on top of being a sucker for dystopian/utopian/post-apocalyptic fiction of all varieties, I think there are several good reasons why I got so addicted to The Hunger Games, I finished all three books in the past two days.
a) MYTHOLOGICAL THIRTEENTH TRIBE, ANYONE?
Oh hey there, Battlestar Galactica, that's right, you're all about a mythological thirteenth tribe too. The way the thirteenth tribes are handled is very different, but the set-up is similar. Twelve colonies/districts formed out of the shambles of the past. I guess maybe the First Cylon War might equate the Dark Days? But BSG's history is sort of wonky on me, I can never figure at what exact point the twelve colonies officially band together. Then, shit happens to both the colonies and the districts, which leads me to...
b) REBELLION.
Maybe why I can't like Gale very much is that he reminds me of the role of Marius in some versions of Les Miserables. Funny thing is, I kinda like Marius. But Gale, not quite so much. He's okay. I just feel as if the Peeta/Katniss/Gale love triangle is too contrived. It feels so obvious to me that Katniss and Peeta are perfect for each other and the only thing ruining Katniss realizing this is President Snow being all "CONVINCE ME" and nonsense. But regardless, I love a good rebellion story. Maybe that's why I love Star Wars so much. Beneath the typical story and the well-worn science fiction turf, it IS about a rebellion. Particularly Empire Strikes Back, which I think we can all agree is the bestest.
c) STRONG LEAD CHARACTER.
I can get criticism over Gale, and maybe even over Peeta, though I think both are clear in their characterizations even if I think Gale's just kinda meh in general, but Katniss is obviously a well-crafted and interesting character. In many ways, it's hard not to compare her to Bella Swan, because she is, in many ways, if Bella Swan were a more fully-formed character ... and had a plot independent of romance. And was awesome. Katniss is flawed, fabulous, and interesting. She reminds me more of Harry Potter's best moments, particularly once we're on to the rebellion phases, where she's learning and planning and becoming this leader she didn't know she was, not unlike Harry turning into a leader he didn't know he was with the DA and further.
d) EVEN THOUGH IT'S DUMB, I CARE ABOUT THE CHARACTERS IN THE LOVE TRIANGLE.
Well, maybe not Gale. But whereas the only time I can take the Edward/Bella/Jacob love triangle even slightly seriously is when I break it down into ideas, ideas that also apply to the Peeta/Katniss/Gale love triangle, but more effectively probably because everyone in the Hunger Games is more likable. Although, shockingly, depending on my mood, I could argue Jacob's more interesting to me than Gale. God, I'm sorry Gale, I feel like I'm hating on you so hard. But the idea that centers around both is the female protagonist's choices - who she could be, and who she is. Had Katniss not competed in the Hunger Games, she says it herself, she and Gale would've been right. But I knew as soon as Peeta was the only one who could help her nightmares in Catching Fire that Katniss and Gale could never work because she's not that girl anymore. However, in Twilight, it's just literal and dumb and Bella has both worlds and godihatethatseriesitsdumb. Phew. What I mean to say is that ideas or not, the characters in The Hunger Games actually interest me. The major "love triangle" characters as well as pretty much all of the minor characters. Cinna. Rue. Finnick. The way even passing characters become beloved. Darius. Boggs. I have such mixed emotions about most of the characters, but the positive ones tend to win out. And I'm glad they're mixed - instantly loving certain characters makes me wary as to why I love them. Instantly hating characters bores me.
e) THE ENDING LEAVES ME SURPRISINGLY SATISFIED.
When I asked my friend who'd finished the books recently if I'd be satisfied, she was hesitant. Because as amazing as everything is in and logical as the ending is for His Dark Materials, I can never finish those books with satisfaction. It just rips my goddamn heart, even if it's a fairly happy ending. And I think we can all agree that the ending of the Harry Potter series hardly ties up the loose ends satisfactorily enough. Let's not even get into that Epilogue. Book series frequently leave me with something to be desired in their ends. The Giver trilogy's third book was incredibly weak, IMO. Don't even get me started on how much I can't take The Last Battle (though I'm hardly a Narnia fan at large). The only one I've read that works is Lord of the Rings for obvious reasons, like, Tolkien would never write an unsatisfying ending. I'd rate Mockingjay somewhere between HDM and HP. It's more satisfying than either, but HDM is still generally better IMO. Sorry, Peeta, I may be a little in love with you, but Will Parry is my wallpaper. And I'd rather be Lyra than Katniss, even though I like them both plenty. Anyway, my point is, the books end in a place that works for me, that doesn't rub me the wrong way, though I feel as though surely there could've been more; obviously the last few chapters are a bit rushed. But it's okay.
