AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
That said, prequels generally are unnecessary because they don't tell you anything you didn't already know, or couldn't already surmise. I'm not arguing that something like the Star Wars prequels were destined for narrative failure, but as a writer you have to find the hook. Films are films, and whatever their intent they have to still be films at the end of everything. They are not Wikipedia entries.
You can get plenty of milege out a story who's ending the audience already knows. (see - tragedy) But there's gotta be something there to tell. You need some sort of story or dramatic arc, not just a connect-the-dots of events.
I'm really struggling to thin of any prequel that actually worked.
You can get plenty of milege out a story who's ending the audience already knows. (see - tragedy) But there's gotta be something there to tell. You need some sort of story or dramatic arc, not just a connect-the-dots of events.
I'm really struggling to thin of any prequel that actually worked.
Potentially the Hobbit, I believe it was actually written post LOTR if I have my Tolkien right.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
You can get plenty of milege out a story who's ending the audience already knows. (see - tragedy) But there's gotta be something there to tell. You need some sort of story or dramatic arc, not just a connect-the-dots of events.
I'm really struggling to thin of any prequel that actually worked.
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom worked, I think. It used to be my least favorite Indiana Jones movie but then I read some convincing stuff about how it was a great movie, and I realized that it was better than I was giving it credit for.
You can get plenty of milege out a story who's ending the audience already knows. (see - tragedy) But there's gotta be something there to tell. You need some sort of story or dramatic arc, not just a connect-the-dots of events.
I'm really struggling to thin of any prequel that actually worked.
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom worked, I think. It used to be my least favorite Indiana Jones movie but then I read some convincing stuff about how it was a great movie, and I realized that it was better than I was giving it credit for.
Not your traditional prequel because aside from the year being earlier than Raiders (something most people don't even realize) it really doesn't expand any element in raiders, and plays out like a traditional sequel including references to something that happened later for Indy but Indy himself acted like it happened before (killing the swordsman in raiders vs a similar scene in temple where Indy doesn't have his gun but is confident he can shoot both of them).
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
You can get plenty of milege out a story who's ending the audience already knows. (see - tragedy) But there's gotta be something there to tell. You need some sort of story or dramatic arc, not just a connect-the-dots of events.
I'm really struggling to thin of any prequel that actually worked.
Potentially the Hobbit, I believe it was actually written post LOTR if I have my Tolkien right.
You can get plenty of milege out a story who's ending the audience already knows. (see - tragedy) But there's gotta be something there to tell. You need some sort of story or dramatic arc, not just a connect-the-dots of events.
I'm really struggling to thin of any prequel that actually worked.
Potentially the Hobbit, I believe it was actually written post LOTR if I have my Tolkien right.
Nope. Published almost 20 years before.
I think I misremembered and confused tolkien wanting to rewrite parts of the hobbit to make it more in line with his later LOTR.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
You can get plenty of milege out a story who's ending the audience already knows. (see - tragedy) But there's gotta be something there to tell. You need some sort of story or dramatic arc, not just a connect-the-dots of events.
I'm really struggling to thin of any prequel that actually worked.
Potentially the Hobbit, I believe it was actually written post LOTR if I have my Tolkien right.
You do not.
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
so to summarize, prequels can be bad if they are made by the wrong people, or don't have a narrative hook, or are interfered with by the studio
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
temple of doom has a lot of great stuff in it, great scenes that work really well on their own, but it is tonally really offputting. it tries to be funny inappropriately and then serious and emotional inappropriately.
the first ten minutes are some of the best minutes ever though
temple of doom has a lot of great stuff in it, great scenes that work really well on their own, but it is tonally really offputting. it tries to be funny inappropriately and then serious and emotional inappropriately.
the first ten minutes are some of the best minutes ever though
I personally liked the saving the kids montage, especially with the music swell and off screen punching of the child labor beater.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
That said, prequels generally are unnecessary because they don't tell you anything you didn't already know, or couldn't already surmise. I'm not arguing that something like the Star Wars prequels were destined for narrative failure, but as a writer you have to find the hook. Films are films, and whatever their intent they have to still be films at the end of everything. They are not Wikipedia entries.
Those are bad prequels. A prequel trilogy for Darth Vader's origin could have been amazing in the right hands.
