[Just your average movie goer]

I wonder about this sometimes but why do so many things that start out really well become bad?

Why do bands that make excellent music suddenly decide to make an album so terrible that even their most loyal fans abandon them?

Why did the funny and charming Back To The Future spawn a movie as awful as Back To The Future II?

Why did Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which I thought was the best show on television in its second season, become so terrible that I passionately wanted it axed?

What the hell happened to the Batman movies after the first one was made?

Why was the painstaking realism and careful editing of the Lord of the Rings trilogy abandoned in Return of the King for a huge CGI festival and some of the worst editing decisions in recent movie history (include a slow close up shot of Gollum eating a catfish, scrap all the scenes with Saruman)?

And lastly, why has Star Wars, one of our most beloved cinema treasures, become the pathetic comic farce it is today?

It just doesn't make sense.

People create something great that's intelligent, that appeals to us ... something really wonderful. But then they go on to create junk.

Why do they do this? Does anybody know?

If anyone's got any theories, post them here.

[Mike Mac from NYU]

I dunno, jyamg.

Why does 2 day old bread go stale.

Your post reminds me of that Charlie Brown rant asking Lins what Christmas is all about in a "Charlie Brown Christmas"

1. Usually it is the songs that make the band. You may really have only liked a band because of a particular album that just kicked 'a'. After that you may come to a realization that the band was never really good to begin with, that it was just that great album, song or albums that you just really liked

2. Back to the Future. Actually I liked all the Back to the Future movies, so I maty not be the source you are looking for on that.

3. Buffy the Vampire slayer. To be truthful, most T.V. shows enter that down phase that usually prompts cancellation. It is just extremely difficult to keep consistency in Television shows for year on end. I have never watched buffy so, I am not a good expert on that.

4.Batman. Yes this I am an expert on. The first film was a masterpiece. Let's in depth look at the other 4.

Batman Returns failed mainly because:
The two villains failed to live up to the menace and charm of Nicholson's Joker.
The Penguin was made into too grotesque a character. What they shoul dof done was make him more similar to the actuall DC character: a psuedo-sophisticate who is charming, English speaking but always coming up with diabolical plans. They should of created a more sinister version of Burgess Meridith's penguin with less of the "campy" quality. I fully believe that Robin Williams should have played the Penguin, if I were to do the movie over again. Robin Williams could give the character more of the sinister polished humor that the Penguin needed. Max Shreck's character could easily be absorbed into the Penguins charcter. Y'know make the Penguin, Bruce Waynes buisness adversary and make Selina the secretary of the Penguin. Plus he could probably do a killer Burgess Meridith impression. Pfeiffer's catwoman was more effective, but only as combatant in the battle scenes with Batman. As a cereberal and sexual adversary for Batman, she came up short. There is not enough sexual tension between Bruce and Selina. Too bad, Angelina Jolie was not around, She would have been puurrrrrfect! {sorry coldn't resist!!! } You can add bad writing and poor plot developement to the reasons for Batman

Batman Forever and Batman and Robin's failure are too numerous to mention in one post. I will say that Forever would have done better with a more serious Riddler {Jeremy Irons should have played the Riddler, IMO} and more focus on Robin's enterance into Batman's world. Also, one of the features I loved about the 60s Batman Riddler Episodes were Batman's attempts to solve the Riddler's riddles to find a clue. More of that type of puzzle solving in Forever would have helped.

3. LOTR- It is my humble opinion that Peter Jackson RUSHED RTOK along with the TTT. Peter should have spaced his movies out a little more. The smae problem occured with the dual filming of the Matrix sequels.

4. Star Wars. Isn't that what this forum was supposed to do?



What is the key underlying answer to your cry of anguish?:

1. Civilian may or may not agree with this, but there is a prevailing theory of mine that these movies are not great because they don't need to be. Lucas and other filmmakers are not concerned with making good films because they know people like you will watch them regardless. I mean if Lucas knows people are gonna see the PT films, what impetus does he have for doing a good job.

2. Filmmaking is not like making an automobile. If you are making cars, usually you will not put a car out until you are sure it is properly made and that everything is in order. Even if you make mistakes and are behind schedule, you will wait to make sure that the car is in good order for it to be sold. In making movies if your movies has bad scenes, poor acting, and mistakes galore, sometimes you really don't have the opportunity to fix things or redo things. Sometimes you just have to put the thing together and put out and hope for the best. About 90% of the bad films in history are cause that way. Lucas has no excuse though. He is a person that has had three opportunitie in the PT films and has screwed up consistently.

