Dolphin, the GameCube and Wii emulator - Forums

As long as they keep making movies that remind me of the awesome 90's I'm a happy camper.

Man if I could just re-live one single day from 1997, OH I would give all I have for it...
That was one of the best years in the 90's when I was 12.
My parents went back together 1997 after their divorce in -95, me and my friend used to play video games a lot after school, awesome Nickeloedeon shows and sweet summer days with all the classmates at the lake and we had tons of fun.
SNES and N64, do I need to continue because I'm starting to break down here.

Quote:This movie is being done by a completely different team of producers/director/writers/etc.

What are you talking about? The director and one of the writers is still there.

Quote:For the love of god I heard that they're making a fifth pirates of the Caribbean movie!

What, really?
Still haven't seen the 4th, and not sure if I should considering people and ratings say it's 'bad'.
The first 3 were good IMO.

(05-06-2012, 07:32 AM)Garteal Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:For the love of god I heard that they're making a fifth pirates of the Caribbean movie!

What, really?
Still haven't seen the 4th, and not sure if I should considering people and ratings say it's 'bad'.
The first 3 were good IMO.

I wish I hadn't read any ratings before watching the fourth one so I wouldn't have been quite that biased. It wasn't actually all that bad. I guess it really wasn't as good as the previous three movies, however.

Quote:The first 3 were good IMO.

1 was good, 4 was ok, the rest were awful. As you would expect. The only reason they managed to make #4 ok was by completely disconnecting all ties to the overarching plot of the first three.

Quote:the rest were awful

They were good movies. If you think these were awful, you haven't seen a truly awful movie.

Quote:As you would expect.

What? Not all movies have 'bad' sequels. Take a look at Lord of the Rings.

Quote:The only reason they managed to make #4 ok was by completely disconnecting all ties to the overarching plot of the first three.

What's wrong about the plot in the first three movies?

(05-06-2012, 07:46 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]1 was good, 4 was ok, the rest were awful.

This

(05-06-2012, 08:06 AM)Garteal Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:the rest were awful

They were good movies. If you think these were awful, you haven't seen a truly awful movie.

They were awful, it is just awful is still better than horrid, painful, blasphemic, etc.

Imo, for Pirates of the Caribbean, 1 was good, 2 was forgettable and annoying with the cliff-hanger, 3 was okay, saw it mainly to know how it "ends", didn't bother seeing 4.

MiB III sounds like a total meh though. I wish they'd leave some stuff alone; it was fine with just the first one, I think. Seems like a money grab on the franchise, as was said before here.

Quote:What? Not all movies have 'bad' sequels. Take a look at Lord of the Rings.

That's a terrible example to use. The Lord of the Rings is based on a series of books that were already written 50 years before the movies came out. It's not like they had to make up a story for the sequels on the spot.

This is what usually happens:
1. The movie studio produces a good movie that follows some classical form of narrative and concludes the main plot points by the end of the story
2. The movie is successful and makes the publisher lots of money
3. The publisher, who owns the franchise rights asks the studio to produce a sequel. Usually they accept. If they don't then the publisher gives the project to a different studio.
4. The studio is now forced to come up with a new story/plot out of thin air. This is a serious problem because if the first movie concluded properly then all of the main plot points were wrapped up, and there is nothing to continue. However it still has the same settings and characters and so they will often have to reuse many aspects of the original story while inventing an entirely new plot within it. They will also have to come up with new reasons for the same characters being important and tied in to this new radically different plot. There is a 90% chance that this will fail miserably. Only the absolute best writers out there can pull this off successfully without losing the characters (especially the protagonists) value to the plot and without compromising narrative coherence.
5. (optional) The publisher asks the studio to make the film a "stand alone". In other words the audience should be able to completely understand what's going on without having watched the previous films. Ideally the events of the previous movies shouldn't even be mentioned if this is to occur. If this happens then the studio has lost any remote chance of the films plot actually being good. This is designed to improve mass marketing appeal. This cancer has already begun to infect the plots of most video game narratives (especially bioware series). Books usually don't do this, and for a damn good reason too.

If you're going to make a series of books or movies it's best to have an overarching plot rather than separate ones. And if you're going to have an overarching plot you need to plan out at least the basics of it (including the conclusion) in advance and make sure not to conclude the critical plot points until the end of the final movie/book in the series. In a properly designed narrative the characters, setting, story, and plot all complement one another. When you try to create a new sequel out of thin air you are asking the writers to reuse the characters and settings but change the story and plot while still making the characters an integral part of the new plot. Every creative writer out there knows that this is usually a disastrous idea but they don't care so much when they're being employed at a big company since they need to work to get paid regardless of what that work happens to be. All they can do is try to make the best of a bad situation.

Quote:They were good movies. If you think these were awful, you haven't seen a truly awful movie.

Oh trust me I have. I have indeed seen much worse movies, but these were still awful films regardless.

Quote:That's a terrible example to use. The Lord of the Rings is based on a series of books that were already written 50 years before the movies came out. It's not like they had to make up a story for the sequels on the spot.

That doesn´t matter. We´re talking about film sequels here.
It's obvious that a book will prevail most of the time over a made up on the spot story.
If it weren't for the great director, who knows how good LotR would've been.

Quote:and make sure not to conclude the critical plot points until the end of the final movie/book in the series.

What? It makes perfect sense to conclude plot points in the final movie...

Quote:In a properly designed narrative the characters, setting, story, and plot all complement one another.

And this is exactly the case in PotC. It obviously isn't perfect. But it's not awful. It's good. Entertaining.

Quote:Oh trust me I have. I have indeed seen much worse movies, but these were still awful films regardless.

I seriously doubt it. Unless you have an insane rating for films. But I respect your opinion about the movie, because after all, we can all have our own opinions.
I just wanted some explanation why you would bluntly name a good movie awful.

(05-06-2012, 07:32 AM)Garteal Wrote: [ -> ]What, really?
Still haven't seen the 4th, and not sure if I should considering people and ratings say it's 'bad'.
The first 3 were good IMO.

One good reason to see it : they replaced Keira Knightley by Penelope Cruz

---

(05-06-2012, 09:15 PM)Garteal Wrote: [ -> ]We´re talking about film sequels here.

A good sequel coming to my mind : The Godfather Part2 (as good as the original)