Sulphur on 14/5/2017 at 17:13
I don't see the problem. There's a 50% chance a new story could be worthwhile and add something of value to a franchise's legacy; if it doesn't, the originals aren't going anywhere, so nothing is lost either way.
Thor on 14/5/2017 at 18:48
Black Runner
Gryzemuis on 14/5/2017 at 19:21
Quote Posted by Sulphur
There's a 50% chance a new story could be worthwhile and add something of value to a franchise's legacy
Yep, that's how statistics work.
I'm planning to compete in the Olympics. 50% chance I win a medal, 50% chance I won't win a medal.
The odds are good !
SubJeff on 14/5/2017 at 20:12
Quote Posted by Sulphur
I don't see the problem.
Where to start?!
Crappy sequels mean less good original content.
Financially successful crap means more crap. What's the incentive if people pay for rubbish? Come on man, be sensible.
Does anyone remember Highlander? It's great. The sequels are all utter tripe. The series was nonsense. The original is less remembered because it's overshadowed by this.
Kolya on 14/5/2017 at 23:38
I read that some Hollywood figures fear a bad financial year because 2017 will be packed with sequels and not much else.
Oy vey.
Sulphur on 15/5/2017 at 03:26
Quote Posted by SubJeff
Where to start?!
Crappy sequels mean less good original content.
Financially successful crap means more crap. What's the incentive if people pay for rubbish? Come on man, be sensible.
Does anyone remember Highlander? It's great. The sequels are all utter tripe. The series was nonsense. The original is less remembered because it's overshadowed by this.
I think you're over-reacting.
To address the first point: if you don't want the cycle to perpetuate, then people need to stop paying to see them. If you want the cycle to stop, vote with your wallet, etc.
As far as Highlander is concerned, it was overshadowed by the sequel because a) the original was never anything above merely decent and b) the sequel showcased such a sharp drop-off in quality, it was kind of unprecedented.
If the originals were good enough, shitty sequels are never going to be bad enough to pull them under. Alien: Resurrection was pretty bad, but that doesn't stop people from mentioning Alien as a classic. The same with The Terminator's endless sequels, but everyone still considers the first two as products of great craft. The same goes for Jaws, Predator, A Fish Called Wanda, and whatever else that had undercooked follow-ups.
Gryzemius: I was talking probability, not stats. There's a slight difference between guessing the outcome of a coin toss as an analogy for liking or not liking a movie, and comparing the results of all coin tosses for a certain coin in certain conditions for a certain time period because someone disagreed with you. But hey, if you wanna do them Olympics, I hope the pole vault bar's low enough for you.
Starker on 15/5/2017 at 04:19
The Predator sequel wasn't that bad, was it? I have to confess, I never understood why it gets such a bad rap.
catbarf on 15/5/2017 at 12:25
I'm kind of surprised at these comments saying the trailer didn't give away the plot because I thought it nearly outright stated that the twist is that Gosling's character is a replicant. I may have seriously misunderstood something so I'll have to re-watch it later.
Sulphur on 15/5/2017 at 13:16
I may have not been paying enough attention, but to me the only thing that gave away a possible twist that Gosling's character is a replicant was the fact that Gosling was playing it. I guess I'll have to re-watch it later as well.
Pyrian on 15/5/2017 at 13:50
Does that even count as a twist any more?