[Vwing]

I actually loved TTT, but I agree with jyamg, ROTK was just TOO big, too epic, and was edited horribly. I just got bored with it after a while. I wouldn't say that's a case of good things going BAD, necessarily (same goes for the BTTF sequels which certainly weren't up to par with the first, but i thought were fairly enjoyable), but when good things go not as good.

The first Batman was the best, Batman Returns was ridiculous, it had too much gratuitous violence IMO and as Mike said, not great writing. I actually enjoyed Batman Forever while realizing its inferiority to the original, yeah it was campy, but on that level I didn't think it was too bad. Batman and Robin sucked though.

And Mike, I still disagree with you and others who say Lucas doesn't want to make great movies. It is still my opinion that most filmmakers want to make movies that people will enjoy. Yes, Lucas has become a businessman, but he is still a filmmaker, and he wants to make movies people like. Whether he does or not is a different story, but I don't think it's fair to say he doesn't want to make a good movie, you don't know what is going through his head. Most likely, he does want to make a good movie, he just doesn't know how anymore, plus the fact that he's putting too much pressure on himself and not letting other people help him in making the movie. Think about it. for someone who doesn't want to make a good movie, he's doing an awful lot of work HIMSELF when he doesn't need to. He's taking time to write the script, to direct the movie, to deal with all of the business aspects, to supervise the effects, essentially getting involved with every aspect of the filmmaking process. Don't you think it would be a lot easier, and still profitable, for him to hire someone else to do the work for him? That way he sits back and relaxes while the money rolls in from his "sure thing". No, he wants to make a good movie, but being away from the business for such a long time and then putting so much pressure on himself is what is preventing him from doing that.

[Just your average movie goer]

Thanks guys for your input. I think what you said about bands is true for me, Mike. For some people, it's the singer and for others, it's the song. And I guess I'm generally in the latter category.

I was glad to hear that you both hated Batman Returns. It's good to know I'm not the only one. A lot of people say that it was Batman and Robin who killed the franchise but I don't feel that way. It was more like the final blow.

Batman Returns killed the franchise. Batman Forever tried to revive it with emergency CPR and it could have succeeded... except it went too far with the stupidity, especially with the Riddler. Watching that film, I felt as if somebody in the film crew must have been actively working to sabotage the project while everyone else was trying to make a fun film.

And Batman and Robin buried the franchise. Awful, silly movie.

To Vwing, I actually enjoyed Batman Forever when I first saw it too. But after repeat viewing, it becomes a bit hard to bear. But I appreciated the fact that they were trying to put some light in it after Batman Returns. That movie was too dark and horrible, without any charms to redeem it.

I also love The Two Towers, but it is definitely not up with The Fellowship of the Ring by a long way and I felt disappointed the first time I saw it. Actually, if you haven't done so, see the Extended Cut of the film. It's a lot better and Faramir doesn't get left by the wayside in it.

On Return of the King, I enjoyed a lot of it. There were some really powerful moments in the film and Faramir's doomed attack on Osgiliath, crossing over to his father feasting, was one of the best uses of five minutes of film I've ever seen. Although immediately afterwards is the most sloppy edit ever - it cuts to the orcs getting ready at Osgiliath, the same place we were before and after three seconds, it cuts away to a completely different scene. It felt really amateur.

I guess my biggest grievances with it are the stupid, stupid CGI army of the dead (wonder if Lucas suggested that to Jackson, as they were filming their movies close to each other) and the way it just cuts out heaps of important stuff and has very little tension. Watching the movie felt a little bit like sitting on a lounge next to one of those people who always has to flick the channel every three seconds.

It wasn't a bad film. A lot of it was very good and the final ending was quite an appropriate close to the film. But there was too much inexcusable silliness in it (that stupid pasty orc with all his corny dialogue and the arrival of Aragorn at the battle of the Pellenor fields... Rangerman, Elf-boy and Dwarf-dude to the rescue!).
And the removal of Saruman - the most inexcusable mistake of all. You can't have a major villain like that, who played such a pivotal role in everything that had happened in the story so far and then leave him out. I realised they wanted to trim the film down but that was not the scene that should have gone. I saw plenty of other things in the film that could have been cut out that would have saved a lot more time and improve the quality of the movie by being left out.

