters now is "Pirates of the Carribean". I heard the second one isn't as good as the first one, which I happened to really like, but I'm hesitant about the new one. I'm waiting for the DVD.
Then there are other things that get sequels. Books, for example. When I was a little kid, one of my favorite books was "Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator". After I had read it in kindergarten, my teacher told me that I should read the one that came before it too. There is an example of a sequel so good that you don't even need to read the first book to understand it.
Usually books are good if you have several sequels to them, but this is often intentional. I write, and I am already writing a sequel to my first novel. I think books work out better than movies most of the time as far as sequels go.
Then there are video games. Most of you folks on this board know a lot about them. Of the games I've played (the list is short, trust me) I know there are some sequels. For example, Super Mario 64, I think, has a sequel of sorts on the Game Cube. I saw it on display once but it looked pretty hard--you had to shoot some hose at the people. I can barely handle one control stick, let alone two! And the Mario Kart game for the Nintendo 64 had its sequel, Double Dash, on the Game Cube. I find the sequel to have more stuff in it, but I find it about ten times harder! I joined this board to try to beat the game, since I've had it almost three years now and I still have a lot of stuff left to go (at least I think I do). Of the other games I have, there are sequels to every one of them that aren't really sequels at all, but just updates. Other than Mario 64 and the Mario Kart games I have several different years worth of Madden and various baseball games (Triple Play, All Star, and MLB, depending on which one they decided to make that year).
Finally, there's TV. I don't know how many Big Brothers we've had now, or how many Survivors, but I think reality shows are so 2000 anyway. I'm more into talent shows like "America's Got Talent" or "American Idol" right now, and I've always liked game shows unless they're really lousy. And there aren't very many good sit-coms on either. I sure miss the days of "Fraiser" and "Everybody Loves Raymond", though "Two and a Half Men" is usually pretty good. Anyway, I'm ranting here. From the folks I know who do like reality TV and watch the numbered Big Brothers and Amazing Races and whatnot they say the sequels are usually as good as the original and they often add new twists.
I've come to the following conclusions about sequels:
1. Movie sequels are hit or miss. Often they work. Sometimes they don't.
2. Book sequels are generally good, but usually happen in a series.
3. Video game sequels just get too hard anymore. Game Cube is definitely my last video game computer, since I find it almost too hard! Nintendo 64 was easier! I'm only going to be 20 this year so I don't think it's my reflexes slowing down or something (and if it was, I probably would have had a horrible season in baseball last spring and I most certainly did not!)
4. TV sequels don't happen much but are usually okay.
-
The biggest sequel in theaters now is "Pirates of the Carribean". I heard the second one isn't as good as the first one, which I happened to really like, but I'm hesitant about the new one. I'm waiting for the DVD.
Critics, schmriticts. The movie owned. If you do go and see it and regret it, I'm sorry... but gosh, I've seen it four times.
-
I prefer the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie. The second one had ongoing action that remained entertaining the whole way through, but it seemed to me to be the "same old thing". Jack Sparrow didn't really have much variety in how he acted. And I didn't really like the sea mutant people, that was just weird-looking compared to the curse in the first movie. And when the native tribe starts chasing a dog, I thought, "That's it, if they're going after a dog, I'm not watching this". But I did watch it, because I don't think the dog ever got harmed. The natives scenes were a nice innovation from the preceding movie.
And then you have the Harry Potter movies. These are good as sequels because they aren't really sequels. I like the third one the best so far, as it handled exposition well compared to the other movies, where they insist on saying out loud, "Wow, things are magic!". Shouldn't they be used to magic by now? The only thing that really keeps the movies together are the characters and setting. The plot is basically the same, where Evil is present and the main characters must fight for Good, but it nevertheless remains innovative in each movie. At least more innovative than most sequel movies...
-
I just saw The Sandlot 2. That was really pointless. It was the same plot with different characters...it really looked like a remake. There's mine.
