|
|
 |
|
03-27-2006, 05:05 AM
|
#61 of 87 
|
|
Member
Location: New Zealand
Join Date: Mar 2003
Local Time: 06:47 AM
Local Date: 11-19-2008
Posts: 2,917
|
But Fierce Creatures wasn't a sequel. It was a new film with the same cast, but it was most definitely not a sequel. It had the same cast, but playing different characters. Otherwise, Runaway Bride would be a sequel to Pretty Woman.
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
03-27-2006, 06:52 PM
|
#62 of 87
|
|
Brett
Member
Location: South Carolina
Join Date: Nov 2002
Local Time: 12:47 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 1,327
|
The Halloween series was definately going to be a bunch of unrelated stories under the title banner. I don't know why they decided to make a direct sequel with Halloween 2, and then go back to the original plan for part 3, but it obviously didn't work. I actually like Halloween 3, too for some reason though.
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
03-28-2006, 10:09 AM
|
#63 of 87
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Local Time: 12:47 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 3,995
|
Quote:
|
If it was meant to be an annual thing with different, unrelated stories - then why was Halloween 2 a next day sequel in the proper sense of the word?
|
Because "Halloween" became such a big success that a direct sequel was inevatable. Carpenter wasn't really interested in doing "Halloween II" but it was going to happen with him or without him and he felt that, at least, it was a chance to make some money. He wrote it and "Killed off" M.M. at the end (This, I believe, was still in the days before slashers could never be killed) Thinking the M.M. storyline was put to bed, they went ahead with the original anthology idea and made Halloween III. After that went over so poorly, the idea was abandoned and Halloween became about M.M. again.
As for my own opinions of Halloween III, it's not a very good movie, but yeah, it does have a creepiness to it that puts it, at least, above the most of the crap that passes for "Horror" today. I do own it on DVD and watch it around Halloween along with the other films. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-28-2006, 01:28 PM
|
#64 of 87
|
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Local Time: 12:47 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 4,608
|
Quote:
If it was meant to be an annual thing with different, unrelated stories - then why was Halloween 2 a next day sequel in the proper sense of the word?
I'm not looking to hijack this thread, but it sounds to me like the latter theory seems a bit revisionist.
|
Because the "annual" idea about unrelated new stories began for Part 3, not Part 2. The only thing "revisionist" about it would be your misunderstanding of the actual history. It's what really was intended at the time, but by #4 it was decided to abandon the idea and go back to Michael Myers instead. |
|
|
|
|
03-28-2006, 04:22 PM
|
#65 of 87
|
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Local Time: 05:47 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 3,393
|
^ And as much as I enjoy Halloween 4, I would've loved to see them stick to that game plan. I think Halloween III is a fascinating, incredibly creepy little film, and I would've loved seeing more entries in a similar vein.
As far as Halloween II goes, I think it's excruciatingly dull for the majority of it's running time, and I never cared for the sister idea that this sequel spawned. Halloween worked better when Myers was just after a girl he had no connection too.
Quote:
What about Friday The 13th Part V- A New Beginning? So much unnecessary violence and nudity and even that couldn't make it good. 
|
A New Beginning and The Final Chapter are my faves of the F13 series.  I hate Jason Takes Manhattan with a passion, and now that I think about it, I'm not too fond of Freddy vs. Jason either.
|
|
|
|
|
03-28-2006, 04:52 PM
|
#66 of 87
|
|
Home Theater Forum
Join Date: Aug 2004
Local Time: 11:47 AM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 424
|
.
Last edited by JoSAN : 04-10-2007 at 02:13 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
03-28-2006, 06:49 PM
|
#67 of 87
|
|
Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Local Time: 12:47 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 2,721
|
Apologies if this was mentioned already, but EW just did an article on the worst sequels ever made. Here's a link:
http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,1..._21_0_,00.html
|
|
|
|
|
03-29-2006, 01:24 AM
|
#68 of 87
|
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Local Time: 09:47 AM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 193
|
Those aren’t rumors. On Universal’s insistence the original movie was altered for a wider audience and of course the most important reason to sell toys!
Quote:
|
I don't find Destroyer that bad. It is not as good as Barbarian, but it's still a fun Conan flick. And I'm sure it would have gotten the PG12 rating. There were rumors of a R cut at one time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-29-2006, 08:19 AM
|
#69 of 87
|
|
Member
Join Date: May 1999
Local Time: 05:47 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 826
|
Quote:
|
Those aren’t rumors. On Universal’s insistence the original movie was altered for a wider audience and of course the most important reason to sell toys!
|
But there were never any toys based on Conan the Destroyer. |
|
|
|
|
03-29-2006, 08:30 AM
|
#70 of 87
|
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 1998
Local Time: 09:47 AM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 9,163
|
Just looking at that shot of Arnold and Grace Jones is enough to remind me of the made-by-studio committee awfulness that is Conan the Destroyer.
|
|
|
|
03-30-2006, 02:04 AM
|
#71 of 87
|
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Local Time: 09:47 AM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 216
|
from what i remember universal went to Mattel to have them make a line of conan the barbarian toys. Mattel made a bunch up , then saw the final cut of the film and said to universal no can do and all those conan toys became HE-MAN and the masters of the universe.r-rated movies can have sequels with lesser ratings and still be good because its about content when it comes to ratings
|
|
|
|
|
03-30-2006, 07:46 PM
|
#72 of 87
|
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Local Time: 04:47 AM
Local Date: 11-19-2008
Posts: 278
|
I think you can add Basic Instinct 2 to this list.
|
|
|
| |