I agree with you, Vwing, that the reason why it got all those awards was because the academy was awarding the trilogy. I think they must have felt guilty because they really neglected The Fellowship of the Ring.

And onto Star Wars, which is what these forums are for, as you say Mike. Very true. Both your points were good about Star Wars, although it sounds more plausible that Lucas wants to make good movies, since he's working himself to the bone trying to make them.

And I guess what this means is that Lucas doesn't know what a good movie is. And we're all then very lucky that we got the original trilogy of Star Wars at all. It sounds like a real miracle that it was good as it was.

I am glad that we didn't have today's technology back then and I'm glad Lucas didn't have the means to make those movies by himself.

I suspect if he had made the Original Trilogy today, Luke Skywalker would be played by Leonardo DeCaprio, Han Solo would be played by Mark Whulberg and Leia would be played by Jennifer Anniston. R2-D2 would fly all the time, Threepio would be as limbre as Gumby and cracking HILARIOUS jokes every two seconds, Chewbacca would be a CGI, resembling Scooby Doo, the Mellenium Falcon would be a smooth, silver ship with a sun-sail and ships in general would look like things out of Starship Troopers (if you've never seen that movie, be thankful).

And I think Star Wars would have a brief success with the kiddies and we'd see lots of toys and computer games for a few years. But later down the track, people would see the Star Wars movies gathering dust on the shelf of the video store and wouldn't have a clue what they were.

So, George probably does want to make good movies. He just doesn't know how to. His heart is the right place but he can't pull it off.

George Lucas is the Ed Wood of the modern cinema.

[civilian_number_two]

I dunno, jyamg.

Why does 2 day old bread go stale.

Ah, the oldest question of them all. the theory of the "Golden Age" goes back to Ovid, maybe before that even. Why do things get worse, and never better?

I think in a lot of cases, comparison makes the new thing worse. You liked the original, and that's why you followed the later works. Since they're not the same as the original, ther's a chance you won't like them. Familiarity breeds contempt, you know?

I liked all the Back to the Future movies

Agreed! BTTF are great films, and the third is intentionally dark. It has weaknesses, sure, like the total failure to use the actress, and a couple of "hero is stupid" moments wihout which the plot could not have moved, but what the hell? Loads of fun. I think it's the third that is the weakest.

Buffy the Vampire slayer. To be truthful, most T.V. shows enter that down phase that usually prompts cancellation.

Buffy had a perfect ending at the close of season five. Everything after that, excepting the great musical episode, was pure soap opera and hard to enjoy. Scene after scene of characters ranting and raving about who failed whom and in what capacity. Too bad, really. Also, season four was pretty rough.

.Batman. Yes this I am an expert on. The first film was a masterpiece.

I really liked how Bruce Wayne sleep hanging from his toes like a bat!

BATMAN was a fun film, but it had enough campiness an dumb humour that I'd say it disqualifies as a "masterpiece." Besides, Tim Burton's masterpiece was EDWARD SCISSORHANDS, and Michale Keaton's was .. ok, it was BATMAN.

I agree with everything negative you have ever said or felt about all of the sequels.

Filmmaking is not like making an automobile.

Sure, but not a lot of things are. The real failing of the SAR WARS movies isn't that sometimes things don't work and you have to forge on, it's that the essence of the art form is that it is collaborative, and that Lucas did not collaborate. I have the impression that in the PTs the only thing he didn't have 100% control over was the music. That's what's wrong with them.

Did they have to be bad? Well, they were never going to be STAR WARS, and anyone who watched them with STAR WARS in mind was going to find his experience of one or the other altered. But there's no way they should have been doomed. They are just so bad, and there is no reson for it other than laziness and cynicism. Like you say, they didn't need to be good (I know what you're referring to, and yes, I disagree), but by God, they didn't need to be as bad as they are. I have higher hopes for the DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS sequel than i have for the next PT film.



