Movies with stupid sequels

[Overmind One]

I thought Alien was superbly done for the time it was produced in. There's way more to the back story than is presented (the Weyland-Yutani evil corporation's involvement for one). In the director's cut they show the alien reproducing on its own. There was no queen. Cameron came up with the nonsense of a "queen bee" alien because he lacks imagination. His mind is concrete bound in that he can't think past the point of "what is" to the point of "what could be", hence the cartoon known as Aliens.


And need I mention the flaw in Aliens where they put a colony of 300 people on the planet without noticing that there's this giant alien ship crashed there? What happened to the signal it was cranking out that the Nostromo easily picked up 57 years earlier? Did the batteries suddenly die on this ship that had been crashed there for God knows how long? And why of all places did Weyland-Yutani decide to suddenly put a colony there? Supposedly they didn't know about the place at all, yet 57 years later they have a colony of 300 people living there.

James Cameron definitely lacks in many areas of his writing.

 

[ParagonPie]

This is how I saw it Shaved.

Weyland Yutani knew about the xenomorph before the Nostromo made contact with the signal, in fact that was its purpose. Ash (the android) was supposed to gather a same back. However when that failed, and a complete lack of information on the matter a more direct means was sought.
The idea of the colony wasn't a mistake, it was planned by WY Corp, by having a settlement nearby you'd have direct research facilities and since its on another planet contamination can be halted much more easily than say on Earth or a core world. So the colonists didn't know much like the crew of the Nostromo didn't know about the true nature of their mission, point being, neither two instances were an accident.

As for the Alien Queen idea. Well yes, that part is a lack of imagination on Cameron's head. Since the Alien is supposed to be a self replicating bio-mechanical weapon, locking itself down in a vulnerable state is a tad silly. However maybe it is my head cannoning speaking or something I had read up on the expanded universe, is that when an Alien drone is on its own, it will make an area designed for manufacturing the eggs, once in a 'safe zone' a queen will emerge and begin pumping them out. The Jockey race (the creators) would harvest and then use these eggs as literal bio bombs to be dropped on enemy locations.

Whether you agree with me or not, either way dinner is still in the oven and we can spoon later.

 

[Joelist]

Oh I know the whole "queen" concept was a retcon only possible because they cut the cocoon scene from the original.

In Aliens, they explained in the extended version that while the bio weapons division knew about LB 426 no one else did. Burke figured it out from Ripley's account and sent the colonists out to the ship without warning them.

Logic gaps? Yep. Good film anyway? Yep.

 

[shavedape]

Oh I know the whole "queen" concept was a retcon only possible because they cut the cocoon scene from the original.

In Aliens, they explained in the extended version that while the bio weapons division knew about LB 426 no one else did. Burke figured it out from Ripley's account and sent the colonists out to the ship without warning them.

Logic gaps? Yep. Good film anyway? Yep.

Could have been much, much better. The useless queen alien should never have happened. There was no need for it. The danger would still have been there and the climax could have been carried out just as easily with regular aliens.

The annoying child should never have happened ("Ripley! Ripley! Ripley!"). We get it, Ripley misses her daughter -- yawn.

And Ripley should never have been made into a female version of Rambo. Oddly enough Sigourney Weaver got nominated for an Oscar for that particular role, so I'm sure she'd disagree with me. Still, all these years later one can look at the movie and see her character as being over the top in regards to the very end. I mean, "mommy" battling "mommy", puh-leez!

 

[Overmind One]

Could have been much, much better. The useless queen alien should never have happened. There was no need for it. The danger would still have been there and the climax could have been carried out just as easily with regular aliens.

The annoying child should never have happened ("Ripley! Ripley! Ripley!"). We get it, Ripley misses her daughter -- yawn.

And Ripley should never have been made into a female version of Rambo. Oddly enough Sigourney Weaver got nominated for an Oscar for that particular role, so I'm sure she'd disagree with me. Still, all these years later one can look at the movie and see her character as being over the top in regards to the very end. I mean, "mommy" battling "mommy", puh-leez!

Wurd.

 

[Tripler]

James Cameron definitely lacks in many areas of his writing.