I agree. The movie is like a remake and the acting, well, it isn't all that great. Same plot, and I think the girls ruined it.
-
The original Sandlot movie rules.But we need videogame sequels because imagine how many fanboys around the world would commit suicide if we didnt have a sequels to a favorite game?
-
NOOOO! I hate games that are based on TV shows or movies!!!
-
Migosh, and The Mighty Ducks 3 wasn't as good as the first one (because the first one rocks) and it wasn't as good as the second one.
-
I think that Wayne's World 2 was just as good as the first.
-
I think that Austin Powers: Goldmember was actually better than the first two.
I guess Mike Meyers is just good at making sequels.
-
You know what sequel I hate? the second sequel to stuart little. I mean (not that i watched it) but It was pointless. it was done in computer graphics. And I always ask myself "Why didn't the original actors came and made it real life?" Mabye cause they hated the series.
-
I have to agree about Mighty Ducks. I loved the first one. The others all went downhill.
I've never seen the second Wayne's World, but the first one was pretty funny. I've also never seen Home Alone 2, but I love the first one and I wonder how they could improve on it at all--it's got to be one of my all time favorite movies. In fact, I watch Home Alone every Thanksgiving--it's a tradition I've done since 1993. And the years I wasn't able to watch it, I had really awful Christmases. Coincidence? I don't know, but then again I'm a ballplayer and every ballplayer has superstitions.
And to the post about video game sequels--I would have enjoyed another Super Mario 64, but the one that came out for Game Cube looked way too difficult in the stores! Also, the new Mario Kart is so much harder than the Nintendo 64 version! I only enjoy the sequels if they're the same difficulty level, although the new Mario Kart has grown on me (even though I'm not very good at it).
I'm not really sure what a "fanboy" is, but I'm guessing it's someone obsessed with a video game. The suicide thing was true. There were a group of about five guys who skipped school during my senior year to get some game called Halo II or something. They acted like if they didn't have this game the world would end. So my friend and I sort of made up this "alliance against Halo" because these guys were consumed with it and even interrupted my economics class to obsess about it. We didn't make ourselves known to them as being "anti-Halo" but they could tell that she and I were very annoyed by everything.
Now don't get me wrong, I am not anti-video games. I enjoy an occasional game, usually sports or Mario Kart (or Mario 64, although after nine years I have 120 stars). But to have people so crazy about it that they would skip school? (Then again, I am an education major so I was always obsessed about being in class--I went all of middle and high school with perfect attendance, and the friend who helped me form the alliance got over a 4.0 as a freshman, so she also values education greatly).
Just my two cents. If you are one of these Halo fans (although I don't think it's a Game Cube game?) don't hate me. Wasn't Halo II for the "X" Box 630 or something? (I do know it's a game where you mindlessly shoot things; I looked it up on Amazon during the time the kids were so hyped about it. It didn't look fun like Super Mario 64.)
But that's just a good example to illustrate how those "fanboys" talked about by a previous poster react.
-
I feel your pain man, i think that Halo is a bad spinoff of samus. Am i right?
-
How could you possibly think Super Mario Sunshine "looked" "too difficult"?
You get good at games by playing them. End of story.
-
Just my two cents. If you are one of these Halo fans (although I don't think it's a Game Cube game?) don't hate me. Wasn't Halo II for the "X" Box 630 or something? (I do know it's a game where you mindlessly shoot things; I looked it up on Amazon during the time the kids were so hyped about it. It didn't look fun like Super Mario 64.).
There's no way you could be that ignorant, please don't act dumb to disrespect a game.
-
I apologize for sounding un-educated, but I really don't know much about these games outside of the Super Mario and sports franchises.
I did catch that I mis-typed "630" instead of "630" on the "X" Box.
I am not trying to come across as disrespectful, but I'm just not that up on things like this sometimes. And I'm not a fan of those games where you just blow things up. They've just never appealed to me. Sorry for sounding like I was putting the game down, but it's just not my cup of coffee.
