So now the Matrix fans have their Phantom Menace?

No, you misunderstand. When winter_chili saw ANH, it wasn't in the 90's!

Apples and oranges.

 

Listen, he's saying that the problems in the prequels are the same as in the OT, and I'm only noticing them now because when I first saw Star Wars it was ground-breaking. This is not true.

 

i didnt mean you personally, i was talking in to everyone at once

 

Gotta go back for it . . .

Scorcese is a New Yorker. NOBODY messes with New Yorkers!

Damn straight.

 

"I say its inexplicable because 99% of all complaints about the prequels can be made about the originals with equal validity."

well i say about 99% of all the complaints about Matrix Reloaded can be made about the prequels with equal validity, and then some, infinity squared!! tag! no tag-backs! you can ask my mom!

 

It just came to my attention that there is probably someone on these boards (more likely on the AICN boards)

that thinks TTT was horrible and peter jackson is a hack, the matrix reloaded was awful and that lucas has "lost it"

wow that guys life must suck

 

My mom can kick your mom's butt!

 

"wow that guys life must suck"

Not me! I haven't seen TTT yet.

 

Well, MeBeJedi, there are some that may think your life sucks because you haven't seen TTT yet. DON'T LISTEN TO THEM. THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY SPEAK OF!

I recommend it, highly. It took awhile for me to get used to it, having really enjoyed the chemistry of all of the characters from Fellowship.

BTW, did you see Fellowship? If so, what did you think?

 

MeBeJedi, you should see T2T. Despite my complaints about its departures from the book (which I still stand by), it's a well-made film.

You might actually like it more if you're NOT a huge fan of the books.
(I make the assumption that you would've seen the movie if you were.)

If nothing else, I think Helm's Deep is the best ground battle ever put in a movie. (Second place: battle of Geonosis. Third place: one of the Braveheart ones, forgotten which.)

Re: the guy that thinks TTT was horrible and peter jackson is a hack, the matrix reloaded was awful and that lucas has "lost it"
That's half the Internet, d00d.


EDIT: My T2T recommendations, of course, hinge on the assumption that you liked FOTR. If you didn't like FOTR, you probably won't like T2T.


Rick McCallum loves you!

 

Well, I'm not a big "fantasy" fan, but I really enjoyed watching it. I read "The Hobbit" and barely got through it. I don't know if I can get myself to start "Lord of the Rings" yet. (Too much SW EU to read first, as well as the Dune Prequels. )

That being said, I haven't seen TTT yet because I'm no longer a "theater" fan. Except for "Finding Nemo", which I took my daughter to, I've not seen a film in a theater since TPM.

And no, it wasn't TPM's fault, though it certainly didn't help, either.

I enjoy my home system a lot more. My couch is far more comfortable, and my food is far more affordable.

 

I enjoy my home system a lot more. My couch is far more comfortable, and my food is far more affordable.

A home theater enthusiast, eh?

Good for you!

I love my home theater, although I like the "larger than life" quality of the big screen (which sadly I don't have...yet!)

 

two words: video projector!

 

Darth_Insidious: "The PT is a separate trilogy from the OT." --- "It's perfectly fine to compare AOTC to TPM as a sequel to the original, because while TPM relates to the story of the originals, it started off a whole new trilogy."

Sorry to dissapoint you, DI. Even if the films are released as two trilogies it makes no difference. The prequel trilogy are also sequels. By defintiion a 'prequel' is a sequel set before its predecssor(s). They are sequels. TPM is the third Star Wars sequel.

I am laughing so much that I hurts. DI believes the prequels are not sequels.

The fact is that Attack of the Clones is a sequel to a sequel. That is an undeniable fact.

Darth_Insidious: "I'm not going to get into reasons for AOTC's gross dropping off from TPM, as we've been through this over and over again."

Yeah, that is understandable considering you basically ignore most of the points anyway. You can never accept anything that disproves your own views. Simple as that.

Darth_Insidious: "Okay, so he gave reasons for it. Nobody's saying that he didn't. It's just that common sense by itself would point anyone to the same ultimate conclusion."

Excuse me. How is it common sense, if those reasons were the result of George's actions. Only George knew what direction he would take. So how could we use common sense to arrive at this conclusion.

EDIT: As for The Two Towers, it is one unbelievable film. I never had any problem with the changes that were made. Firstly, I couldn't understand why people criticised the Arwen/Aragorn bridge scene. I thought it was brilliant, and most of it was taken from Appendix A anyway. And although Faramir did change more than his brother, it annoys me when nobody mentions the obvious changes to Boromir's character in FOTR. The fact that in the book he is only made a problem nearer the end. The film's difference means Boromir's redemption was far more powerful. I think the same will go for Faramir in ROTK.