I agree with what Jyamg says about the removal or Saruman, but I also think that tolkien was wrong to kill the character off in the way that he did. After everything else, it's just "more stuff that happened." Which is fine if you're writing a saga, but it's not very cinematic. I think Jackson was left with a difficult choice: cut him out, or do the unthinkable and amke another big narrative change?

[Just your average movie goer]

I agree with you about what Tolkien did - personally, I think it was pathetic that Gandalf and friends let him go after everything he did. It was like letting a naughty school boy leave the principal's office.

But in the movie, they actually filmed a sequence of Saruman's death at Isengard. And Peter Jackson said it himself that it was seven minutes long.

I am sure they could have found the room for seven minutes if they tried. And even if they didn't, after sitting through a film that exceeded three hours, seven minutes more really wouldn't hurt.


On Buffy, you were right on. It did have a perfect ending in Season 5 and the only good episode they ever made after that was the musical episode. Had Joss Whedon finished on that, he would have maintained my respect as a very talented individual. Now I can only say that he was talented once but I have no respect for him these days.

With Back To The Future, I enjoyed the third film but I had a lot of problems with the second film. The future part was a bad re-hash of what we'd seen in the first movie and the alternative 1985 reality was just so over-the-top. Biff was a dumb school bully, not a murderer. I did enjoy the re-visit to 1955 though. That was fun enough. I guess really, for me, I didn't need a sequel, even though it said "To Be Continued...". That could just be a quirky ending to suggest that Marty and Doc had many more adventures travelling through time and everything was great.


On Star Wars, I think your argument about the originals being so good because they were a collaborative effort is a very solid theory. Collaboration and consultation can really help things out.

I've been getting some consultation from Vwing on that side project of mine - the alternative Episode VI. I fully intend to flesh it out as a story (not long but enough to give a good impression of the story)... and I think when it's finished, it will be a hell of a lot better than what I posted originally. That's because consultation and good constructive criticism makes you think. And when you think, you do a better job than you would otherwise.

It's not the best example because I'm obviously not making a movie here but it's just to say I know what you mean. And it came through so clear in our discussions about The Empire Strikes Back that so many people contributed to that movie becoming what it was. It certainly was not the effort of just one man.

[Mike Mac from NYU]

Ah, the oldest question of them all. the theory of the "Golden Age" goes back to Ovid, maybe before that even. Why do things get worse, and never better?

I think in a lot of cases, comparison makes the new thing worse. You liked the original, and that's why you followed the later works. Since they're not the same as the original, ther's a chance you won't like them. Familiarity breeds contempt, you know?

But things do get better, civilian. According to many. ESB was a greater movie than ANH. Yet people feel that ROTJ is the worse of all.

Do you see a pattern here?

First movie good
Second movie even better
Third movie worse of the series

This has gone for several trilogies like LOTR, SW, Indiana Jones, BTTF and the Godfather.

Intersting, no

[Sagacity]

Makes you wonder about the "even good, odd bad" syndrome of Star Trek. (Is Nemesis any good?)

[Vwing]

Whoa Mike, you thought temple of Doom was better than Raiders? I mean, I don't vehemently hate it like many people do, but I can't believe you think it's better. And BTTF 2 better than 1 also? Not to mention that LOTR, SW, and Godfather are all very arguable as to whether the 2nd was better than the first (I agree with LOTR and also Godfather to an extent, but I like the original SW more than ESB), and that many people (strangely) feel that ROTK was the best of the LOTR trilogy.

Going back to LOTR for a second, I personally hated Tolkien's ending, where after all this struggle, good defeats evil by LUCK. I understand that it's supposed to show how it was a victory for Frodo just to be able to bear the burden, and that even making it to Mount Doom was incredible. But in the end, good wins because Gollum slips on a Banana peel. I really just hated it in the book, and hated it in the movie. When I was reading, I always thought that Sam was going to help Frodo through it somehow, that though one hobbit could not contend with Sauron's will, 2 of them with an incredible bond would be able to fend off evil. I know it's cliche, so maybe have something else, but i hate the fact that good wins by pure luck.

And Sagacity, to answer your question, Nemesis is better than Insurrection, but no, it's really not that good. I liked it the first time I saw it, but the second time I really didn't. And I really thought Search for Spock was good. I don't think it's better than Wrath of Khan, and killing off Kirk's son was stupid, but I thought that based on the end of WoK it was logical to bring Spock back (considering they left a pretty damn huge opening for him to come back) and that the movie itself was pretty good. Not great, but I didn't think it was a case of "odd bad", necessarily.

