Late opinions on Star Wars III (just saw it)

Michael Gibbons · August 10th, 2005, 04:27 PM

I am also on the bandwagon. Spielberg strikes me as a director who is capable of making good action/adventure movies, but who doesn't really understand what is great about his own best work.
Take Jurrasic Park, you have some great ingrediants, dinosaurs, slightly mad scientist, jungle island...ect. but the end result was decidedly mediocre and disappointing. He even reuses the severed arm gag from jaws.
as an aside it's strange to me that with all the effects available now that the original King Kong still has, what I beleive to be, the most exciting dino sequences. I am not very hopeful that the remake will improve upon the original.

Duane Smith · August 10th, 2005, 10:46 PM

In general, it's not at all uncommon for sequels to fail to live up to the original, especially when the original is truly "greatness", such as Raiders, Star Wars, Rocky, Jaws, etc. And while I don't think the Indy series has been quite as--ahem--"pimped out" as many other franchises, I can't exactly say that I'm looking forward to Indy 4.

But as to the movie that started this topic...yes it sucked, but at least it had the PAYOFF (even if we've known for 20 years what it was going to be).

:-)

Krystian Ramlogan · August 10th, 2005, 11:10 PM

Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of those movies that inspires me. Definitely on my list of gosh I wish that were my movie I'd made, sigh...

I do agree that the sequels were weaker, but sometimes I wonder if it is fair to expect the same level of wonder or excitement from a sequel? After all you can't quite beat that "first" time viewing/getting into a movie that blows you away, you know? Of course I do feel that once a sequel is happening, the filmmakers have a responsibility to really try for that level of reaction from the audience, and not just go for the pocket book: Matrix anyone?

I also didn't quite like the "junior", as it made my hero seem, well, less than heroic.

Indy 4. Well, I'm not holding my breath, but one can hope? Lol, it's funny. If one were to watch Star Wars from Episode I - never having seen the original trilogy - all the way through to Episode VI, you may think that Episode IV "A New Hope" signalled the beginning of good filmmaking for that series of films!!!

Imagine someone in the faaaaarrrrrr future doing just that man. Wow. Hmmm, maybe I'm rambling again? Dang, I seem to be doing that a lot these days, must be the anxiety of going back to school in a couple weeks!!

Mathieu Ghekiere · August 11th, 2005, 08:35 AM

I do have to mention although I liked the sequels (I actually loved the junior-part, but opinions differ ;-)) I also don't really have the need to see an Indy 4, I thought it was a nice trilogy as it was, and I too don't really see the need to have that fourth movie, so late after the original trilogy.
Then you have what? The original trilogy and... one movie, made 25 years after the first one. Or they could make a new trilogy, but I don't know why that would be necessary. I have the feeling of: Spielberg did his Indiana Jones movies, now let him try other things.
He has been experimenting somewhat the last years (Minority Report was very dark, A.I., Catch me if you can was one of his very few comedies - 1941 was horrible) so I like how he is doing, even if he is going back to his old popcorn movies sometimes (War of the Worlds, which I also found to be very good, but anyhow).
I'm also looking forward to his next, Munich, which seems to be back a more heavy movie in substance.
Great to see Spielberg keeps having the same passion and energy about movies (in my eyes at least).

Keith Loh · August 11th, 2005, 10:04 AM

I don't think there is any rule that says a trilogy has to stay three movies. There wasn't really anything in the Indy films that thematically feels like it has to be three films, unlike the Lord of the Rings films which followed the trilogy of the books. Spielberg and Lucas patterned the Indy films after adventure serials, after all, which played every month or so.

Mathieu Ghekiere · August 11th, 2005, 10:40 AM

Yes I know, but I still think it's nice, with the dvd box and so they brought out. You know, it's like a 1 whole, and if I don't know... they add a fourth, maybe I don't know...
Maybe I'm being too nostalgic.

Steven White · August 11th, 2005, 10:50 AM

Quote:

I don't think there is any rule that says a trilogy has to stay three movies

... other the rule that "tri" indicates 3?

-Steve

Mathieu Ghekiere · August 11th, 2005, 11:03 AM

Yes, but I think he just meant about the Indiana Jones trilogy. It was never a rule that it only had to be 3 movies.

Keith Loh · August 11th, 2005, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven White

... other the rule that "tri" indicates 3?

Sorry that was poor wording on my part.