Uh the craft did not have a signal initially until the lizard monster needed more humans to propagate its species . I believe the lizard monster started the beacon to bring more humans and perhaps some transportation to more body's to grow monster lizard baby's ,,,. To be honest , who cares about the plot holes . That lizard monster still scares me to this day and it always will . A fellow I met at a music store told me he had a 8' tall cardboard movie promo standup mommy version of the monster lizard . He bought it for $2000. He sold it this year for $10,000 . Can you imagine how creepy that would be to have standing in your house ? ,,, no thanks . At least he made a good profit on it

 

[Joelist]

Actually the Matrix has to be mentioned here too.

The Matrix was good. The Matrix Reloaded was awful and so was The Matrix Revolutions.

The first film had a big coolness factor, a lot of iconic scenes, mostly solid acting and a decent script. Alas the sequels were wildly overcooked and descended into pop philosophical nonsense. They didn't even obey the rules they set up for their own fictional universe and jumped the shark near the end of the second film when Neo used his powers outside the Matrix.

It shouldn't be a big surprise as the Wachowskis started out competent but over time have become total hacks.

 

[Overmind One]

Actually the Matrix has to be mentioned here too.

The Matrix was good. The Matrix Reloaded was awful and so was The Matrix Revolutions.

The first film had a big coolness factor, a lot of iconic scenes, mostly solid acting and a decent script. Alas the sequels were wildly overcooked and descended into pop philosophical nonsense. They didn't even obey the rules they set up for their own fictional universe and jumped the shark near the end of the second film when Neo used his powers outside the Matrix.

It shouldn't be a big surprise as the Wachowskis started out competent but over time have become total hacks.

WHY does everybody say that???? Matrix was excellent...Matrix Reloaded was part two of the series, and was excellent (to me). And Matrix Revolutions ended the story (and was excellent to me)...why do so many have a problem with Matrix 2 and 3? The Wachowskis are EXCELLENT writers IMO. They are leagues beyond real hacks like Orci, Kurzman, Brad Wright, M Night Shamalan (sp?), etc. they are thinking writers.

Most people I know who saw the Matrix dont even know really what it was about. They can only tell me how cool a scene looked, or talk about special effects. None of them seem to get the story itself. I frequently get "It didnt make sense". Just LOL! It makes sense if you are a logical thinking person. Matrix is not a standalone movie. It is an epic story and it needed Matrix 2 and 3 to tell it.

I know many others here will disagree, but I have said my peace!

 

[Tripler]

Hey , has anyone mentioned the sequels to Star Wars !!! #4 ,,,the first ever original is and always will be my favorite but after that I was disappointed with the love interest between Lea and Hans ( just seemed to be wasting time with the main story line ) Then Lucasinsanium went crazy with redoing them all and created pig poop from a masterpiece of Si-Fi fun and adventure .

 

[Gatefan1976]

WHY does everybody say that???? Matrix was excellent...Matrix Reloaded was part two of the series, and was excellent (to me). And Matrix Revolutions ended the story (and was excellent to me)...why do so many have a problem with Matrix 2 and 3? The Wachowskis are EXCELLENT writers IMO. They are leagues beyond real hacks like Orci, Kurzman, Brad Wright, M Night Shamalan (sp?), etc. they are thinking writers.

Most people I know who saw the Matrix dont even know really what it was about. They can only tell me how cool a scene looked, or talk about special effects. None of them seem to get the story itself. I frequently get "It didnt make sense". Just LOL! It makes sense if you are a logical thinking person. Matrix is not a standalone movie. It is an epic story and it needed Matrix 2 and 3 to tell it.

I know many others here will disagree, but I have said my peace!

I liked all of the matrix movies, but it is a far thing to say that they did go a bit sideways, esp no 3.

 

[Overmind One]

I liked all of the matrix movies, but it is a far thing to say that they did go a bit sideways, esp no 3.

Perhaps a bit, but not so far sideways it took a different path altogether (like Starship Troopers or Prometheus). They even covered the change in the Oracle actress well.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Perhaps a bit, but not so far sideways it took a different path altogether (like Starship Troopers or Prometheus). They even covered the change in the Oracle actress well.