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
I mean, it's got flaws, duh, but it's still a better movie then Temple.
No.
Yes.
As shitty as Crystal Skull was in places, it was still better then Short Round or Willy Scott.
Again, no. And it was only shitty "in places" if we define places as "the part after the Paramount logo and before the credits."
What was good in Temple of Doom? Eh?
the shanghai nightclub fight, the car chase, the raft ride, the spear room, the human sacrifice, and the literal cliffhanging finale
indy's gradual turn from greedy heel to sensitive dude was also pretty well done even if it doesn't seem to entirely track with his character in Raiders
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
temple of doom has a lot of great stuff in it, great scenes that work really well on their own, but it is tonally really offputting. it tries to be funny inappropriately and then serious and emotional inappropriately.
the first ten minutes are some of the best minutes ever though
Raiders is really the only film that works 100% in the series. I have a lot of love for Temple, but you're right about the tone. It's all over the place, from slapstick to maudlin to outright horror, with a huge schmaltzy ending.
I don't want to say Crusade is a better film, but I think it probably is.
I mean, it's got flaws, duh, but it's still a better movie then Temple.
No.
Yes.
As shitty as Crystal Skull was in places, it was still better then Short Round or Willy Scott.
Again, no. And it was only shitty "in places" if we define places as "the part after the Paramount logo and before the credits."
What was good in Temple of Doom? Eh?
the shanghai nightclub fight, the car chase, the raft ride, the spear room, the human sacrifice, and the literal cliffhanging finale
indy's gradual turn from greedy heel to sensitive dude was also pretty well done even if it doesn't seem to entirely track with his character in Raiders
The problem with indy stems more from Indy being an audience insert character in whatever movies he's in, so it doesn't really matter his character arc doesn't seem to fit. I mean in each movie he seems to have a different motivation.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Anyway, what's the general consensus on Prometheus? Is it worth seeing?
From what I've read and heard from those who have seen it, seems like a mix between alien 3 and 4 of "possible good idea with bad execution and adds more plot holes an inconsistencies than it resolves."
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
The character assassination of Sallah and Marcus, taking their Raiders characters from dignified and eloquent to a ditzy poindexter and racist stereotype.
Anyway, what's the general consensus on Prometheus? Is it worth seeing?
From what I've read and heard from those who have seen it, seems like a mix between alien 3 and 4 of "possible good idea with bad execution and adds more plot holes an inconsistencies than it resolves."
I've heard some of that two. I've also heard a lot of praise for it. Most people seem to agree that it's an experiance regardless, so I'll see it in the theatre.
I mean, it's got flaws, duh, but it's still a better movie then Temple.
No.
Yes.
As shitty as Crystal Skull was in places, it was still better then Short Round or Willy Scott.
Again, no. And it was only shitty "in places" if we define places as "the part after the Paramount logo and before the credits."
What was good in Temple of Doom? Eh?
the shanghai nightclub fight, the car chase, the raft ride, the spear room, the human sacrifice, and the literal cliffhanging finale
indy's gradual turn from greedy heel to sensitive dude was also pretty well done even if it doesn't seem to entirely track with his character in Raiders
The problem with indy stems more from Indy being an audience insert character in whatever movies he's in, so it doesn't really matter his character arc doesn't seem to fit. I mean in each movie he seems to have a different motivation.
that's true, yeah
I mean, I think it KIND of works - young Indy is an idealist ("it belongs in a museum!"). then years later he gets a job teaching, has a bad breakup with his jailbait girlfriend, and becomes (or completes his journey toward being) a giant asshole. he gets a little bit better in India, then gets a lot better in Raiders, then decides "it belongs in a museum!" again in Last Crusade.
the problem is that Raiders kind of begins with him as an asshole as well. it makes it seem like he backslid. which, while I guess realistic, is not really a very clean transition.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I mean, it's got flaws, duh, but it's still a better movie then Temple.
No.
Yes.
As shitty as Crystal Skull was in places, it was still better then Short Round or Willy Scott.
Again, no. And it was only shitty "in places" if we define places as "the part after the Paramount logo and before the credits."
