Another example I can think of is when in Spiderman 3 they started messing about with the story of Uncle Ben's death.
I've tried to erase it from my memory (together with the rest of Spiderman 3) in order to not spoil my viewing of the far superior Spiderman 1.
There seems to be a running theme here. imo all the films that have spoilt their predecessors are also crap movies which makes it all the worse.
agree its exactly the same with saw 1 when we watched it we didt know what sort of sick twisted could be really scary looking man/woman/thing doing this.
but saws 2-3 altough yes they are good movies IMO ruin what made the 1st so special by explaining every little thing even showing the trap being set up.
jigsaws voice in saw is also not as freaky now because we know so so so much about the man tand how he really works hrough saws 4-6 and soon 7:rolleyes:
it was also halloween 2 which revealed that laurie was his sister.
now when we watch halloween we automaticly go shes his sister
yet when the movie was released and filmed there was no sister angle to it at all he was just a madman who came across her and stalked her
still i liked the added sister twist in halloween 2
Instead of making a new thread I might as well bump this one.
I totally agree. I like to consider Resurrection as a non-canon, unofficial sequel. As far as I'm concerned, Halloween, Halloween 2 and H20 are a trilogy. End of.
H20's triumphant ending was perfect. Resurrection was just another shameless attempt to squeeze as much money and life out of the franchise as possible.
We already had two timelines, so I don't have an issue with including Resurrection as a third alternate story, rather than the official continuation of H20.
Laurie killed Michael in my eyes, not the other way around.
Instead of making a new thread I might as well bump this one.
I totally agree. I like to consider Resurrection as a non-canon, unofficial sequel. As far as I'm concerned, Halloween, Halloween 2 and H20 are a trilogy. End of.
H20's triumphant ending was perfect. Resurrection was just another shameless attempt to squeeze as much money and life out of the franchise as possible.
We already had two timelines, so I don't have an issue with including Resurrection as a third alternate story, rather than the official continuation of H20.
Laurie killed Michael in my eyes, not the other way around.
I'm in agreement about Halloween 1, 2 and H20 being like a trilogy. I don't care for the others but they are official no matter how you look at it.
The beginning of Psycho IV makes no sense in the context of the series. How the Hell could Norman be free again within 4 years of being caught red-handed (literally) with a load of dead bodies at the end of Psycho III?
Seen an interview with the writer of original Psycho as he also wrote Psycho 4 but he didn't like the 2 sequels so dismissed them in this and 4 is meant to be a direct sequel to the original
the first film that springs too mind is - hitcher 2 ... just wasn't needed at all!
I do agree that H20 was perfect and i remain adamant that was the end.
halloween 6 and ressurection do not exsist in my eyes along with the shite american pie sequals (naked mile, book of love etc)
Do actions always have to have a point? Senseless things happen every day.
If this was a series of books by the same author I would agree with you but it is a series of movies by different writers with different agendas.
imo, the thoughts behind the opening credits of Alien 3 were not what would make the best story but a solution to the fact that the actress was now 6 years older and would cause a massive continuity problem since she would not have aged a second since the previous movie (and maybe Michael Biehn was not available or did not want to be involved). The writer therefore pretty well ditched the previous story during the credits so that he could start afresh.
We assumed for 6 years that Ripley's actions, putting other people lives at risk, were not in vain but the opening credits of Alien 3 tell us in retrospect that it was the wrong thing to do..
If the first few minutes of Alien 3 were actually the last minutes of Aliens would you feel the same?
On Her Majesty's Secret Service ending with a a grief stricken Bond on his wedding day, followed by Diamonds Are Forever which seemed to forget the events of the previous movie.
If this was a series of books by the same author I would agree with you but it is a series of movies by different writers with different agendas.
imo, the thoughts behind the opening credits of Alien 3 were not what would make the best story but a solution to the fact that the actress was now 6 years older and would cause a massive continuity problem since she would not have aged a second since the previous movie (and maybe Michael Biehn was not available or did not want to be involved). The writer therefore pretty well ditched the previous story during the credits so that he could start afresh.