Not badly sideways, no but I think the direction did change a bit around halfway through the second one.

 

[Joelist]

Um....Overmind, I am a logical thinking person. We can agree to disagree on this one; to me the sequels were way overcooked and (as stated earlier) turned into a mishmash of pop philosophy instead of staying with the threads of the original story.

Now Star Wars, the original trilogy hangs together very well. The prequels on the other hand are three of the worst scripted and directed films I can remember.

 

[Overmind One]

Um....Overmind, I am a logical thinking person. We can agree to disagree on this one; to me the sequels were way overcooked and (as stated earlier) turned into a mishmash of pop philosophy instead of staying with the threads of the original story.

Now Star Wars, the original trilogy hangs together very well. The prequels on the other hand are three of the worst scripted and directed films I can remember.

I didnt say you werent logical or a thinking person. I said that most non-thinking people hate this movie, along with Cloud Atlas and other "Human path to enlightenment" movies similar to it. These are the same folks who take a fairly straightforward explanation of something scientific and call it "technobabble". In I, Robot, Will Smith's character asks her if "I make them more human" was easier to say than her more accurate (and more scientific) explanation of what she does. I thought that scene made him look rather stupid IMO.

What pop philosophy? What exactly do you mean by "overcooked"? I agree with you about the Star Wars prequels, but then they are just fun movies to begin with. They are not science fiction, nor do they address the human condition like the Matrix or Cloud Atlas. Compare Star Wars to Lord of the Rings or even the Thor movies, not the Matrix. . I dont expect movies like Star Wars to address the human condition. But the Matrix could not have been made without doing that.

 

[Gatefan1976]

The matrix didn't -slide- into Philosophical issues, it STARTED there.

 

[Overmind One]

The matrix didn't -slide- into Philosophical issues, it STARTED there.

EXACTLY.

 

[Joelist]

I kind of liked the philosophical undertones of the first movie. It seemed to draw heavily on Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" and also had an interesting "Free Will / Determinism" dynamic going on. Add to that the whole implication in Neo being The One of the "geek deity" concept you see in a lot of the best cyberpunk and the brew was not too bad.

The first movie resolved all three - Neo chose to be unchained from facing the cave wall (the Plato's cave scenario), to embrace Free Will and achieved the "Geek Deity" status. The very end of the film made it clear he was going to demonstrate to the other people in the Matrix in ways the program could not cover up that their reality was indeed a dream.

Really this should have been the end of it.

Unfortunately in the next two films they introduce plot elements that serve only to confuse things and actually undermine the themes. For example, the notion of "upgraded agents" that can successfully fight Neo essentially invalidates the entire point of "The One". Also, the entire idea of and character of the Merovingian is not only dumb (programs can hide in the Matrix and the machines who build and operate it can't find them?) but ultimately purposeless. Really he only exists to provide action scenes in the process of finding the "key master" as do "the Twins".

Then we come to his chat with the Architect. Now, I admit on first hearing I kind of liked the notion that The One is a recurring feature of the Matrix meant to "restabilize" it. But the notion that The One will always look like, dress like, sound like and even have the exact same personality as Neo is silly.

Then there is the notion of Neo's choice - the Architect makes it sound very much like each time the One has stood before him the exact same choice has had to be made - restart things and pick the people for the new Zion or save Trinity. In order for this choice to be the same each time the Architect would need to control every action of every person in the Matrix, which is the exact thing he just said was what he tried that caused the first Matrix to crash.

Things like this are why I said "pop philosophy" - they make noises about looking into questions of causality, choice and the like but the way the story is written it just falls apart. Add in the poor acting in the sequels and the way overdone CGI action (the overcooking) and I can understand why the sequels went over so poorly.

 

[Overmind One]

I kind of liked the philosophical undertones of the first movie. It seemed to draw heavily on Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" and also had an interesting "Free Will / Determinism" dynamic going on. Add to that the whole implication in Neo being The One of the "geek deity" concept you see in a lot of the best cyberpunk and the brew was not too bad.

The philosophy was not an undertone. It was the core of the movie.