I could've sworn I had more points relating elements of The Hunger Games to other popular culture things that have fascinated me, but I'm blanking beyond the Harry/Katniss talk and the Thirteen/Twelve Districts/Colonies. Bah, well, I'll just have to make a second installment when it comes back.
so the end point is that I really enjoyed these books.
They were all interesting, all good, fit together well, worked well enough separate (as is not uncommon in trilogies, I find, the first book works better on its own than any of the others), provided me with moments that made me sad, made me laugh, made me roll my eyes (though mostly delightedly... mostly). God now watch the movie be a hot mess. Although, not gonna lie, Josh Hutcherson seems visually perfect for Peeta. Even if I'm like "WTH Miley Cyrus' ex-boyfriend for Gale? Are you trying to make me like him LESS?"
Last note: how on hell is the movie going to get away with a PG13 rating without sacrificing the brutality that makes the books so engrossing?
okay, lengthy ramble over.
Showing posts with label franchises. Show all posts
Showing posts with label franchises. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Friday, July 2, 2010
Yet Another Reason I Hate Twilight... and some gender ranting
'scuse me that I'm bringing this up, but there's something interesting that was touched on in this article over on Entertainment Weekly that I addressed in the comments but felt was really worth sharing.
The quote that bothered me most?
“A grand paradox in all this is that a great many professed Twilight haters are young men who, though they may not acknowledge it, are threatened by this pop-cultural juggernaut.”
My response?
"To be quite fair, I am the exact demographic, a young woman, that Twilight is aimed at and I know plenty of young women just like me who are professed Twilight-haters. Sure, I believe that there are plenty of young men who hate Twilight, I know quite a few myself, but for young women like me, it’s hard not to be insulted by the creation of these books and their aim at people like me. The belief that I am a sucker for anything dazzling romantic just because I’m a young woman? Insulting. I mean, I can stomach some rom coms every now and then and sometimes I even actively seek them out, but story still matters, even then. Just like how I can’t stand a shrill heroine (a la Katherine Heigl in Knocked Up – TBH that girl has every right to trash that role), I can’t stand a, not only passive, but downright inconsiderate and selfish heroine like Bella. Why would I ever want to watch or read about a girl who is supposed to be like me, but doesn’t appreciate anything in her life despite parents and friends who care about her? I would never want to be like Bella, and I think it is incredibly insulting that people think I should want to be like her just because I am a young woman."
All in all, women have more of a reason to be Twilight haters than men.
Men have plenty of their own say in pop culture - people make the argument that it's all them for the superhero movies, for things like Transformers and James Bond flicks or things like Star Wars or Star Trek. To be quite honest, that's a stupid, sexist stereotype as I am hardly a tomboy (love me some stilettos and skirts) but I have seen at least one movie in each of the aforementioned franchises and enjoyed them immensely. My favorite effing movie is probably Star Wars. But regardless, if the argument is that men are jealous of Twilight hogging some spotlight in pop culture, I think it is an immensely weak argument. If men were supposed to be the sexist stereotypes people write them out to be, they'd probably be thrilled that women were drawn into something so bad rather than going to the movies for incredibly intelligent fare which would show them as a true threat.
Of course, this is all complete bullshit. Sure, there are sexist stereotyped men out there, but it's unfair to say the whole gender is that way, just as it is equally unfair to say that women love Twilight.
It is because of this second assumption - that young women should be very interested in the Twilight franchise according to market research or whatever - that is the reason I think many a woman hates Twilight. We are insulted by these assumptions about ourselves and what kinds of stories we like. I think men should be just as insulted when things like "men have to love Transformers 2 even if it sucks, but because things blow up" pop into the conversation.
All in all, trying to figure out the success or failure of a franchise still, unfortunately, comes down to this sexist crap. Women movie-goers fit into one category, men movie-goers into another. When an audience is over 70% one gender, CLEARLY the movie is made for that gender. But 30% of the other gender is nothing to sniff at. And it's rare that you hear such a huge percentage for one gender. Most of the time, I see the range is usually smaller, the difference usually less than 30%. It's sometimes a big gap, but I doubt there's a single movie that has never drawn both genders for whatever reason.