The reason Super Mario Sunshine (thanks for the name of the game) looked difficult was because it looked like the guy playing it was using two control sticks at once. If I put my entire heart into it, I might be able to get it, but it still looks really hard.
Apologies go to anyone who was hurt by my post, but I was just stating my opinon.
-
Now Home Alone 2 was as good as the first one. But the 3rd and 4th went waaaaaay downhill because they didn't even star Maculay Culkin and the 4th one was about him. And also, the 4th one had him younger than in number 2.
-
I apologize for sounding un-educated, but I really don't know much about these games outside of the Super Mario and sports franchises.
I did catch that I mis-typed "630" instead of "630" on the "X" Box.
I am not trying to come across as disrespectful, but I'm just not that up on things like this sometimes. And I'm not a fan of those games where you just blow things up. They've just never appealed to me. Sorry for sounding like I was putting the game down, but it's just not my cup of coffee.
The reason Super Mario Sunshine (thanks for the name of the game) looked difficult was because it looked like the guy playing it was using two control sticks at once. If I put my entire heart into it, I might be able to get it, but it still looks really hard.
Apologies go to anyone who was hurt by my post, but I was just stating my opinon.
You know, you really shoud've thought about these things before you decided to post on a forum where video game fans run rampant.
-
Guys, he's apologizing. Are you saying he should be persecuted for not knowing much about video games? I agree more with Chupperson Weird, that you get better at video games by playing them. That's why I'm very good at Mario Kart 64 yet suck at Super Smash Bros.
-
I'm relieved to see someone like AbercrombieBaseball here. Life doesn't run on video games. He doesn't need to apologize in the least.
-
I agree. He isn't the biggest gamer in the world, so what if he messes up? If you guys think he's acting "dumb" on purpose, you're wrong. He doesn't seem like the person to do that.
-
I wasn't saying he did anything wrong, but when you go to a forum built around a video game series, you should at least expect to find folk who are knowledgeable about video games.
-
A problem with sequels is that they often stress the same point as the previous movie already made. (Much like the posts on this page)
-
^
More post of the year material from Markio.
Anyway, it's my fault for throwing everyone of topic, so I'm sorry.
-
Sequel that has indirectly been making me say "Whhhyyyyyyy?!" lately: Super Smash Bros. Melee. Why, you ask? Because, whenever I have to babysit (every weekday), I end up having to play a video game. Super Smash Bros. and Mario Kart 64 are the only multiplayer games we can actually play, with my GC broken and all... I miss SSBM so much I've been saying "Whhhhhyyyyyyyy did my GC break?! Whyyyyyyyyy??" </angst thread material>
-
WTD, they are making a Sandlot 3 (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0817307/)!? I really hope that it is better than the second.
-
Sandlot 3?! That's a sign of the APOCALYPSE!!
-
I've heard news of a Little Mermaid 3 as well.
-
Yes, I heard of "Little Mermaid 3" somewhere else as well. I'm guessing it will be a straight to DVD release.
That's another thing about movie sequels: when they only come out on DVD that pretty much seems to raise a black flag.
-
You can use two control sticks at once in Super Mario Sunshine. The camera stick controls the camera!
-
You also really shouldn't judge how hard a game wiil be based on the way you see someone handling the controller.
-
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Mans' Chest was a good sequel. But the end left me in suspense. I wonder if I'm going to be in suspense till' my 14th birthday.
-
Sometimes, sequels are both good and bad.
If we enjoy it, we want more.
If we didn't, we play something else, and the developers try something new, or milk the cash cow even further to anger fans.
GOOD SEQUELS?
The Sims 2
Super Smash Brothers 2
Super Mario World (I think of it as a sequel to the original SMB)
PotC: DMC
Toy Story 2
Half-Life 2
The list can go on and on, but sometimes, the story just ends in a game or movie, and we just don't neeed another one.