The first movie resolved all three - Neo chose to be unchained from facing the cave wall (the Plato's cave scenario), to embrace Free Will and achieved the "Geek Deity" status. The very end of the film made it clear he was going to demonstrate to the other people in the Matrix in ways the program could not cover up that their reality was indeed a dream.

The first movie exposed the struggle between "the real" and the "false". It created the Neo character and placed him at the head of the struggle for freedom (of the mind). That was just the beginning. The second and third movies should have been a single, shorter movie. Revolutions finished the story. I dont think it could have ended with the first movie because although the ending scene said "SYSTEM FAILURE", we never saw it.

Really this should have been the end of it.

Agree to disagree?

Unfortunately in the next two films they introduce plot elements that serve only to confuse things and actually undermine the themes. For example, the notion of "upgraded agents" that can successfully fight Neo essentially invalidates the entire point of "The One". Also, the entire idea of and character of the Merovingian is not only dumb (programs can hide in the Matrix and the machines who build and operate it can't find them?) but ultimately purposeless. Really he only exists to provide action scenes in the process of finding the "key master" as do "the Twins".

None of the "upgraded agents" were able to successfully fight or beat Neo. And if I were a computer defending against an "anomaly" (a virus of sorts), I would most certainly upgrade my protection to defeat it if I could. But the upgrades failed. No agent successfully beat Neo in any of the three movies. But they did beat Morpheus. As for the Merovingian, he was like the Oracle. A sentient program with the ability to determine the motivations of humans (and other programs). The "why" of things. The Oracle's power was intuition. The "when" of things. And yes, programs can hide within the Matrix even though the makers who build and operate them cant find them. This happens every day in my business. Viruses, rootkits, monitoring programs...all can hide easily from your operating system, and sometimes your AV protection too.

Then we come to his chat with the Architect. Now, I admit on first hearing I kind of liked the notion that The One is a recurring feature of the Matrix meant to "restabilize" it. But the notion that The One will always look like, dress like, sound like and even have the exact same personality as Neo is silly.

Where are you getting that? The One is not a person, it is an Anomaly. The One is somebody who can remake the Matrix from within. Neo was merely one of 6. This is an allegory that you would recognize if you align it with the rise of messiahs in religion throughout history. Nobody said anything about The One looking or dressing like Neo.

Then there is the notion of Neo's choice - the Architect makes it sound very much like each time the One has stood before him the exact same choice has had to be made - restart things and pick the people for the new Zion or save Trinity. In order for this choice to be the same each time the Architect would need to control every action of every person in the Matrix, which is the exact thing he just said was what he tried that caused the first Matrix to crash.

You're missing things here man! An entire layer of meaning is being left out of your commentary. The Architect is an allegory. The Oracle is an allegory. Neo's choice was different than all the others before him. He saved Trinity AND he saved Zion.

Things like this are why I said "pop philosophy" - they make noises about looking into questions of causality, choice and the like but the way the story is written it just falls apart. Add in the poor acting in the sequels and the way overdone CGI action (the overcooking) and I can understand why the sequels went over so poorly.

Agree to disagree again. They actually explored causality and spirituality in a very complete way. The problem is in the delivery. It is not written for the pop crowd. I do not see this "pop philosophy" you are referring to. The story is awesome even if you dont throw in all the fancy CGI, so I agree with you there. But I disagree with you on the sequels. Matrix Reloaded did better than The Matrix (by more than 100 million), and Revolution did the worst. Still they all three did well relative to their costs. Not a bomb in the group. Worldwide, the trilogy has earned more than 1.5 BILLION.

 

[Gatefan1976]

I kind of liked the philosophical undertones of the first movie. It seemed to draw heavily on Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" and also had an interesting "Free Will / Determinism" dynamic going on. Add to that the whole implication in Neo being The One of the "geek deity" concept you see in a lot of the best cyberpunk and the brew was not too bad.

So you would equate Neo to Prometheus to an extent? Or a man following in his footsteps?

The first movie resolved all three - Neo chose to be unchained from facing the cave wall (the Plato's cave scenario), to embrace Free Will and achieved the "Geek Deity" status. The very end of the film made it clear he was going to demonstrate to the other people in the Matrix in ways the program could not cover up that their reality was indeed a dream.