What was good in Temple of Doom? Eh?
the shanghai nightclub fight, the car chase, the raft ride, the spear room, the human sacrifice, and the literal cliffhanging finale
indy's gradual turn from greedy heel to sensitive dude was also pretty well done even if it doesn't seem to entirely track with his character in Raiders
The problem with indy stems more from Indy being an audience insert character in whatever movies he's in, so it doesn't really matter his character arc doesn't seem to fit. I mean in each movie he seems to have a different motivation.
that's true, yeah
I mean, I think it KIND of works - young Indy is an idealist ("it belongs in a museum!"). then years later he gets a job teaching, has a bad breakup with his jailbait girlfriend, and becomes (or completes his journey toward being) a giant asshole. he gets a little bit better in India, then gets a lot better in Raiders, then decides "it belongs in a museum!" again in Last Crusade.
the problem is that Raiders kind of begins with him as an asshole as well. it makes it seem like he backslid. which, while I guess realistic, is not really a very clean transition.
I don't know that I'd say Indy was an asshole at the start of Raiders. Self-interested, sure, but not totally an asshole.
Kate Capshaw pretty much ruins Temple of Doom, though. "We get it, you're literally blowing Steven Spielberg for the part and will later marry him. You're in over your head, it's cool. But were those your own little choices as an actress to be that shrill and off-putting throughout the whole flick? Really?"
Karen Allen's character in Raiders is kind of the same. Yell and fuss a lot. Get abducted and damsel-in-distressed a lot so that Harrison Ford can rescueswoon you. That just comes with the action movie territory. But she could also could drink anybody under the table and had this interesting past romance with Indiana Jones that gave her a better and more logical screen presence.
When Temple of Doom was released, it wasn't like it was impossible for an Indiana Jones movie to have a love interest that was good. There had already been precedent 3 years earlier!
Whatever, it's just one of many things that Temple did that much worse than Raiders.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Some potentially cool news today:
A "source" is saying that X-Men: First Class 2 is actually going to be X-Men 4, starring characters from both series.
temple of doom has a lot of great stuff in it, great scenes that work really well on their own, but it is tonally really offputting. it tries to be funny inappropriately and then serious and emotional inappropriately.
the first ten minutes are some of the best minutes ever though
Raiders is really the only film that works 100% in the series. I have a lot of love for Temple, but you're right about the tone. It's all over the place, from slapstick to maudlin to outright horror, with a huge schmaltzy ending.
I don't want to say Crusade is a better film, but I think it probably is.
If you actually like Crystal Skull, I hate you.
Sean Connery makes Crusade a better film, just not substantively. His acting and charisma saves a film that could have been just as bad as the Richard Lester version of Superman II, complete with the same sort of over-the-top comedic moments.
I would suggest that anyone who doesn't have the Alien Quad dvd set somehow get their hands on the Alien 3 discs and watch everything. The theatrical, the director's cut, and the behind the scenes discussion with those involved in its writing, filming, and production. It sheds light on the fiasco that it was and considering what came out at the end I don't think it was all that bad.
Some of the reasons people hate it is exactly why I've come to love it; it brings the tragedy to a conclusion with the tones and themes from the first two films intact.
A "source" is saying that X-Men: First Class 2 is actually going to be X-Men 4, starring characters from both series.
"How's that possible?" you might ask.
Days of Future Past.
For real.
How would that work?
Would we only see Wolverine and the others as older versions of themselves running from the Sentinels, or would there be past, present, and future in the story?
That alone would be a pretty big departure from the original story.
Posts
I'm really struggling to thin of any prequel that actually worked.
Potentially the Hobbit, I believe it was actually written post LOTR if I have my Tolkien right.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Not your traditional prequel because aside from the year being earlier than Raiders (something most people don't even realize) it really doesn't expand any element in raiders, and plays out like a traditional sequel including references to something that happened later for Indy but Indy himself acted like it happened before (killing the swordsman in raiders vs a similar scene in temple where Indy doesn't have his gun but is confident he can shoot both of them).
pleasepaypreacher.net
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Wow, there are no words.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Nope. Published almost 20 years before.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
I think I misremembered and confused tolkien wanting to rewrite parts of the hobbit to make it more in line with his later LOTR.
pleasepaypreacher.net
You do not.
this sounds oddly familiar
HMMMM
No.