And AbercrombieBaseball, its okay you don't know much of video games outside of Nintendo.
He's just a casual gamer.
No "WHATTUP"s, "[wtd] HOW YOU DO DAT"s, or "I LUV HALO" crunk juice coming from him.
And besides. This is a Nintendo forum.
Smile, will ya?
-
Worst sequel ever: The Matrix Reloaded
-
If it hasn't been already mentioned, I have to say Mario Tennis. The first one pwned to major proportions. The second one, was decent, but it seemed to me like it missed the mark by a lot. Power Shots totally killed it.Totally.
We love Katamari was also an awesome sequel.
However, with most of my favorite games and movies, the third installment were better than the second, and close to the first. Look at Metal Gear Solid,Super Mario Bros.,Star Wars(Both Trilogies), and Jurassic Park.
-
Luigison is ultra wrong; the worst sequel ever was "Highlander 2: The Quickening".
-
I thought of another area where sequels exist: cars.
It's not too often you hear of a "sequel" to a car, more like a successor, but I can think of one glaring "sequel". This would be the original VW Rabbit. Sure, it sold all right, but it was nowhere near as popular as the Beetle. My mother had a 1965 Beetle back in the day and thought the Rabbit was the ugliest thing to hit the market. (A few years later she bought a Mercury Lynx, which was one of many American Rabbit imitators.)
If you're a VW Beetle enthusiast or, like me, had a mother who was, you know that the Rabbit was not popular among many Beetle owners. It was a huge step forward in technology (keep in mind the original beetle was designed in the 1930s) and got pretty good gas mileage (30 years ago there was a gas price crisis much like today's and all the companies downsized their existing models and came out with hatchbacks like the Rabbit).
The Rabbit did have its fans, though, just like those who thought something like "Bambi II" was better than the original. However, ask most Americans about old VWs and they will almost always associate the company with the Beetle. (Some might also say the bus; I saw an original microbus in almost perfect condition on Friday!)
Interestingly the Rabbit name has been revived for the car that was to be the new Golf. Now I know the Golf was pretty popular among 20-somethings, so it will be interesting to see if the new name gets some of the old Rabbit fans to buy it again, or perhaps it will flop with the new name.
My mother wants a 1965 Beetle again, by the way. She sold it in the late 1970s to a farmer who kept it until 1990. I remember seeing it on his farm when I was little and thought "what a funny little car" to myself. I had no idea this was my mom's first car. And I should also mention that she doesn't like the new Beetle, which is also a trend among former Beetle owners.
Just thought I'd provide a different spin on the sequels with a car.
-
You know what they should do? Make a movie Sequel 2: The Saga Continues. It's, like, the sequel to a movie called Sequel...except there was no original, so it would, like, be the first, like except it's number 2! Like, it would be all deep and, like, explore the human psyche and, um, like, blow your mind and stuff.
-
But then there couldn't be a trequel, or whatever its called.
-
There should be a movie called "A Lot of Movies". Because when I ask my mom what movies a certain actor is from, she always says "He's in a lot of movies".
-
As long as they make A Lot of Movies III: The Sequel to A Lot of Movies II, Which Never Came Out.
-
Yes! I've been waiting for a topic to spout off about crappy sequels! I agree with G-Dawg and pt_peach about The Sandlot 2. Besides the "love story," The plot was pretty much the same. But, there were quirks that made it different. Try, the girls.
-
I liked Tremors 1 and 2, and thought 3 was okay, but Tremors 4 crossed the line. It introduced a new graboid that, despite coming BEFORE the originals (the big, slow, worm things), is faster and more agile than the third iteration (in Tremors 3). Apparently, they forgot they were making a prequel, and effectively retconned forward in time. Stupid.