Women and men both like crappy movies. Women and men both like good movies. Women and men hate the same movies. Women and men hate different movies. For every girl who says a war movie is too bloody for her, you get a girl like me who adores a good war movie, no matter how bloody it is. For every guy who complains about chick flicks, you get a guy who can actually enjoy a clever enough chick flick.
I know marketers have a job to do when they're selling a movie, and they're trying to find the right demographic. I understand that, but stop boxing us up too. Just because Twilight draws a female-heavy box office doesn't make "women between the ages of 18-34 love Twilight" accurate because I am in that demographic and I can't stand that crap. You're just making me hate it more by assuming I like it.
The quote that bothered me most?
“A grand paradox in all this is that a great many professed Twilight haters are young men who, though they may not acknowledge it, are threatened by this pop-cultural juggernaut.”
My response?
"To be quite fair, I am the exact demographic, a young woman, that Twilight is aimed at and I know plenty of young women just like me who are professed Twilight-haters. Sure, I believe that there are plenty of young men who hate Twilight, I know quite a few myself, but for young women like me, it’s hard not to be insulted by the creation of these books and their aim at people like me. The belief that I am a sucker for anything dazzling romantic just because I’m a young woman? Insulting. I mean, I can stomach some rom coms every now and then and sometimes I even actively seek them out, but story still matters, even then. Just like how I can’t stand a shrill heroine (a la Katherine Heigl in Knocked Up – TBH that girl has every right to trash that role), I can’t stand a, not only passive, but downright inconsiderate and selfish heroine like Bella. Why would I ever want to watch or read about a girl who is supposed to be like me, but doesn’t appreciate anything in her life despite parents and friends who care about her? I would never want to be like Bella, and I think it is incredibly insulting that people think I should want to be like her just because I am a young woman."
All in all, women have more of a reason to be Twilight haters than men.
Men have plenty of their own say in pop culture - people make the argument that it's all them for the superhero movies, for things like Transformers and James Bond flicks or things like Star Wars or Star Trek. To be quite honest, that's a stupid, sexist stereotype as I am hardly a tomboy (love me some stilettos and skirts) but I have seen at least one movie in each of the aforementioned franchises and enjoyed them immensely. My favorite effing movie is probably Star Wars. But regardless, if the argument is that men are jealous of Twilight hogging some spotlight in pop culture, I think it is an immensely weak argument. If men were supposed to be the sexist stereotypes people write them out to be, they'd probably be thrilled that women were drawn into something so bad rather than going to the movies for incredibly intelligent fare which would show them as a true threat.
Of course, this is all complete bullshit. Sure, there are sexist stereotyped men out there, but it's unfair to say the whole gender is that way, just as it is equally unfair to say that women love Twilight.
It is because of this second assumption - that young women should be very interested in the Twilight franchise according to market research or whatever - that is the reason I think many a woman hates Twilight. We are insulted by these assumptions about ourselves and what kinds of stories we like. I think men should be just as insulted when things like "men have to love Transformers 2 even if it sucks, but because things blow up" pop into the conversation.
All in all, trying to figure out the success or failure of a franchise still, unfortunately, comes down to this sexist crap. Women movie-goers fit into one category, men movie-goers into another. When an audience is over 70% one gender, CLEARLY the movie is made for that gender. But 30% of the other gender is nothing to sniff at. And it's rare that you hear such a huge percentage for one gender. Most of the time, I see the range is usually smaller, the difference usually less than 30%. It's sometimes a big gap, but I doubt there's a single movie that has never drawn both genders for whatever reason.
Women and men both like crappy movies. Women and men both like good movies. Women and men hate the same movies. Women and men hate different movies. For every girl who says a war movie is too bloody for her, you get a girl like me who adores a good war movie, no matter how bloody it is. For every guy who complains about chick flicks, you get a guy who can actually enjoy a clever enough chick flick.
I know marketers have a job to do when they're selling a movie, and they're trying to find the right demographic. I understand that, but stop boxing us up too. Just because Twilight draws a female-heavy box office doesn't make "women between the ages of 18-34 love Twilight" accurate because I am in that demographic and I can't stand that crap. You're just making me hate it more by assuming I like it.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Toy Story 3
This is a comment I posted on awardsdaily.com on this newspost.
