I think that once a franchise has more than 2 sequel, 3 movies total, it loses a huge percentage of it's credbility. Case in point.
"NOESM" 1 was the only truely frightening movie of the franchise, then they gave Freddy the sarcastic schtick which was funny for 2 movies.
"Friday the 13th" 1, cool as hell. This one being the exception, by 4 it was just getting ridiculous. Stretching such a monotonous plot over 3 movies, much less 10, is just ludicrous.
"Halloween". When you drop your main character for no reason, you know it's time to hang it up. Halloween 3: Season of the Shit never deserved to be released. Now, they resort to casting rappers and going after Michael's sisters 3rd cousins roomates gay boyfriend just to keep the family lineage murder plot in place.
"Hellraiser". My favorite franchise of all time, but when you send your main character into space, you know it's over. Leprechaun, Jason, Pinhead. 1 + 2 are quite possibly 2 of the greatest horror movies ever, 3 gets a free pass, but "Bloodlines", no sir.
"Leprechaun". That should have never happened, even as a novelty.
But, as for recent, singular titles. There are just so many movies that try to "reinvent" the genre, and alls they do is hack up older movies, or "pay homage", and don't even bother being original. I mean, I know dismemberment and gore is nothing new to the genre, but I would rather see hermaphroditic clowns in leather dismembering sheep than watch another group of kids get lost in the backwoods of some abandoned town, screw, drink, do drugs, then get chased by some raving mongoloid with a weapon.
I think people tend to have that opinion about "28 Days Later". I see some real art in that movie in particular, but so many others say it's overrated, because they don't understand/recognize/appreciate its dual appeal.
Kind of like "Dawn of the Dead". So few Horror movies actually a have message that's reflective of our own society that it goes unnoticed, and people think it's only attraction is zombies, not the smart social commentary. To be honest, and don't persecute me, "Dawn of the Dead" (1978) would not be a great stand alone zombie flick, IMO.
We'd discuss 28 days later many times already in the reviews. And we can only come down to the conclusion that some ppl love it others hate it. To go over it would be like spining a wheel that is going nowhere.
Now, I won't be persecuting you (whatever was intended with that comment) about Dawn of the Dead. But DOTD is a sequel of Night of the living dead. In the first film (and also in the latter films: Dawn and Day) the message was clearly establish. Humans cannot cooperate with each other in a major apocalyptic disaster. And in the end only the fortunate ones will survive. Not all the deads in the Dead trilogy are caused by zombies. Some of the victims get kill by other humans. Also notice that in zombies tend to work together in order to kill humans. Why is it that humans can't seen to work together in stopping the zombies? Simple, everyone wants to be boss and no one is willing to followed orders.
That's why I like Romero Zombies movies. Because in each of his films he has kept a sorta of timeline from the first to the third. Humans are in danger NOT because of the zombies, but because of themselves.
I think people tend to have that opinion about "28 Days Later". I see some real art in that movie in particular, but so many others say it's overrated, because they don't understand/recognize/appreciate its dual appeal.
oh the irony........
but yeah, C-dic has hit the nail on the head in this thread......especially his movie sequel run down up there.
Re: when does a movie become a joke?
Originally posted by tabby999when a movie throws in a giant humanoid duck to save the planet from aliens
at what point does a movie become a joke to you guys? when it changes the whole point of the movie to get a new audience, when it releases countless sequals, what do you guys think?
it's a even bigger joke when they plan on re-making that with CGI 😘