[CowboyCurtis]

I question the thought that Lucas is trying his best to make these movies. Maybe. I just keep thinking about Lucas' plans to make "different kind of films" after the prequels. He wants to make more films like "Thx-1138" and "American Graffiti." And, I think that's great. I love those films, but I almost get the impression he's sabotaging the SW's on purpose, so that people aren't so obsessed with them, that they are shelved to the fartherest corner of the video store.

He wants to be taken serious as a filmmaker, but he's totally going about it the wrong way.

With all of this PT nonsense, I truly wish he had had the balls to say, "I'm not making anymore films." The PT could've existed solely in my imagination, and I would've been happier for it.

Oh well.

[civilian_number_two]

But things do get better, civilian. According to many. ESB was a greater movie than ANH. Yet people feel that ROTJ is the worse of all.

Do you see a pattern here?

First movie good
Second movie even better
Third movie worse of the series

This has gone for several trilogies like LOTR, SW, Indiana Jones, BTTF and the Godfather.

Intersting, no

I wasn't saying I agreed with the "Golden Age" theory. I just wanted to reference Ovid. I think things are way better now than they were in his day, in a great many ways. Sure, we don't have democracy like them Greeks had, but we have toilet paper, and for my money, it's a fair trade.

I know you're just trying to get everyone's goats by saying the second installments of all those trilogies was the best. I don't think most people will bite, but I will. I say that FOTR is the best in that series, and THE GODFATHER is in its own, and BTTF, and RAIDERS. The only one I'll meet you on is STAR WARS. EMPIRE has less going on, almost no backstory but what it borrowed and embellished, and it floats out there with little set-up and less resolution. But damn, it has heart.

THE MATRIX, too, is the best in its trilogy.

But things can get better. I agree. I do NOT believe, as I know you have argued, that filmmaking has fallen and will not recover. That's just nonsense. I just don't believe that you can track the history of film within trilogies the way we're trying to, any more than you could follow the history of modern pop music through a single band (well, you can do it with Bowie, but noone else).


Vwing:

Going back to LOTR for a second, I personally hated Tolkien's ending, where after all this struggle, good defeats evil by LUCK.

I might as well admit that I'm not that big on the morality on Tolkien to begin with - too much of a lazy good/evil dichotomy, and it's surprising to see stuff like intrinsically villainous races in the work of a good mass-going Catholic. Give me Steerpike over Sauron any day. But at least Tolkien keeps Sauron offstage, and the orcs and trolls are used more as nightmarish threat than as actual characters, so it doesn't matter too much.

The films exacerbate these problems. Galadriel's temptation would be be far more chilling without the shrieking bombast Jackson assults us with; for one thing, the dialogue might be comprehensible. Christopher Lee's Saruman seemed spliced in from a George Lucas movie. In the book he's obscenely arrogant, but he's also a charmer,mand his decision to work with Sauron had a lopsided ends-and-means logic to it. Whereas in the movie its "Fuck it, we;'re doomed, let's act really really evil." (Dialogue Peter jackson, c. 2001) A pity, too, to lose the multi-coloured robe as the first sign of his treachery.

Gollum is as close as we come to a villain with character. We know his motivation, poor thing, as an ordinary joe captured by the all-consuming ring and corrupted into a shadow of whoever he used to be; bent on seeking it out by weakened too by long torture and the pain of not having it, and as much by the need to keep his word, as the vestige of his former self plays against him. To kill a character such as this, as you say, by having him dance his way off a cliff, is weak and shortsighted. Had Gollum acquired the ring and dashed himself on the rock with it, that would have strengthened his character and been the tue resolution of good over evil as Tolkien apparently envisioned it.

Jackson again makes worse the cprruption of the ring , with his cgi manipulation of Bilbo in the Shire, his instant corruption of Isildur (a moment that screamed for dialogue reduced to a stupid backward glance), and the complete character change and narrative aside he gave to Faramir in TTT.