Yes.
As shitty as Crystal Skull was in places, it was still better then Short Round or Willy Scott.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
I dunno Red Letter Media didn't take apart Temple of Doom like they did to Crystal Skull.
http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/indiana-jones-and-the-kingdom-of-the-crystal-skull/
pleasepaypreacher.net
I'm still trying to come up with an example of one that worked.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Again, no. And it was only shitty "in places" if we define places as "the part after the Paramount logo and before the credits."
You could go with Casino Royale, but the bond movies are not traditional sequels/franchises.
pleasepaypreacher.net
the first ten minutes are some of the best minutes ever though
What was good in Temple of Doom? Eh?
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
The theme of the movie, the Man Who Would Be King ending, killing a dude with spit-roasted cornish game hens, etc.
Oh. Alright then.
I like the Flying Saucer, the Randomly Magenetic Skull, and the Awful Psychic Russian lady, the Brain frying Alien, etc.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
I personally liked the saving the kids montage, especially with the music swell and off screen punching of the child labor beater.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Those are bad prequels. A prequel trilogy for Darth Vader's origin could have been amazing in the right hands.
the shanghai nightclub fight, the car chase, the raft ride, the spear room, the human sacrifice, and the literal cliffhanging finale
indy's gradual turn from greedy heel to sensitive dude was also pretty well done even if it doesn't seem to entirely track with his character in Raiders
Raiders is really the only film that works 100% in the series. I have a lot of love for Temple, but you're right about the tone. It's all over the place, from slapstick to maudlin to outright horror, with a huge schmaltzy ending.
I don't want to say Crusade is a better film, but I think it probably is.
If you actually like Crystal Skull, I hate you.
Anyway, what's the general consensus on Prometheus? Is it worth seeing?
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
The problem with indy stems more from Indy being an audience insert character in whatever movies he's in, so it doesn't really matter his character arc doesn't seem to fit. I mean in each movie he seems to have a different motivation.
pleasepaypreacher.net
From what I've read and heard from those who have seen it, seems like a mix between alien 3 and 4 of "possible good idea with bad execution and adds more plot holes an inconsistencies than it resolves."
pleasepaypreacher.net
The character assassination of Sallah and Marcus, taking their Raiders characters from dignified and eloquent to a ditzy poindexter and racist stereotype.
But it's still a good film.
I've heard some of that two. I've also heard a lot of praise for it. Most people seem to agree that it's an experiance regardless, so I'll see it in the theatre.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
that's true, yeah
I mean, I think it KIND of works - young Indy is an idealist ("it belongs in a museum!"). then years later he gets a job teaching, has a bad breakup with his jailbait girlfriend, and becomes (or completes his journey toward being) a giant asshole. he gets a little bit better in India, then gets a lot better in Raiders, then decides "it belongs in a museum!" again in Last Crusade.
the problem is that Raiders kind of begins with him as an asshole as well. it makes it seem like he backslid. which, while I guess realistic, is not really a very clean transition.
I don't know that I'd say Indy was an asshole at the start of Raiders. Self-interested, sure, but not totally an asshole.
Karen Allen's character in Raiders is kind of the same. Yell and fuss a lot. Get abducted and damsel-in-distressed a lot so that Harrison Ford can rescueswoon you. That just comes with the action movie territory. But she could also could drink anybody under the table and had this interesting past romance with Indiana Jones that gave her a better and more logical screen presence.
When Temple of Doom was released, it wasn't like it was impossible for an Indiana Jones movie to have a love interest that was good. There had already been precedent 3 years earlier!
Whatever, it's just one of many things that Temple did that much worse than Raiders.
A "source" is saying that X-Men: First Class 2 is actually going to be X-Men 4, starring characters from both series.
"How's that possible?" you might ask.
For real.
Sean Connery makes Crusade a better film, just not substantively. His acting and charisma saves a film that could have been just as bad as the Richard Lester version of Superman II, complete with the same sort of over-the-top comedic moments.
Some of the reasons people hate it is exactly why I've come to love it; it brings the tragedy to a conclusion with the tones and themes from the first two films intact.
How would that work?
That alone would be a pretty big departure from the original story.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation