Also, another example of a sequel possibly being better than the original...

Posted by Brett Maverick Lambert from aig65386y28se.ab.hsia.telus.net (142.59.83.81) on Thursday, March 14, 2002 at 4:59pm :

In Reply to: I thought it did. posted by Fall Guy from pool0068.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net (216.244.42.68) on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 at 7:21pm :

..."The Godfather, Part II." The two are both equally great that they end up being neck in neck in terms of "which is the best of the trilogy?" that it's basically a tie in my book, BUT Part II does have a deeper depth of storyline than Part I in some respects (though this is not to suggest that Part I was a slouch in that area). Part III, sadly, didn't live up to either film. It had a good premise (Michael Corleone's redemption), but it couldn't follow through on it like those previous two. Ultimately, Part III isn't necessary. It wasn't a terrible film, but it shouldn't have been made because Coppola was going broke at that time (if his financial situation was better, he could have told the story better in my opinion).

: ToD (I'm sure you are aware of the fact it's actually a prequel, not a sequel) has more than just action: In the beginning, Indy is the ruthless adventurer who wants fortune and glory. He even takes Willie hostage and drags her into the whole mess. In the end, Indy has discovered that friendship is more important than a silly chase after some artifact (which he returns to its rightful owner).
: As for LC explaining Indy's fear of snakes, his looks, his scar, gear etc, isn't it pretty infantile and far-fetched that all this happened within a few hours (Where the hell does the Jones family live anyway? In Moab?)?
: About 'The Mummy', the first one (I'm talking about the '99 remake) was fun to watch, I thought, while the sequel was as bad as they come: over-blown, tedious and a waste of talent.
: About Conan I can't say much, as I only remember Arnold knocking out a camel.
: As for SW, Lucas has shown appreciation for character development and the importance of a good story. Too bad that the acting (or directing) is often not up to snuff. But I love Lucas's vision and concepts. I also enjoy when he muddles together all major world religions and recycles all sorts of myths.
: That brings me back to ToD, which was closer to Lucas's vision of Indiana Jones than either Raiders or LC. I'm glad it's so different. Raiders was great, and ToD had to be different. But LC falls short of all expectations. I don't see anything new there, apart from the well-incorporated father/son relationship. Scene by scene it's almost a clone of Raiders.

: FG

: PS: Here's a sequel that's possibly better than the original: Aliens

: : Ok my little thing on sequels.

: : They tend to suck if they dont further the story or characters somehow. ROTLA introduced us. TLC showed us his fear of snakes, origin of his name, whip, dress code, and his relationship with his father, along with good ol' Indy action.

: : TOD just had action.

: : Look at the Mummy, the 2nd one showed more about the main guy whatevery his name was. It explained the mark on his arm etc.
: : StarWars, every movie brought us something new to the world, and not just another adventure.

: : That was what was wrong with Conan the Destroyer. The Barbarian showed us his origins, how he learned to fight, how he got strong, his sword etc. The destroyer was just a mindless adventure. Fun to watch, but not living up to the full glory.

: : So in short. Sequels need to show us something new and develop the characters.
: :
: :

Follow Ups: Post a Followup Name: E-Mail: ( default ) Subject: Message: : ..."The Godfather, Part II." The two are both equally great that they end up being neck in neck in terms of "which is the best of the trilogy?" that it's basically a tie in my book, BUT Part II does have a deeper depth of storyline than Part I in some respects (though this is not to suggest that Part I was a slouch in that area). Part III, sadly, didn't live up to either film. It had a good premise (Michael Corleone's redemption), but it couldn't follow through on it like those previous two. Ultimately, Part III isn't necessary. It wasn't a terrible film, but it shouldn't have been made because Coppola was going broke at that time (if his financial situation was better, he could have told the story better in my opinion). : : ToD (I'm sure you are aware of the fact it's actually a prequel, not a sequel) has more than just action: In the beginning, Indy is the ruthless adventurer who wants fortune and glory. He even takes Willie hostage and drags her into the whole mess. In the end, Indy has discovered that friendship is more important than a silly chase after some artifact (which he returns to its rightful owner). : : As for LC explaining Indy's fear of snakes, his looks, his scar, gear etc, isn't it pretty infantile and far-fetched that all this happened within a few hours (Where the hell does the Jones family live anyway? In Moab?)? : : About 'The Mummy', the first one (I'm talking about the '99 remake) was fun to watch, I thought, while the sequel was as bad as they come: over-blown, tedious and a waste of talent. : : About Conan I can't say much, as I only remember Arnold knocking out a camel. : : As for SW, Lucas has shown appreciation for character development and the importance of a good story. Too bad that the acting (or directing) is often not up to snuff. But I love Lucas's vision and concepts. I also enjoy when he muddles together all major world religions and recycles all sorts of myths. : : That brings me back to ToD, which was closer to Lucas's vision of Indiana Jones than either Raiders or LC. I'm glad it's so different. Raiders was great, and ToD had to be different. But LC falls short of all expectations. I don't see anything new there, apart from the well-incorporated father/son relationship. Scene by scene it's almost a clone of Raiders. : : FG : : PS: Here's a sequel that's possibly better than the original: Aliens : : : : Ok my little thing on sequels. : : : They tend to suck if they dont further the story or characters somehow. ROTLA introduced us. TLC showed us his fear of snakes, origin of his name, whip, dress code, and his relationship with his father, along with good ol' Indy action. : : : TOD just had action. : : : Look at the Mummy, the 2nd one showed more about the main guy whatevery his name was. It explained the mark on his arm etc. : : : StarWars, every movie brought us something new to the world, and not just another adventure. : : : That was what was wrong with Conan the Destroyer. The Barbarian showed us his origins, how he learned to fight, how he got strong, his sword etc. The destroyer was just a mindless adventure. Fun to watch, but not living up to the full glory. : : : So in short. Sequels need to show us something new and develop the characters. : : : : : : Optional Link ( default ) URL: Title: Optional Image Link ( default ) URL: This board is powered by the Mr. Fong Device from Cyberarmy.com