Keith Loh · August 11th, 2005, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mathieu Ghekiere

Yes I know, but I still think it's nice, with the dvd box and so they brought out. You know, it's like a 1 whole, and if I don't know... they add a fourth, maybe I don't know...
Maybe I'm being too nostalgic.

It is also annoying when they have to debate what to call it. Quadrilogy?

Michael Gibbons · August 11th, 2005, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith Loh

It is also annoying when they have to debate what to call it. Quadrilogy?

...Series?

Joshua Starnes · August 11th, 2005, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krystian Ramlogan

I do agree that the sequels were weaker, but sometimes I wonder if it is fair to expect the same level of wonder or excitement from a sequel? After all you can't quite beat that "first" time viewing/getting into a movie that blows you away, you know? Of course I do feel that once a sequel is happening, the filmmakers have a responsibility to really try for that level of reaction from the audience, and not just go for the pocket book: Matrix anyone?

You think the the W bros. were only going for the pocket book when they made the Matrix sequels and weren't actively trying to reach the same level of quality they did with the first film? Is that the major reason why sequels aren't as good as originals? Because the filmmakers aren't trying to make a good movie, just cashing a paycheck? Am I the only one who thinks that in cases like the Star Wars and Matrix sequels, the filmmakers involved ARE in fact actively trying to make the best movies they can, and if the final results don't quite meet audience expectations, it's not because of a lack of care on the filmmakers part. Maybe I'm just not cynical enough.

John Hudson · August 11th, 2005, 12:36 PM

How about calling it "One cool movie and a couple other lame ones marketed at children for the sake of making money." ?

Quote:

In general, it's not at all uncommon for sequels to fail to live up to the original,

Seems this is a sad truth, huh? But maybe not entirely uncommon?

What about these sequels? (Not so lame IMHO)

The Godfather II - Better than 1st
Terminator 2
The Bourne Supremacy
Aliens - Better than 1st
Lethal Weapon 2
Empire Strikes Back (could make an argument for better?)
Evil Dead II - Better than 1st
Halloween II - Competent I thought in that it continued the evening and didn't just whore the name out
Friday the 13th Part II
Spider-Man 2
Harry Potter Films -
Lord of the Rings Films
Shrek 2
X-Men 2
MI 2
Scream 3
Kill Bill 2
Austin Power's
Jaws 2 - Jaws is epic (one of my favortie films ever) but I always felt 2 was underrated. Maybe it's the 70's grainy stock or that during this time Holyywood hadn't made too many sequels? I don't know; I like Part 2 and do not consider it crap (although competing with the original seems impossible.)
Rush Hour 2
Ace Venture 2
Shanghai Knights 2

(These last 3 films listed in the sense that the sequels are no more better or worse than the original; I found them at least as entertaining and do not consider the orginals great works obviously; a kind of 'if you've seen the first one you've seen the second one'.)

So, it can be done

Gotta like how Short Round was beating up 200lb thuggies in DOOM though

Michael Gibbons · August 11th, 2005, 12:50 PM

well said.

Duane Smith · August 11th, 2005, 01:33 PM

Of that list (most of which I've seen) I'd agree that many of them are as good, and in some cases BETTER, than the originals. I certainly prefer many of them to the original.

Empire is definately my favorite Star Wars film, but it does lack some of the "magical charm" of the original.

Aliens is an AWESOME movie...but I don't know if I'd say is BETTER....it's just completely different. I find it difficult to decide which is better.

MI2 was definatley better, but I'm biased; I realy dig John Woo films. ;-)

August 10th, 2005, 04:27 PM	#16
Michael Gibbons Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Loveland, Colorado, USA Posts: 292	worried about indy 4 I am also on the bandwagon. Spielberg strikes me as a director who is capable of making good action/adventure movies, but who doesn't really understand what is great about his own best work. Take Jurrasic Park, you have some great ingrediants, dinosaurs, slightly mad scientist, jungle island...ect. but the end result was decidedly mediocre and disappointing. He even reuses the severed arm gag from jaws. as an aside it's strange to me that with all the effects available now that the original King Kong still has, what I beleive to be, the most exciting dino sequences. I am not very hopeful that the remake will improve upon the original. __________________ " When some wild-eyed, eight foot tall maniac grabs your neck, taps the back of your favorite head against a bar room wall, and looks you crooked in the eye, and he asks you if you've payed your dues, well, you just stare that big suker right back in the eye, and you remember what old Jack Burton always says at a time like that, 'Have you paid your dues, Jack? Yes sir, the check is in the mail."