"I need to see this again. I was too emotionally crazed to really be able to tolerate anyone saying it was less than perfection. But I was in tears from the beginning, when we saw how many toys had disappeared over the years (not unlike my own storage units in the family garage, which are missing most of my old childhood toys), and barely held it together in the end when Andy played with his toys one last time with Bonnie. I was afraid I was going to audibly sob I couldn't stop crying.
Toy Story 3 may not be the best storytelling of some of the other films, but it is also clearly an installment in a franchise, which makes it different from most of the films. It is, indeed, its most emotional though. I have never been more touched by a movie in my life, but that's something my generation, who were kids when Toy Story first came out, and Toy Story 2, and now are coming back for thirds having been in Andy's exact place, is bound to experience. But I think it's something all adults can relate to and all kids will dread relating to (if I were young enough to still have toys in my room, you know I'd have gone home to instantly play with them for hours). Watching Woody, Buzz, and the gang go through all their trials is like watching what happens to your childhood, hoping that it doesn't get destroyed, but knowing it will never be the same as it was before, which is just as heart-breaking.
I don't know if I'll ever be able to rationally discuss Toy Story 3 because it just touched a place in me I'd forgotten I had. The first two feel so quaint and sweet these days, but this movie just feels too real, almost too personal, though I was never as cool a kid as Andy was, and I didn't love my toys quite the same way he did. But I think that just proves all the more what a fantastic movie it is, that it strikes a cord so strong that everything else beyond the tears and laughter is creates, doesn't really matter. It reminds me of Ego's review in Ratatouille, like all brilliant things do, and how technicalities and hard-hearts and reality aside, beauty is beauty and there are some things that are simply beyond proper criticism."
It'll be a long time before I can sum up my feelings on Toy Story 3 (I only left the theater about two hours ago), but I think the first reaction matters almost as much as the last. And, boy oh boy, have I got a first reaction. I know it's still soon after, but this was just one of those movie-going experiences where I feel like I'm a different person on the other side and I have no idea how I've changed, but I just feel it, but it could also be the emotional overload from the past few hours... it's too confusing.
But I do know that I dug my stuffed animals out of a trash bag in my brother's room, gave them a talking to about how much I love them, and set several of them around my room, including my poor, mistreated American Girl dolls.
"I need to see this again. I was too emotionally crazed to really be able to tolerate anyone saying it was less than perfection. But I was in tears from the beginning, when we saw how many toys had disappeared over the years (not unlike my own storage units in the family garage, which are missing most of my old childhood toys), and barely held it together in the end when Andy played with his toys one last time with Bonnie. I was afraid I was going to audibly sob I couldn't stop crying.
Toy Story 3 may not be the best storytelling of some of the other films, but it is also clearly an installment in a franchise, which makes it different from most of the films. It is, indeed, its most emotional though. I have never been more touched by a movie in my life, but that's something my generation, who were kids when Toy Story first came out, and Toy Story 2, and now are coming back for thirds having been in Andy's exact place, is bound to experience. But I think it's something all adults can relate to and all kids will dread relating to (if I were young enough to still have toys in my room, you know I'd have gone home to instantly play with them for hours). Watching Woody, Buzz, and the gang go through all their trials is like watching what happens to your childhood, hoping that it doesn't get destroyed, but knowing it will never be the same as it was before, which is just as heart-breaking.
I don't know if I'll ever be able to rationally discuss Toy Story 3 because it just touched a place in me I'd forgotten I had. The first two feel so quaint and sweet these days, but this movie just feels too real, almost too personal, though I was never as cool a kid as Andy was, and I didn't love my toys quite the same way he did. But I think that just proves all the more what a fantastic movie it is, that it strikes a cord so strong that everything else beyond the tears and laughter is creates, doesn't really matter. It reminds me of Ego's review in Ratatouille, like all brilliant things do, and how technicalities and hard-hearts and reality aside, beauty is beauty and there are some things that are simply beyond proper criticism."
It'll be a long time before I can sum up my feelings on Toy Story 3 (I only left the theater about two hours ago), but I think the first reaction matters almost as much as the last. And, boy oh boy, have I got a first reaction. I know it's still soon after, but this was just one of those movie-going experiences where I feel like I'm a different person on the other side and I have no idea how I've changed, but I just feel it, but it could also be the emotional overload from the past few hours... it's too confusing.
But I do know that I dug my stuffed animals out of a trash bag in my brother's room, gave them a talking to about how much I love them, and set several of them around my room, including my poor, mistreated American Girl dolls.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Sequels, Threequels, Franchises, oh my!
Last night, as I was trying to sleep, a thought kept coming into my head. And that thought was no, not about Anton Yelchin or Alexander Skarsgard you fools, but about sequels and threequels.
Now, it has become a long-standing fear of fans of something quality that a mediocre or bad sequel will come of it. However, ever since 1972 and The Godfather, Part II, this fear has been ruled with some notable exceptions. However, there have been over the past several years, particularly in recent years with the heightened popularity of franchises, several examples of sequels that are considered to be nearly as good as, as good as, or better than the original film on which they are based. For example, there is the aforementioned Godfather, Part II; Empire Strikes Back; Terminator 2: Judgment Day; I-haven't-seen-it-but-have-been-led-to-believe-it-fits-here Aliens; Toy Story 2; Shrek 2; Spider-man 2; The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers; The Dark Knight; X2. To name a few, that is.
Obviously, this is a totally non-scientific manner in which I am determining whatever the hell I am rambling on about.
Sequels have been proven to not simply be a marketing ploy for Disney to sell a bunch of Direct-to-VHS/DVD movies (although, in its defense, The Lion King 2 is actually quite enjoyable... moreso than most of its sequel counterparts via Disney). There are loads of bad sequels or sequels that incredibly disappoint.
But I remember seeing both Shrek the Third and Spider-man 3 and easily disliking the both of them. Shrek the Third had its moments and Spider-man 3 had James Franco being the only good thing about the entire movie, but overall, they were far cries from the first two movies. Even the unsteady X-Men franchise had a decent opening film, an improved second film, and then a blah third film. Other franchises start off with a strong first film and then settle into two mediocre sequels (Pirates of the Caribbean and The Matrix, for example).
Even Return of the Jedi and The Godfather, Part III, while both being good films in their own rights, are still mere shadows of the brilliance of their first two installments. The third Terminator movie was only mediocre. And while Lord of the Rings: Return of the King should disprove this theory that threequels nearly always never measure up, it's an unfair comparison, as all three Lord of the Rings films were made in a grouping, all principal photography done together during the same stretch of time, a nearly identical team of production and post-production for the three films, and the like. And the James Bond franchise also doesn't count in my book, like the Harry Potter franchise (although, it is my personal opinion that Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is rather poor), because the two although in the same franchise, really seem to differ between the films. Which is one of my main beefs with the entire Harry Potter film franchise. Keeping the same cast does not unite films. Look at James Bond! You've got to settle on a unified, continuous plot, filming style, and set design. But, alas, this isn't the place for my Harry Potter film rants.
Besides that, however, when a franchise like James Bond has made as many films as it has, each "sequel" tends to differ based on its own natural merits and not on its relation to the past film(s). But, in this vein, yes, both From Russia with Love and Goldfinger are good "sequels."
While I have gotten over the understandable fear of sequels to good material, because there are so many excellent exceptions, many of which are some of my favourite films of all times, it is difficult for me to think of many threequels that have really stood up well. I suppose I could argue that Ocean's Thirteen was a good threequel, after the okay sequel of Ocean's Twelve, but it feels odd comparing Ocean's Eleven to The Godfather or Star Wars, even if it is a fun romp.
Mostly, I am hoping that Pixar might help eliminate my fear of threequels with Toy Story 3. Pixar hasn't disappointed yet, but the odds seem more against them than ever, in my opinion. Other people were pleasantly surprised by the quality of Ratatouille, WALL-E, and Up, but Pixar has been making odd concepts into great films ever since Toy Story. And they made a brilliant sequel to one of those films. But a threequel? Pixar has earned my trust, but threequels haven't. I've met very few threequels I've really liked. I suppose Return of the Jedi and Ocean's Thirteen might be saving graces, but it's hard to get over Sofia Coppola's poor acting in The Godfather, Part III, or everything but James Franco in Spider-man 3.
In conclusion, there really isn't much that can be got out of this roundabout ramble. My point is simply that the fear of sequels has been calmed a bit, despite the annoyance of clear box office bait that is a sequel to The Hangover, Sex and the City 2, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, and so on and so forth. There are some great cinematic experiences that are sequels. However, few threequels have ever risen to any form of glory. I'm hoping Pixar disproves that and then Christopher Nolan makes an assist by making that third Batman movie and making it awesome.