-
The way I see it, a movie had better have a lot of story material to make more movies in the series. Take the Rocky series. They needed 5 of those movies to show how Rocky fares over the years. In Rocky (the first one), he takes Apollo Creed to the limit. In the second one, he wins the title. In Rocky 3, he loses the title, but rebounds to win it back. In Rocky 4, a new challenge is yet again issued by Drago. And, in Rocky 5, he plays the role of trainer. See? A lot of story material. Which makes me wonder how they will do The Sandlot 3, which I read in this topic.
-
So, you've heard about the new movie, called Rocky Balboa?
-
WHAT?! He's to old now!!!
-
I thought it was going to be called 'Rocky VI".
-
I think Rocky Balboa is the purest form of "Why?" sequel. It's more than twenty years after the last movie, which was utterly horrible. And since it stars his son, it'll most likely end up in the same category as drivel like Young Indiana Jones and James Bond Junior.
-
3 ninjas was the best, until number, I don't know.
-
It stars Sylvester Stallone. What are you talking about?
-
Hey, I didn't the Young Indiana Jones was ALL that bad. And I saw that preview. That seemed wierd. And when they made a friggin Cinderella 2 and a Bambi 2. Bambi 2 is 64 years after the original!!! And Cinderella 2 is 52 years after the original.
-
I feel your pain, pt, why make a sequel for a movie that's long gone?!
-
Money.
-
Funny. The only two DIsney sequels I can think of that weren't direct-to-DVD were Return to Neverland and The Jungle Book 2. I wonder why....
-
"Rescuers Down Under" was a theatical sequel to "The Rescuers". Since it was a flop they decided to make most animated sequels straight to DVD.
-
I agree with pt_peach on the 50 year old sequel thing. Why??? Do they just say..."Hey, while we are waiting for our next big picture, let's rehash one of our classics and ruin it with a sequel!?" Honestly, you never take a great film which told its story in full and make a sequel out of it! The only exception is if you can come up with a grand, million dollar plot that's sure to guarantee a blockbuster. These people have too much time on their hands.
Another issue is the millions of sequels they've made about the "Land Before Time" series. I loved the first sequel, and the second, but now they've made about 10 of them. Another question I pose is why the heck would they make two sequels to An American Tail: Fievel Goes West 10 years after it's original release date?
-
Read BP's post and find out!
-
Ah. This is why Disney never releases their live action shows onto DVD. A full season of The Suite Life of Zack and Cody will end up costing a guy about a hundred bucks at that rate.
-
Ah yes, the useless American Tail sequels. I hate 'em. And to think, the first one was kick-awesome.
-
I love all of the American Tails. :-(
-
I actually like all of the Land Before Times. THEY are classics. I haven't seen the newest 3, though. They're making a new one for 2007.
-
I saw one of the Land Before Time sequels on Cartoon Network or something a long time ago. How many times can you tell the same story?
-
How many times can you tell the same story?
But they are not the same story. They are surrounded around the same characters, but they are not the same.
-
Yes it is, A catastrophy, someone gets lost and they have to look. Or they have to migrate BECAUSE of a catastrophy, then they never find anywhere and there about to die, but BAM! At the end of the movie they find a viewtiful place from which they have to leave on the next sequels. they are the same.
-
I bet they've made a lot of continuity errors in the Land Before Time series these days. They're going to write themselves into a corner someday.
-
Most of the sequels Disney makes would be flops in the theaters, and still are flops even on dvd. The bit I have with Disney is they're contract with Pixar, Pixar ticks me off, they put traditional cartooners out of business. Just look at all the Pixar/Disney films this year! Although I do realize that it is hard work to do all the stuff on their computers, most of they're movies seem redundant, Madagascar, Over the Hedge, Finding Nemo. How many computer animated animal movies can you have? Obviously not enough as people keep going to the theaters to see them, and buying them on dvd (or video, even though its basically obsolete now, what is the cheapest dvd player, $20?). I love graphic design but yet I hate graphic animation, just something crosses a boundary I don't like with monopolizing the video graphic industry. And there's my bit, like it or not.