Neo was flying around like a nut at the end of the film, he more became Icarus flying too close to the sun than a greek "hero", and he paid for his "sins", and so did "we" by Mr Anderson 2.0.

Really this should have been the end of it.

It could have been, sure.

Unfortunately in the next two films they introduce plot elements that serve only to confuse things and actually undermine the themes. For example, the notion of "upgraded agents" that can successfully fight Neo essentially invalidates the entire point of "The One".

No, they indicate a cost to his ego.

Also, the entire idea of and character of the Merovingian is not only dumb (programs can hide in the Matrix and the machines who build and operate it can't find them?) but ultimately purposeless. Really he only exists to provide action scenes in the process of finding the "key master" as do "the Twins".

No, they have a very real purpose. That even an architect does not have ultimate control over "his domain" Now, if you want to talk about what the characters were *used for* would agree with you Joe, but as to what they -represent-, I will have to disagree. They all but represent "non monotheism" existing within the framework of a monotheistic construct (the matrix).

Then we come to his chat with the Architect. Now, I admit on first hearing I kind of liked the notion that The One is a recurring feature of the Matrix meant to "restabilize" it. But the notion that The One will always look like, dress like, sound like and even have the exact same personality as Neo is silly.

Dress, look, and sound are functions of environment, personality is a function of the "eternal champion" ideal. King Arthur, "Once and future king" may look, dress and sound like a "modern person", but the personality, the desire to "do good" does not change. It's not the "same person", it IS however the same ideals and philosophy.

Then there is the notion of Neo's choice - the Architect makes it sound very much like each time the One has stood before him the exact same choice has had to be made - restart things and pick the people for the new Zion or save Trinity.

No, not save Trinity, save what he wants, or self sacrifice to educate the architect.

In order for this choice to be the same each time the Architect would need to control every action of every person in the Matrix, which is the exact thing he just said was what he tried that caused the first Matrix to crash.

The first one crashed because it was "too perfect", we were given what we wanted, not what we needed.

Things like this are why I said "pop philosophy" - they make noises about looking into questions of causality, choice and the like but the way the story is written it just falls apart.

There is a limit to what you can do in a movie dude, you use pop philosophy to introduce the idea's, you HOPE people take it further, but you can't force it. Think of t as a 2 hour sermon. You HOPE people want to learn more, but you can never force it.

Add in the poor acting in the sequels and the way overdone CGI action (the overcooking) and I can understand why the sequels went over so poorly.

I can get that as movie issue dude, I really can.

 

[Overmind One]

So you would equate Neo to Prometheus to an extent? Or a man following in his footsteps?


Neo was flying around like a nut at the end of the film, he more became Icarus flying too close to the sun than a greek "hero", and he paid for his "sins", and so did "we" by Mr Anderson 2.0.


It could have been, sure.


No, they indicate a cost to his ego.


No, they have a very real purpose. That even an architect does not have ultimate control over "his domain" Now, if you want to talk about what the characters were *used for* would agree with you Joe, but as to what they -represent-, I will have to disagree. They all but represent "non monotheism" existing within the framework of a monotheistic construct (the matrix).


Dress, look, and sound are functions of environment, personality is a function of the "eternal champion" ideal. King Arthur, "Once and future king" may look, dress and sound like a "modern person", but the personality, the desire to "do good" does not change. It's not the "same person", it IS however the same ideals and philosophy.


No, not save Trinity, save what he wants, or self sacrifice to educate the architect.


The first one crashed because it was "too perfect", we were given what we wanted, not what we needed.


There is a limit to what you can do in a movie dude, you use pop philosophy to introduce the idea's, you HOPE people take it further, but you can't force it. Think of t as a 2 hour sermon. You HOPE people want to learn more, but you can never force it.



I can get that as movie issue dude, I really can.

We saw this trilogy of movies in a very similar (identical?) fashion. I 100% agree with your observations and interpretations of it. But I can also see where there was some textured vegetable protein thrown in there for filler. But still, they stayed true to the path of the plot from the Matrix to Revolutions. I think the Wachowskis are BRILLIANT writers. Thinking writers. They address universal concepts in a way not quite done before. Deepness.