At least in the meantime we've got Inception.
Now, it has become a long-standing fear of fans of something quality that a mediocre or bad sequel will come of it. However, ever since 1972 and The Godfather, Part II, this fear has been ruled with some notable exceptions. However, there have been over the past several years, particularly in recent years with the heightened popularity of franchises, several examples of sequels that are considered to be nearly as good as, as good as, or better than the original film on which they are based. For example, there is the aforementioned Godfather, Part II; Empire Strikes Back; Terminator 2: Judgment Day; I-haven't-seen-it-but-have-been-led-to-believe-it-fits-here Aliens; Toy Story 2; Shrek 2; Spider-man 2; The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers; The Dark Knight; X2. To name a few, that is.
Obviously, this is a totally non-scientific manner in which I am determining whatever the hell I am rambling on about.
Sequels have been proven to not simply be a marketing ploy for Disney to sell a bunch of Direct-to-VHS/DVD movies (although, in its defense, The Lion King 2 is actually quite enjoyable... moreso than most of its sequel counterparts via Disney). There are loads of bad sequels or sequels that incredibly disappoint.
But I remember seeing both Shrek the Third and Spider-man 3 and easily disliking the both of them. Shrek the Third had its moments and Spider-man 3 had James Franco being the only good thing about the entire movie, but overall, they were far cries from the first two movies. Even the unsteady X-Men franchise had a decent opening film, an improved second film, and then a blah third film. Other franchises start off with a strong first film and then settle into two mediocre sequels (Pirates of the Caribbean and The Matrix, for example).
Even Return of the Jedi and The Godfather, Part III, while both being good films in their own rights, are still mere shadows of the brilliance of their first two installments. The third Terminator movie was only mediocre. And while Lord of the Rings: Return of the King should disprove this theory that threequels nearly always never measure up, it's an unfair comparison, as all three Lord of the Rings films were made in a grouping, all principal photography done together during the same stretch of time, a nearly identical team of production and post-production for the three films, and the like. And the James Bond franchise also doesn't count in my book, like the Harry Potter franchise (although, it is my personal opinion that Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is rather poor), because the two although in the same franchise, really seem to differ between the films. Which is one of my main beefs with the entire Harry Potter film franchise. Keeping the same cast does not unite films. Look at James Bond! You've got to settle on a unified, continuous plot, filming style, and set design. But, alas, this isn't the place for my Harry Potter film rants.
Besides that, however, when a franchise like James Bond has made as many films as it has, each "sequel" tends to differ based on its own natural merits and not on its relation to the past film(s). But, in this vein, yes, both From Russia with Love and Goldfinger are good "sequels."
While I have gotten over the understandable fear of sequels to good material, because there are so many excellent exceptions, many of which are some of my favourite films of all times, it is difficult for me to think of many threequels that have really stood up well. I suppose I could argue that Ocean's Thirteen was a good threequel, after the okay sequel of Ocean's Twelve, but it feels odd comparing Ocean's Eleven to The Godfather or Star Wars, even if it is a fun romp.
Mostly, I am hoping that Pixar might help eliminate my fear of threequels with Toy Story 3. Pixar hasn't disappointed yet, but the odds seem more against them than ever, in my opinion. Other people were pleasantly surprised by the quality of Ratatouille, WALL-E, and Up, but Pixar has been making odd concepts into great films ever since Toy Story. And they made a brilliant sequel to one of those films. But a threequel? Pixar has earned my trust, but threequels haven't. I've met very few threequels I've really liked. I suppose Return of the Jedi and Ocean's Thirteen might be saving graces, but it's hard to get over Sofia Coppola's poor acting in The Godfather, Part III, or everything but James Franco in Spider-man 3.
In conclusion, there really isn't much that can be got out of this roundabout ramble. My point is simply that the fear of sequels has been calmed a bit, despite the annoyance of clear box office bait that is a sequel to The Hangover, Sex and the City 2, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, and so on and so forth. There are some great cinematic experiences that are sequels. However, few threequels have ever risen to any form of glory. I'm hoping Pixar disproves that and then Christopher Nolan makes an assist by making that third Batman movie and making it awesome.
At least in the meantime we've got Inception.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
