Amph JMPR: Jumper film, series & Impulse series [YouTube Red]

^ ^ Thank you for clarifying your position, but I will continue to respectfully disagree. By your definition of what constitutes a serial film, the STAR WARS films are not serials (since they were not made back-to-back on a continuous production schedule), and that is obviously incorrect. Neither would Superman I and II qualify by your definition, because although they derived from the same screenplay, their productions were divided (after Donner was fired and Lester took over as director). And yet they function as one piece with a full, single story to convey.

At all events, why should it be a "problem" for anyone but the filmmakers that a proposed first installment does not do well enough to justify a sequel? If few people liked the movie, no tears will be shed at the lack of further installments (q.v. Van Helsing for a fine/poor example); if many people did enjoy the first film, chances are high this will be reflected in the box office returns, and it follows that the proposed sequel(s) will be made. Why either eventuality should cause a "problem" for an individual audience member is a mystery to me. Either you like the movie for what it is, or you don't.

As to Jumper, I think it works fine as a single installment, even if not all questions are answered, clarified or explored in detail. There are plenty of excellent "one-shot" films that do this -- movies such as Unbreakable or Cloverfield -- which were created without a sequel in mind, but which nonetheless have an intentionally incomplete feeling. If no sequel is forthcoming for Jumper, I'll still purchase the DVD and watch it many times over, mining it for clues and simply enjoying the action and intriguing story.

 

Fair enough, though as I recall it was a single film rather than three. Either way, Unbreakable certainly stands well on its own, leaving the audience to imagine the ongoing struggle between the hero and villain which occurs after the fade to black. That it is a set-up film with no follow-up does not rob it of cinematic excellence or artistic validity, as Halcyon's point seemed to be with regard to other films of this nature, including Jumper.

 

The original film in fact isn't a serial. It evokes the feel of old serials the way the Indy movies do, but it is a complete storytelling entity. ESB and RotJ make up a sequel sub-series, and the PT is a third sub-series. But it's not a six-movie serial.

There's a difference between leaving story elements unexplored because it serves the story at hand, and doing so simply to provide yourself with sequel ammunition. Generally speaking, it's fine for a franchise film to include a little of both. The problem arises, however, when the sequel fodder overshadows the resolution of the current installment's storyline.

 

I neglected to include the qualifying phrase "except for the original 1977 film" because you had already made the point that it was conceived of and made as a stand-alone picture. The additional five films, however, were not made back-to-back on a continuous production schedule, and so would not fit your narrow definition of a series, which, again, is obviously incorrect.

 

I think you're confusing my definitions of 'series' and 'serial'. It's my fault for not clarifying my example of the British television use of 'series' as an explanation of the serial format.

Anytime there's more than one movie in a franchise, it's a series. There are broader and narrower uses for the term, though. From a franchise standpoint, every Batman movie from Adam West to Christian Bale can add up to a series. If you want to narrow things down, it's fine to refer to 'the Tim Burton series' or the 'the Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher series' as opposed to 'the Christopher Nolan series'.

'Serial' refers to a specific type of series, in which all the movies in the series are produced concurrently or consecutively as part of a larger production scheme. None of the OT is serial because each installment was produced individually. When SW came out, ESB had yet to be planned, and when ESB came out there were no specific plans for the production of a third film. In terms of content, ESB and RotJ form a somewhat serial entity, because they share an overall story unit. The PT is much more serial in both production and content, because Lucas set out at the start to do three films, one every three years and each film is an incomplete section of the main story.

In TV terms, SW is like a TV-Movie that tells a complete story while leaving room for exploration. ESB/RotJ are like the first season(US)/series(UK), which expand on the TV movie but delivers what is, when viewed in conjunction with the TV-movie, a complete story arc. The PT is like a second season/series, which has its own self-contained story arc for which the previous seasons/series are recommended if not required viewing.

I hope this clarifies things.

 

Well, I've finally seen the film.

Good, not fabulous. I enjoyed it and liked a lot about it, but it could have done a bit better.

Best thing was Griffin, hands down. He does exactly what I'd do if I could Jump, go on a mission for justice and vengence, but in down time play Xbox and drink Mountain Dew. A lot of us brits love Mountain Dew (well, me and Griffin at least), we just don't have any in England so we have to use teleportation powers to get some.

But if they made more I'd watch them. Especially if they included Griffin and Roland.

I'm a tad thick though, I didn't realise till the end that David's mum was a Paladin. I just thought she was a really important Jumper and that's why Griffin had a picture of her.

 

Yeah, that's what I though too. I had figured that she left to protect David from the Paladins.

 

Well she did, just from the other side. Any time the Paladins got close to David, she must have sent them in a different direction

btw, anyone played the game? Is it worth checking out?

 

Watched it yesterday. Not a bad movie, but not a good one either. From one to ten scale I would give it 6. Hayden Christensen was similar to AoC and RoTS: acting badly part of the time, but mostly ok - but sadly the girl playing Millie was acting doing a rather horrible job most of the time. Solid, but not terribly inspired performance from Samuel L. Jackson. I don't regret watching the movie but I don't intend to go and watch it again either.

 

As of March 11, Jumper has a worldwide total of $170,342,918. It's a little more than doubled its production budget so I think a sequel is certainly a possibility.

 

I sure hope so!

 

Considering that Alvin and the Chipmunks is getting sequeled with a total gross of only $350 million, I'd say a Jumper sequel is a good bet.

 

I saw Jumper last month. I thought it was a really cool and awesome movie. Jumper was also the first movie that I have seen in 2008. Also, yes, it had the trailer for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. The actors and actresses in this movie were incredible. A rumor that I had heard was that Hayden Christensen and Rachel Bilson were dating. Many of the people that were in this movie were very familiar to me like Diane Lane, Rachel Bilson (The OC) and of course Samuel L. Jackson and Hayden Christensen because they had worked together on Star Wars Episode 2 Attack of the Clones and Star Wars Episode 3 Revenge of the Sith. The movie kind of made me wish that I could teleport anywhere. Overall, this was a good movie.

 

Ok, so I finally saw Jumper and I gotta say, I really enjoyed it. I mean, it wasn't the greatest flick ever, but it was pretty damn entertaining and I had fun watching it. I find myself actually hoping they'll continue with a sequel, but who knows. Pretty good characters, solid plot, cool use of teleportation, and fairly decent acting. They actually managed to convey a lot without making it seem rushed, which is always nice. There seems to be a lot of places they could take this thing, story-wise... I guess we'll see.

D_M_S_L

 

Finally was able to see the film yesterday at one of those theaters that show films that are on dvd or about to go on dvd.

I agree with someone else's opinion concerning that the film didn't deserve some of the craptacular reviews it got. It's nowhere as bad as I expected (based on the critics reviews, that is). If anything, this film proves that you shouldn't always listen to critics. Because it was worth viewing.

Sure, the actors weren't giving Shakespearean-quality performances. But who in their right mind expects that in an action flick. It's not like Stallone, Schwarzenegger or Jackie Chan built their careers with good acting. In my opinion, critics just like to JUMP on a film from time to time and tare it to pieces. Just to show how bad-arse they are.

It wasn't a perfect film but it was better than some of the foreign crap critics love to push down our throats.

 

Just saw the film and I must say it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. It certainly isn't one of my favorites, but if they make two more films I'd probably watch them. If nothing but to see some sort of conclusion cuz that was one of my problems with the film. None of the main characters died and they left the whole mom subplot thing wide open for a sequel.

My biggest issue was the character of David. He is not as much as a hero as the end of the film paints him to be. For starters he faked his own death. Thankfully he gave Millie the snow globe back so that she didn't cry herself to sleep for the next few months. But still the father thought he was going crazy and what about the Mark kid? He grew up to be a drunk which I wouldn't be surprised if it started just after he thought he got some poor kid killed. Then there was the robbing of the banks. Stealing peoples well earned money. Then there was the womanizing of different women across the globe. Should we count the number of times he broke into places he shouldn't have been in? Then there was the people who were drowning in flood waters that he didn't seem to care about. Yeah he cant save everyone, but how about just a few every now and then? Finally he hung around some guy named Griffin who managed to kill way too many motorists.

Now granted they pretty much showed he wasn't a bad person, but it still doesn't feel right and I certainly wouldn't call him a hero.

 

This is on DVD now, yes?

 

Yep, the DVD has been released.

 

Have any of ya'll read the novels? There are at least two novels that this movie film can evolve from, Jumper and Reflex. There are talks of them making a sequel.

 

It seemed to me that the film specifically showed us that David was NOT a hero in the compassionate, self-sacrificing (or at least self-risking) sense of the term... UNTIL he changed his spots near the end of the movie, in order to save the woman he loved. At that point he became a hero. It makes for more compelling character development, and makes the movie about something, than if he were heroic and selfless from the get-go.

 

I saw it today and also didn't hate it. I did agree with a lot of reviewers that it was fairly superficial. It never really digs into any of the concepts, just skims the surface and skips along from story beat to story beat. But it was fun enough that it didn't feel like a complete waste of time.

 

That really annoyed me when they were doing the big fight jumping around the world, cool effects, but pointless, such as when they jump from some south american country to some wartorn middle eastern country (Lebanon? Iraq?) and some poor bastard in his pickup goes through their jumpscar with them and is promptly crushed by a tank. What??? Pointless loss of human life there.

 

Exactly and it was almost as if the film wanted us to forget about the truck driver, bus driver and possible passengers, and other random people who were seriously injured or killed. It just sort of pisses me off. Some action movies do things where you think "they could have killed people!" but they leave it to your imagination, this one just did it and pretended like the two people responsible (hero and anti-hero) were still good people at heart despite so much that would point to the contrary.