 

>>>Sorry to dissapoint you, DI. Even if the films are released as two trilogies it makes no difference. The prequel trilogy are also sequels. By defintiion a 'prequel' is a sequel set before its predecssor(s). They are sequels. TPM is the third Star Wars sequel.

I am laughing so much that I hurts. DI believes the prequels are not sequels.

The fact is that Attack of the Clones is a sequel to a sequel. That is an undeniable fact.<<<

Prequels are technically sequels, yes. And AOTC is a sequel to what was technically a sequel, yes. It's also the sequel to a film that kicked off a whole new trilogy after a 16 year gap between this one and the last one. It's common sense that it would behave like a first sequel, rather than a fourth, especially since this is Star Wars we're talking about.

>>>Yeah, that is understandable considering you basically ignore most of the points anyway. You can never accept anything that disproves your own views. Simple as that<<<

Wait, who's ignoring who?

Me: Less people saw the prequels than the originals.

You: So what? Less people are going to the movies altogether.

Me: No, since 1986, attendance has done nothing but increase, with very slight dips in some years.

You: ....



Excuse me. How is it common sense, if those reasons were the result of George's actions. Only George knew what direction he would take. So how could we use common sense to arrive at this conclusion.

Common box office sense, as I said before. I really do hate repeating myself.

 

Off-topic but:

Adam
"Third place: one of the Braveheart ones, forgotten which.)"

Well, Sterling was the first one with the great cavalry charge and the chiltrons.

The second one was Falkirk. That was the one where Gibson was hit with an arrow and attempted to take out Edward I, but was stopped by the traitorous Robert the Bruce.

There.....umm...okay.

 

I think that Stirling is the one I like best, then...
I think.

I'll have to watch the movie again sometime.



Rick McCallum loves you!

 

Darth_Insidious: "It's perfectly fine to compare AOTC to TPM as a sequel to the original, because while TPM relates to the story of the originals, it started off a whole new trilogy."

Yes, you can say what you want to satisfy yourself. Nothing unusual. Anyway, this all harks back to George's expectations for the success of the prequels and the reasons behind those expectations. Some were common sense, like the amount of hype behind TPM. Others were not. George knew the direction he was taking would have an adverse effect on audiences.

Darth_Insidious: "Wait, who's ignoring who?"

Em, firstly here is my reply you want:

Stable to gradual increase in US-only figures is not an indicator of the general global one. Think about it. The US is the central country for marketing and technology for films. It is common for it to react differently to other markets. Take this as opinion until I can get a link for a PDF that explains this.

Secondly, about 'ignoring':

Darth_Insidious: "I'm not going to get into reasons for AOTC's gross dropping off from TPM, as we've been through this over and over again."

Have we?

Another thing, in your list of sequels that did make more, you decide to go outside our set limits to include MIB 2 and Harry Potter 2. Therefore, can I include Matrix Reloaded, X2, The Two Towers, 2 Fast 2 Furious,


The fact of the matter is that, especially with bigger film franchises, it is not as you said yourself "the rule of thumb was that sequels almost never do better than the original." It is a reasonable thing to assume that a sequel can do better than earlier instalments of the franchise. Simple as that.

 

Me: Less people saw the prequels than the originals.

You: So what? Less people are going to the movies altogether.

Me: No, since 1986, attendance has done nothing but increase, with very slight dips in some years.

You: ....

Me: While overall attendance has increased, attendance per movie has decreased.

You: ....



However, you're missing the point of Lucas' predictions. Most "experts" expected the prequels to perform like gangbusters simply because they were Star Wars while Lucas said, "I'm no so sure about that. I suspect some people may not like the direction I take the films." And you know what? Lucas was right.

So while you're saying that is was a no-brainer for Lucas to make his prediction, he was one of the only ones predicting the prequels wouldn't do well because they were Star Wars movies. Ironic, no?

 

Show me the number of films released in 1977 and the number of tickets sold in that year. Then show me the number of films released in 1999 (i've already got ticket sales for that year). Then we can talk about how much attendance per film is down.

The concensus was that TPM would perform incredibly well, and it did. By the time AOTC rolled around, most people predicted a sizeable drop-off, mainly because of TPM turning-off a sizeable number of people, and it had one. Their predictions were in accordance with Lucas' own. Common box office sense, combined with a disappointing debut for the PT in terms of public approval.

clonetrooper:

Cool, I'll wait for your PDF that explains how box office attendance worldwide has decreased. And until then, you're argument has absolutely no basis in truth, as you've shown nothing to back it up with.