We assumed for 6 years that Ripley's actions, putting other people lives at risk, were not in vain but the opening credits of Alien 3 tell us in retrospect that it was the wrong thing to do..
If the first few minutes of Alien 3 were actually the last minutes of Aliens would you feel the same?
If the first few minutes of Alien 3 were actually the end of Aliens it might lend Cameron's film some emotional weight and give it some Empire Strikes Back-like darkness in it's conclusion.
Why, just because Newt eventually dies, does it make rescuing her the wrong thing to have done? Newt's death does nothing to change the nature of Ripley's previous actions in Aliens, but it does add to the building feelings of despair from Ripley as she realises she's never going to escape these little f***ers.
There's nothing they could have done about the logistics of the Newt character when making a sequel, losing her was the best thing for all concerned IMHO, both in terms of casting and plot..
I'd say that Aliens actually has a pretty lacklustre ending as it is, finishing up in stasis for the second film running, while 3 ties Ripley's story up pretty well, only for it all to be ruined by Resurrection.
If the first few minutes of Alien 3 were actually the end of Aliens it might lend Cameron's film some emotional weight and give it some Empire Strikes Back-like darkness in it's conclusion.
Why, just because Newt eventually dies, does it make rescuing her the wrong thing to have done? Newt's death does nothing to change the nature of Ripley's previous actions in Aliens, but it does add to the building feelings of despair from Ripley as she realises she's never going to escape these little f***ers.
There's nothing they could have done about the logistics of the Newt character when making a sequel, losing her was the best thing for all concerned IMHO, both in terms of casting and plot..
I'd say that Aliens actually has a pretty lacklustre ending as it is, finishing up in stasis for the second film running, while 3 ties Ripley's story up pretty well, only for it all to be ruined by Resurrection.
One of the themes of the three sequels was motherhood, human or otherwise.
Ripley in Aliens had missed out on watching her child grow so naturally her maternal instincts meant that rescuing and looking after Newt was her primary concern. Jeunet and to a lesser extent Fincher both explored motherhood, albeit surrogate motherhood for a non human or hybrid human alien species. In Cameron's film, Ripley had, in rescuing Newt, deprived a living being of her own children. In three and four, she killed her own "children".
it was also halloween 2 which revealed that laurie was his sister.
now when we watch halloween we automaticly go shes his sister
yet when the movie was released and filmed there was no sister angle to it at all he was just a madman who came across her and stalked her
still i liked the added sister twist in halloween 2
The sister twist is edited into some versions of the first film from additional scenes fimed years later:
Additional scenes were shot by director John Carpenter for the 1981 Television Network premiere. These include:
a meeting between Dr. Loomis and two doctors from the mental (psychiatric) institution where Michael Myers is being kept
a scene where a nurse leads Dr. Loomis to Michael's room, telling him who was supposed to have been watching the patients. Once they arrive in Michael's room, she tells him he must have broken the window glass with his bare hands.
They then glance over on the wall, and see that he has written in blood the word "sister".
a shot of Michael Myers sitting completely motionless in his cell
a scene where Lynda visits Laurie Strodes at home and borrows a blouse just as Annie calls trying to borrow the same blouse.
Comments
I've tried to erase it from my memory (together with the rest of Spiderman 3) in order to not spoil my viewing of the far superior Spiderman 1.
There seems to be a running theme here. imo all the films that have spoilt their predecessors are also crap movies which makes it all the worse.
agree its exactly the same with saw 1 when we watched it we didt know what sort of sick twisted could be really scary looking man/woman/thing doing this.
but saws 2-3 altough yes they are good movies IMO ruin what made the 1st so special by explaining every little thing even showing the trap being set up.
jigsaws voice in saw is also not as freaky now because we know so so so much about the man tand how he really works hrough saws 4-6 and soon 7:rolleyes:
now when we watch halloween we automaticly go shes his sister
yet when the movie was released and filmed there was no sister angle to it at all he was just a madman who came across her and stalked her
still i liked the added sister twist in halloween 2
It was pointless killing off Laurie, added nothing to the film and didn't drive it anywhere.