My biggest complaint with Jackson as a filmmaker is in his over-the-top approach to villainy, his over-frantic pace and near-constant camera movement. This is common in his work and in BAD TASTE it works just fine, but it's a problem in HEAVENLY CREATURES, and it's a problem here. The result is a frantic, darker take on a story that frankly contained a load of beauty and a great deal of poetry. I agree that Hobbiton, Gondor, the Argonath collosi, and every beautifuly-shot patch of New Zealand countryside are like postcards from an actual living other world, but we seldom slow down long enough to enjoy them.

Sorry; I got going there.

[Just your average movie goer]

That's okay, Civilian. I get what you're saying. Personally, I loved the Lord of the Rings films with the exception of Return of the King. Hopefully the Extended DVD will improve things a lot but I may need to transfer it to the computer and cut out what rubbish I can. The evil pasty faced orc was inexcusable. "The age of man is over. This time of the orc has begun." What the hell is that crap? Suddenly all the careful dialogue of the first movies is being replaced with Hollywood crap like "What does your heart tell you?" And the orcs have got progressively more and more stupid. They should have made the Mordor orcs look like they did in the prologue to the Fellowship of the Ring but instead we get the biggest group of retards I've seen in quite a while (with the exception of Lucas' CGI pals in the prequels). Whoa, gotta slow down.... it's too much.

But I do agree with many of your criticisms of the Lord of the Rings and I definitely wished they could have slowed down more occasionally to let us enjoy the beauty of that world they created through the landscapes of New Zealand. But of the pleasure of watching films (or maybe all of it) is escapism and nothing creates escapism better than beautiful locations. That's one of the reasons I liked watching the old Bond movies - they were like travelogues to really exotic destinations. It was fantastic. The opposite is one of the (MANY) reasons why Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was such a piece of shit - pretty much one location (the stupid underground temple) and not a very good one.

I may as well bite the bait as well. Sorry Mike, it's nothing personal... just one of those things I have to do sometimes for my peace of mind.

Lord of the Rings

The Fellowship of the Ring: The best movie of the three, without any contest.
The Two Towers: Vastly inferior to the first movie but still, enjoyable. The extended edition really improves the quality of this film. If you've got it, you'll never want to watch the theatrical cut again (whereas the theatrical cut for the first movie is something I will enjoy watching over and over again).
Return of the King: The careful balancing act really fell apart here and the result was a messy film, poorly edited with a lot of stupidness that undermined the good components in the movie. As much as The Two Towers was inferior to The Fellowship of the Ring, Return of the King is vastly more inferior to both films. I was very disappointed by it. I wish Peter Jackson had talked to me before he released it.


Star Wars The pattern holds true here.


Indiana Jones

Raiders of the Lost Ark: Without a doubt, the best of the three and a great movie in its own right. There was no need to make a sequel to this. In fact, it was stupid to try because it was too difficult to top. In each sequel, I sensed they were trying to top the truck scene several times. They never came close.
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom: For me, this is not just the worst film of the three and an absolutely appaling travesty against Raiders of the Lost Ark. It is one of the worst films ever made. Far too dark and violent for the young children it was made for, far too ridiculously comical and stupid for an older audience, this movie is an uncomfortable hybrid. The plot is terribly weak and I for one feel that there is something wrong with sitting down on your couch watching an innocent men get his heart ripped out of his chest and then get burned alive. It doesn't sit well with me at all - and I don't see this kind of thing (or child slavery) having any place in the world of Indiana Jones. I wish this film was never made and for the most part, I can convince myself that it wasn't.
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: This is no Raiders of the Lost Ark either but it was enjoyable enough. I think they were going for comedy with this one to get their audience back after the last movie. Sean Connery was delightful (as was the late River Phoenix as the young Indiana Jones) and I think that makes the movie feel better than it is. However, there's always a problem when I'm watching it in that I always wish I was watching Raiders of the Lost Ark instead.

And as a final word on Indiana Jones, I wish they didn't change the heroine. I loved Marian Ravenwood. She was great and there was a good chemistry between her and Indy. Also, I don't think Indiana Jones should be a James Bond type who dumps the girl after each movie. Indy and Marian looked like a serious couple to me at the end of the film and I always feel there is something missing when I watch The Last Crusade because she's not in it. But at least I still can watch The Last Crusade. I barely got through my first viewing with the awful second movie. Dreadful rubbish.


