Originally posted by Evil Dead
botankus...........why do you hate sequels? Many sequels are great..........some are at par with the originals........a few are even better.Without sequels we would have no Empire Strikes Back.....no Temple of Doom.....no Last Crusade......
Also Aliens,Godfather Part 2, Evil Dead parts 2 & 3 and Dawn and Day of the Dead.
Yes, that is true that those movies are good and would not exist, but let me tell you when those movies were made:
Temple of Doom - 1984
Godfather II - 1974
Last Crusade - 1989
Empire Strikes Back - 1980
OK, these are good films, but how many were made after 1990? My point is, there is only one thing CHEAPER than taking an idea that works and adding on to it with no original and imaginative thought and that is to simply re-release a motion picture. It is the principal of what the industry has sunk too. I have an example of this, and I'm going to use a list of 2004 movies that someone listed in a thread on this board the other day. Now I want you....anyone for that matter....to tell me which one of the following movies coming out in 2004 required any original thought whatsoever and was not fueled by $$$$. I am sure many derserving original and brilliant films were shelved because of the producers behind these glory-hoarders.
There are also an ample amount of uninspired films based on TV shows, which is almost as lame.
Blade:Trinity-Aug 13
Spider-Man 2-July 2
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban- June 4
Shrek 2 - May 21
Alien vs. Predator- Aug 6
Scooby Doo:Monsters Unleashed - Mar 26
Ocean's 12-Dec 10
Mad Max:Fury Road - July 23
Resident Evil:Apocalypse-Sept 24
The Ring 2-Nov 10
Barbershop 2 -both Feb 6
Starsky and Hutch - Mar 5
Garfield-June 18
Agent Cody Banks 2 - Mar 12
The Chronicles of Riddick - June 11
King Arthur-July 7
Die Hard 4, Rocky VI, Rambo 4, Ned Kelly, The A-Team, Dukes of Hazzard, Thunderbirds, The Woods, Wonder Woman -TBA 2004
Originally posted by botankus
Yes, that is true that those movies are good and would not exist, but let me tell you when those movies were made:Temple of Doom - 1984
Godfather II - 1974
Last Crusade - 1989
Empire Strikes Back - 1980OK, these are good films, but how many were made after 1990? My point is, there is only one thing CHEAPER than taking an idea that works and adding on to it with no original and imaginative thought and that is to simply re-release a motion picture. It is the principal of what the industry has sunk too. I have an example of this, and I'm going to use the list of 2004 movies that someone listed in a thread on this board the other day. Now I want you....anyone for that matter....to tell me which one of the following movies coming out in 2004 required any original thought whatsoever and was not fueled by $$$$. I am sure many derserving original and brilliant films were shelved because of the producers behind these glory-hoarders.
There is also an ample amount of uninspired films based on TV shows, which is almost as lame.Blade:Trinity-Aug 13
Spider-Man 2-July 2
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban- June 4
Shrek 2 - May 21
Alien vs. Predator- Aug 6
Scooby Doo:Monsters Unleashed - Mar 26
Ocean's 12-Dec 10
Mad Max:Fury Road - July 23
Resident Evil:Apocalypse-Sept 24
The Ring 2-Nov 10
Barbershop 2 -both Feb 6
Starsky and Hutch - Mar 5
Garfield-June 18
Agent Cody Banks 2 - Mar 12
The Chronicles of Riddick - June 11
King Arthur-July 7Die Hard 4, Rocky VI, Rambo 4, Ned Kelly, The A-Team, Dukes of Hazzard, Thunderbirds, The Woods, Wonder Woman -TBA 2004
King Arthur is not actually based on any tv show or existing franchise.
UM, TERMINATOR 2.
Don't tell me that wasn't a good sequel.
That movie can stand on its own as a movie. And it just adds to the story and the characters. It's badass.
[EDIT]
Anyhow, I thought Final Destination 2 was pretty good--except for that plot point that "evil dead" pointed out. I can't believe that; I've only seen a little bit of Final Destination, so I wasn't too excited about FD2--and had no clue about the plot--but FD2 was a good movie, except parts of the story may not link up with the first one.
Originally posted by Evil DeadThe plot of Final Destination 2 directly contradicts the plot of Final Destination.
The two main characters survive Final Destination 2 because that girl died......and was brought back to life. New life had broken death's cycle. They have beaten death's plan by her dying and coming back to life.
At the end of Final Destination......Devon Sawa's character (main character) dies. He is electricuted by a live power line saving the girl. He has no heart beat. He is dead. He is brought back to life and hospitalized.
He had beaten death. He had died and the come back to life (just like in FD2).........yet death still stalked him and killed him sometime between the two movies. FD2 refers to his death with newsclippings of him having a "freak accident" with a brick or something.
The movie sets it's own rules. In FD2 they set the rule that if you die and come back to life, you break death's cycle and have beaten death. This directly contradicts the ending of Final Destination 1.........when Devon Sawa's character did the exact same thing, yet death still stalked and killed him.
Now ........you're saying the plot came together very nicely? It didn't come together at all. The plot directly contradicted itself............
The original plot can't be contradicted by something that wasn't set until the 2nd movie. 😉
By the way, there almost has to be a sequel, because Death's cycle wasn't finished with Brian Gibbons at the BBQ blowout. He's still got Officer Burke to knock off, as he is the only "cheater" who didn't die at some point in time, in some capacity. Kim is home free, though.
Doesn't anyone remember what Randy said in Scream 2? In a sequel, the rules get bent. Although, it can't really apply to FD 2, because the "Break the cycle by ressurrection" rule wasn't in effect in the 1st installment, so it can't be contradictory. It's that simple.
the only thing cool about the plot with like fd2 was that they were all related like the one guy cheated death because he didnt go to that one show were the building collapsed because that one guy in the end of fd1 got hit by that sign and so on u remeber that its hard to explain i thought tthat was cool but yea plot did kinda suck but with horror movies i always over look that since horror movies really dont need plots
Hi
A rollercoaster would be ace. Aint it funny how so many people want to see a rollercoaster crash its strange 😛. Its quite scary how many of you want it to happen but so do I 😛. Well I hope they doo put it in but the only thing is say if it did have a rollercoaster crash it would so f*ck us lot up to go on a ride again 😛 it would be scary ARGHHHHH!!.
Also I liked fs2 but it was a bit stupid when that scafolding collapsed on that kid and crushed him to the ground 🙁 what will they think of next the sky falling in on them 😮 😛 lets hope not. But yeh overall I luv final destinations they are reli gd sit down films and the plane explosion in fs1 how ace. The main things I like are plane, rollercoaster and boat crashes/ explosions 🙂 How ace to no they cant escape 😛
Rite im gonna shut up now cos its mean if it does happen in real life 😛
L8erz...
I love the first FD. It had a good story and good, unexpected deaths. FD2 (though I've only seen it once) I thought sucked. The plot, Death working backwards, I thought was a lame twist and it seemed a little too easy for Clear to figure out. Also, I thought the deaths were very predictable. I might see FD3 when there is more information on it.