August 11th, 2005, 10:04 AM	#20
Keith Loh Air China Pilot Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Posts: 2,389	I don't think there is any rule that says a trilogy has to stay three movies. There wasn't really anything in the Indy films that thematically feels like it has to be three films, unlike the Lord of the Rings films which followed the trilogy of the books. Spielberg and Lucas patterned the Indy films after adventure serials, after all, which played every month or so. __________________ -- Visit http://www.KeithLoh.com \| stuff about living in Vancouver \| My Flickr photo gallery

August 11th, 2005, 12:50 PM	#29
Michael Gibbons Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Loveland, Colorado, USA Posts: 292	well said. __________________ " When some wild-eyed, eight foot tall maniac grabs your neck, taps the back of your favorite head against a bar room wall, and looks you crooked in the eye, and he asks you if you've payed your dues, well, you just stare that big suker right back in the eye, and you remember what old Jack Burton always says at a time like that, 'Have you paid your dues, Jack? Yes sir, the check is in the mail."

August 10th, 2005, 10:46 PM	#17
Duane Smith Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 234	In general, it's not at all uncommon for sequels to fail to live up to the original, especially when the original is truly "greatness", such as Raiders, Star Wars, Rocky, Jaws, etc. And while I don't think the Indy series has been quite as--ahem--"pimped out" as many other franchises, I can't exactly say that I'm looking forward to Indy 4. But as to the movie that started this topic...yes it sucked, but at least it had the PAYOFF (even if we've known for 20 years what it was going to be). :-)

August 10th, 2005, 11:10 PM	#18
Krystian Ramlogan Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Washington, D.C. Posts: 121	Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of those movies that inspires me. Definitely on my list of gosh I wish that were my movie I'd made, sigh... I do agree that the sequels were weaker, but sometimes I wonder if it is fair to expect the same level of wonder or excitement from a sequel? After all you can't quite beat that "first" time viewing/getting into a movie that blows you away, you know? Of course I do feel that once a sequel is happening, the filmmakers have a responsibility to really try for that level of reaction from the audience, and not just go for the pocket book: Matrix anyone? I also didn't quite like the "junior", as it made my hero seem, well, less than heroic. Indy 4. Well, I'm not holding my breath, but one can hope? Lol, it's funny. If one were to watch Star Wars from Episode I - never having seen the original trilogy - all the way through to Episode VI, you may think that Episode IV "A New Hope" signalled the beginning of good filmmaking for that series of films!!! Imagine someone in the faaaaarrrrrr future doing just that man. Wow. Hmmm, maybe I'm rambling again? Dang, I seem to be doing that a lot these days, must be the anxiety of going back to school in a couple weeks!!

August 11th, 2005, 08:35 AM	#19
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	I do have to mention although I liked the sequels (I actually loved the junior-part, but opinions differ ;-)) I also don't really have the need to see an Indy 4, I thought it was a nice trilogy as it was, and I too don't really see the need to have that fourth movie, so late after the original trilogy. Then you have what? The original trilogy and... one movie, made 25 years after the first one. Or they could make a new trilogy, but I don't know why that would be necessary. I have the feeling of: Spielberg did his Indiana Jones movies, now let him try other things. He has been experimenting somewhat the last years (Minority Report was very dark, A.I., Catch me if you can was one of his very few comedies - 1941 was horrible) so I like how he is doing, even if he is going back to his old popcorn movies sometimes (War of the Worlds, which I also found to be very good, but anyhow). I'm also looking forward to his next, Munich, which seems to be back a more heavy movie in substance. Great to see Spielberg keeps having the same passion and energy about movies (in my eyes at least).

August 11th, 2005, 10:40 AM	#21
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	Yes I know, but I still think it's nice, with the dvd box and so they brought out. You know, it's like a 1 whole, and if I don't know... they add a fourth, maybe I don't know... Maybe I'm being too nostalgic.

August 11th, 2005, 11:03 AM	#23
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	Yes, but I think he just meant about the Indiana Jones trilogy. It was never a rule that it only had to be 3 movies.

August 11th, 2005, 01:33 PM	#30
Duane Smith Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 234	Of that list (most of which I've seen) I'd agree that many of them are as good, and in some cases BETTER, than the originals. I certainly prefer many of them to the original. Empire is definately my favorite Star Wars film, but it does lack some of the "magical charm" of the original. Aliens is an AWESOME movie...but I don't know if I'd say is BETTER....it's just completely different. I find it difficult to decide which is better. MI2 was definatley better, but I'm biased; I realy dig John Woo films. ;-)