Back to the Future
Part One: Was the best. A charming and witty little film that stood very well on it's own. No sequels were necessary.
Part Two: The future bit was a bad re-hash of the a scene from the first film and the nightmare alternative 1985 was stupid over-the-top rubbish. Very silly indeed. The return to 1955 was fun though. But this really seemed to miss the point of the first film - fun, witty comedy.
Part Three: I enjoyed this film actually and if it came on television, I'd probably watch it again. I just wish we could have got to it through an alternative second installment. But I still like the first one the best.


The Godfather: Gulp... um... I've got a confession to make. Geez.... whoa, this is kind of embarrassing.

I've.. uh.. never seen the Godfather. I don't know why. I've heard a lot about it. Wish I had seen it and would like to see it one day. May be a while though because I'm living in a foreign country now and movie-viewing isn't quite as easy as it is back home. Fortunately, I could get Lord of the Rings DVDs and Raiders of the Lost Ark, so I'm doing okay. But I haven't seen the Godfather.

But I have a friend who religiously watches it and according to him, the first one is the best. The second one is good also and he just likes to pretend the third one was never made.

Okay - that's my 50 WON's worth (who can guess the foreign country?).

[Despondent]

Like the truck scene. that's great.

I just wanted to mention that in my small hometown, when the much anticipated sequel (prequel) to raiders was screened, the theater decided to stop the movie at the "hold up the heart" scene:

so people could get popcorn.

that was idiotic, but typical. The movie was one long series of climatic escapades, and they feared noone would leave their seats, I guess. It ruined the continuity but pointed out the obvious. "can we get a breather here?" Raiders itself was so well paced, with so many great devices. I especially loved the transportation scenes with maps and aircraft.

however if Lucas did that in the sw films it would be a worn out collect the dots to tattoine. I guess we'll go back in Ep.3.

btw, the theater manager retired, (or I'd suppose he'd of pulled the same crap for the chAOTiC sw installment.)

[Just your average movie goer]

just wanted to mention that in my small hometown, when the much anticipated sequel (prequel) to raiders was screened, the theater decided to stop the movie at the "hold up the heart" scene:

so people could get popcorn.

Maybe it was so everyone who wanted to leave the theatre could do so without tripping over the stairs in the dark.

Yeah, I loved those transportation scenes in Raiders too. And one of the things I really loved about it was that we actually saw Indiana Jones, archaeologist, doing archaeology. He worked out how to use the map room and how long his staff needed to be, made calculations about where to dig in the map room and he, Sallah and the boys got out their shovels and digged!

I've always felt that one of the reasons why Raiders is the best is because Raiders is the only movie in which Indy is doing proper archaelogy. If the premise of these movies is the adventures of an archaelogist, then his adventures really ought to revolve around archaelogy. And in the awful prequel, it did not involve archaelogy at all. It's only archaelogy when the people who made the artifact have moved on (ie. died a long time ago). And the premise of the Kali cult was just the biggest bullshit. If they wanted something darker, they could have gone into the jungles of South America again and had Indy fighting it out with Mexican mercenaries - or go to some caves in Madadasgar or somewhere... anything but that stupid rubbish.

And in The Last Crusade, Indiana Jones didn't technically do any archaelogy either - his father did. And he did everything before the start of the movie. The rest of it was just a race in which both parties knew where the finish line was. It was fun, yes. But there wasn't much dirt and grit in the movie and no-one put a shovel in the ground.

however if Lucas did that in the sw films it would be a worn out collect the dots to tattoine. I guess we'll go back in Ep.3.

Ah, yes. I'm beginning to think that this galaxy far, far away is pretty small...

[barend]

ROTK, well who knows.. but the filmed and cut out all the things i most wanted to see. but i'll just patiently wait for the extended version!!!!!!!!!

BTTF: i like 2 and 3, so oh well...

bands end up sucking cause they get approached by pepsi who say: "here's the choice (of a new generation), either you start making crap pussy rock like nickleback and sporting our logo while we through ,millions of dollars at you, or we'll sink you into obscurity and throw in some child porn accusations to boot!"

Batman 2 was cool, after that though I wanted to cut off my own face!

Buffy, well... faith was sexier, and I like willow before the rest of the world did!!! so you can all go stake yourselves!!!

star wars? well, looking back the man is just fucked without help from people with talent!!!