2Fast 2Furious didn't do better than the original

The reasonable thing to assume, even today, is that a sequel most likely won't make more money than the original. This summer especially has proved that, with films like 2Fast 2Furious, Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle, and Legally Blonde 2.

 

By the time AOTC rolled around, most people predicted a sizeable drop-off, mainly because of TPM turning-off a sizeable number of people, and it had one.

There are no facts to support this statement.

 

Darth_Insidious: "even today, is that a sequel most likely won't make more money than the original." ---- "This summer especially has proved that, with films like 2Fast 2Furious, Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle, and Legally Blonde 2."

This just gets funnier and funnier. You are now using examples of films that are still in the cinemas as certain figures.

And I am ready to prove you wrong, yet again.

The Fast and the Furious made $144 million in 4 months in the US. 2 Fast 2 Furious has made $120 million in less than one month. Wrong again DI, 2 Fast 2 Furious will beat part one very soon and will beat it considerably.

Charlie's Angels made $125 million in 3 months and Full Throttle has made almost $70 million in 2 weeks as well as doing better in UK, France and Italy etc...

May I add that both these films are going strong.

Legally Blonde - the second film has made DOUBLE as much money in its first week as the first installment had made in its first week.

Your examples appear to be quite embaressing.


So recently you have all these films making more money than their earlier instalments:

American Pie 2
Rush Hour 2
The Two Towers
Shanghai Knights
X2
Reloaded
[And...snigger..cough...]
2 Fast 2 Furious (dead cert)
Full Throttle (close but probable)
Legally Blonde 2 (dead cert).

More upcoming good bets for making more than earlier instalments:
Tomb Raider 2
Jeepers Creepers 2
Bad Boys 2 (very likely)
Spy Kids 3D
Rugrats Go Wild - maybe?

Not so sure about making more than previous instalments: Terminator 3, Freddy vs Jason, American Pie: The Wedding. I think these will have their work cut out. However all will perform well, respectful of the size of each film.

Darth_Insidious: "even today, is that a sequel most likely won't make more money than the original."

Come on, DI.

I love this.

 

When someone is deluded, that's bad enough. But when they're so ridiculously convinced of a fallacy that they go so far as to get contempful with someone who's clearly in the right, that's just laughable.

2Fast 2Furious made only 1.5 million last weekend. Every single drop-off since its opening has been more than 40%. Clearly it has absolutely no chance of beating the original in the US. Internationally, it has $73 million, and may end up pulling ahead of the first one by a bit. In the end, the original will have been more successful, easily selling more tickets.

Full Throttle his losing 950 theaters this weekend, and has had large drops since opening, the most recent being 49%. Its won't beat the originals 125 million domestically. Internationally last weekend, it failed to open larger than the original in Germany, Spain, and Austria. It's only good drop was in Japan, with 28%. In the UK it wad down 45%, and in Australia 39%. We'll see where it ends up. It's going to have to offset the loss in the US, and even then, unless the gap is big enough, the original will still have sold more tickets.

Legally Blonde 2 won't outdo the first one either. With its gross as of last weekend at 63 million, and a 46% drop, its very doubtful that it'll surpass the first one in dollars earned, let alone tickets sold. Box Office Prophets says it quite clearly: The bad news for MGM is that because the sequel is going to gross less than the original's $96.5 million, it will still be considered a disappointment.

The only embarassing thing here is you sticking your foot further and further down your throat with every post you make.

 

Okay, guys, let's cool it down a bit. I've been watching this tennis match for a while and you guys are gettting very close to flaming.

And we don't want to upset Quix or Oakessteve.

Lady Sami

 

So now your list of sequels that did better than the originals looks like this:

Rambo: First Blood Pt. 2
T2
Lethal Weapon 2
Evil Dead 2
Mad Max 2
Another 48 Hours
American Pie 2
Rush Hour 2
Shanghai Knights
X2
The Matrix Reloaded

And I'll add a few to my list of sequels that didn't out-perform the originals to make it:

The Empire Strikes Back
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
The Lost World
Med in Black 2
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
The Godfather Part 2
Beverly Hills Cop 2
Home Alone 2
More American Grafitti
Batman Returns
Back to the Future Part 2
Jaws 2
Attack of the Clones
Aliens
Halloween
Rocky II
Patriot Games
Mortal Kombat: Annihilation
The Jungle Book 2
Ghostbusters 2
2010: The Year We Landed
Child's Play 2
The Exorcist: The Version You've Never Seen Before
Friday the 13th Part 2
Hannibal
Hellbound: Hellraiser II
The Great Muppet Caper
Beneath the Planet of the Apes
Pokemon: The Movie 2000
Poltergeist II: The Other Side
The Neverending Story II: The Next Chapter
Psycho II
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn
Scream 2

That should do for now.