-
Madagascar and Over the Hedge are not Pixar movies.
"Graphic animation" would mean drawn animation also. Since graphic design can be drawing too.
I think the percentage of good computer animated movies is about proportionate to the percentage of good traditionally-animated movies. There are just a lot more traditionally animated.
-
Darn, I could have sworn they were. At least out of guessing, becuase Pixar has basically coined the whole Computer graphically animating rage (Using the "Computer Graphics" part as the medium Pixar uses in all of their films). I was just saying that so people knew what I meant. I wonder what company made those movies.....?
-
Uh, DreamWorks?
-
I'm not really a fan of the computer generated movies. Shrek had its moments, and I did like the Ice Age movies, but other than that, they don't really grab my interest.
I've never seen any of the Land Before Time movies under my own free will, though when I was watching my cousin once, he had it on. I don't know how they could keep making more...
I only liked one scene in Fievel Goes West, and that's when the cat (don't know the name) was learning how to bark in the mine. That part still makes me laugh.
-
I was going to mention Fievel Goes West, but I couldn't remember how to spell Fievel, thanks Chupp, thats the one.
-
I like Toy Story.
I like Fievel Goes West.
Especially the part with the dancing buffalo bones.
-
<off topic> I am so sick of CGI animal movies. It's, like, all that ever gets released anymore. Madagascar. Over The Hedge. Open Season. Barnyard. And much, much more. Ice Age 2 doesn't really count because it was a sequel, I guess... Or maybe it does count, but it was released before these started getting on my nerves.
Oh, and superhero movies are similarly getting old. Some of them are pretty good (Spider-Man, X-Men), but how long will the list get? The Incredibles. The Hulk. The Fantastic Four. My Super Ex-Girlfriend. Zoom. </off topic>
-
Uh, The Incredibles and My Super Ex-Girlfriend were parodies of the raging superhero movie trend.
-
I hope they make the Ghost Rider movie really good, if it sucks I am going to be so mad, because Ghost Rider pwns!
-
From the previews it appears to be extremely graphicy. Ever since SW Ep. 3 I've been getting sick of computer animation overusage in action movies.
-
I just saw that Brother Bear 2 is coming out, and this thread instantly came to mind.
Walt Disney won't stop until they've sucked a movie bone-dry.
-
I wish they would stop referring to themselves as "Walt Disney" studios. They have put his great, legendary name to shame with all these crappy 50-60 year old sequels. I heard rumors of a Dumbo sequel too. Not to mention all of the hidden nasties in some of their better animated films. (i.e. The infamous Rescuers scene.)
-
I wish they would stop referring to themselves as "Walt Disney" studios. They have put his great, legendary name to shame with all these crappy 50-60 year old sequels. I heard rumors of a Dumbo sequel too. Not to mention all of the hidden nasties in some of their better animated films. (i.e. The infamous Rescuers scene.)
Yep, and some of them were true. Some of the rumors were not, though. For the Disney movie rumors, click here (http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/films.asp). The Rescuers (http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/rescuers.htm) rumor is right there.
I think that these coincedences are...ugh.
(Thank you Bird Person for posting the site, Snopes!)
-
I was on that Snopes site all weekend. Man, some of those urban legends scare the crap out of me. Especially the picture of the guy who kept his dead wife inside a glass coffee table. Thank goodness that one wasn't true. But with the photo, you never know.
-
You should see that picture of Brian Peppers, the registered sex offender. Holy freaking crap on a stick in molassas in the middle of July, he's ugly.
-
...and photoshopped. Peppers has long been made fun of at YTMND.
-
The original picture is 100% real though. He lives about 20 minutes from me.
-
Ooh, that's a scary thought. I've been to St. Joseph, MN, where Jacob Wetterling was kidnapped 17 years ago.