Yes indeed, I felt very cheated !!
I totally agree. I like to consider Resurrection as a non-canon, unofficial sequel. As far as I'm concerned, Halloween, Halloween 2 and H20 are a trilogy. End of.
H20's triumphant ending was perfect. Resurrection was just another shameless attempt to squeeze as much money and life out of the franchise as possible.
We already had two timelines, so I don't have an issue with including Resurrection as a third alternate story, rather than the official continuation of H20.
Laurie killed Michael in my eyes, not the other way around.
I'm in agreement about Halloween 1, 2 and H20 being like a trilogy. I don't care for the others but they are official no matter how you look at it.
I said in my eyes. I don't care how official they're considered by the filmmakers, how I enjoy a film experience is totally up to me.
Just like people are entitled to enjoy Resurrection, I'm entitled to completely erase it's storyline from what I consider as the true continuity.
Do actions always have to have a point? Senseless things happen every day.
It took the original and used it as the basis but created it's own style and mythology. It was just ruined by 5 and 6.
Halloween 2 and H2O weren't as good as 4 but were still good. Thus creating a solid trilogy of films.
Seen an interview with the writer of original Psycho as he also wrote Psycho 4 but he didn't like the 2 sequels so dismissed them in this and 4 is meant to be a direct sequel to the original
I do agree that H20 was perfect and i remain adamant that was the end.
halloween 6 and ressurection do not exsist in my eyes along with the shite american pie sequals (naked mile, book of love etc)
If this was a series of books by the same author I would agree with you but it is a series of movies by different writers with different agendas.
imo, the thoughts behind the opening credits of Alien 3 were not what would make the best story but a solution to the fact that the actress was now 6 years older and would cause a massive continuity problem since she would not have aged a second since the previous movie (and maybe Michael Biehn was not available or did not want to be involved). The writer therefore pretty well ditched the previous story during the credits so that he could start afresh.
We assumed for 6 years that Ripley's actions, putting other people lives at risk, were not in vain but the opening credits of Alien 3 tell us in retrospect that it was the wrong thing to do..
If the first few minutes of Alien 3 were actually the last minutes of Aliens would you feel the same?
If the first few minutes of Alien 3 were actually the end of Aliens it might lend Cameron's film some emotional weight and give it some Empire Strikes Back-like darkness in it's conclusion.
Why, just because Newt eventually dies, does it make rescuing her the wrong thing to have done? Newt's death does nothing to change the nature of Ripley's previous actions in Aliens, but it does add to the building feelings of despair from Ripley as she realises she's never going to escape these little f***ers.
There's nothing they could have done about the logistics of the Newt character when making a sequel, losing her was the best thing for all concerned IMHO, both in terms of casting and plot..
I'd say that Aliens actually has a pretty lacklustre ending as it is, finishing up in stasis for the second film running, while 3 ties Ripley's story up pretty well, only for it all to be ruined by Resurrection.
Jeez! Calm down dear, it wasn't an attack on you - merely an observation.
Don't get all precious.
Anyway, I was actually agreeing with you regarding the "trilogy".
Excuse me? Likewise, I wasn't attacking you, or getting "precious" (
Dear.
But, yeah, my apologies if it came across as more hostile than intended. There's always that risk with text-based communication.
One of the themes of the three sequels was motherhood, human or otherwise.
Ripley in Aliens had missed out on watching her child grow so naturally her maternal instincts meant that rescuing and looking after Newt was her primary concern. Jeunet and to a lesser extent Fincher both explored motherhood, albeit surrogate motherhood for a non human or hybrid human alien species. In Cameron's film, Ripley had, in rescuing Newt, deprived a living being of her own children. In three and four, she killed her own "children".
The sister twist is edited into some versions of the first film from additional scenes fimed years later:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077651/alternateversions
The DVD I've got has both versions on it.