Jump to content

Which is the best sequel?


Superman vs. Batman vs. Indiana Jones  

36 members have voted

  1. 1. Which movie do you prefer?

    • Batman Begins
      18
    • Superman Returns
      2
    • Crystal Skull
      16
    • 0


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Definitely Batman Begins. Superman Returns was a huge disappointment, as was Indy 4... *cough*. I've been a Batman fan ever since I was a kid, and I can't tell you how happy I was with this "reboot" of the Batman franchise (despite Katie Holmes, heh).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Batman Begins isn't really a sequel, but it is by far the best of the movies listed.

Superman returns was ok, but not particularly interesting. We all know of the countless flaws in KotCS.

BB, on the other hand, is within my all-time-favorite movies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
KOTCS is not really a revival of a franchise. The same actor has been in all the films.

Exactly.

Anyway, from these three I like KotCS the most. Superman returns was dissapointing and Batman Begins - while being a great movie itself - had little movie magic to me (compared to Burton's movies).

Where the hell is Casino Royale in the thread? This is the best revival of a franchise ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Where the hell is Casino Royale in the thread? This is the best revival of a franchise ever.

But Bond wasn't gone for long....

Indeed, but the franchise was definitely in crisis after Die Another Day (not to mention the series has been on screen for 40 years back then, so none should have been really surprised if they had decided to quit it).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed, but the franchise was definitely in crisis after Die Another Day (not to mention the series has been on screen for 40 years back then, so none should have been really surprised if they had decided to quit it).

No, the franchise was not in crisis after Die Another Day -- that movie was a huge hit worldwide. It wasn't one of the better movies in the series, but that's a different matter altogether. The Brosnan movies were extremely well-received by audiences, which makes the decision to refocus the movies' content and go with a different, mostly unknown, actor an extremely audacious one.

Luckily, it seems to have paid off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed, but the franchise was definitely in crisis after Die Another Day (not to mention the series has been on screen for 40 years back then, so none should have been really surprised if they had decided to quit it).

No, the franchise was not in crisis after Die Another Day -- that movie was a huge hit worldwide. It wasn't one of the better movies in the series, but that's a different matter altogether. The Brosnan movies were extremely well-received by audiences, which makes the decision to refocus the movies' content and go with a different, mostly unknown, actor an extremely audacious one.

Luckily, it seems to have paid off.

I meant the quality crisis, not financial. Despite the high box office results, the movie was badly received. It's not a coincidence they waited longer than usual before they did Casino Royale. Even though it's the money that matters in the business, not the quality, it seems the EON executives realised that they turned into dead end and following that path could kill the franchise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed, but the franchise was definitely in crisis after Die Another Day (not to mention the series has been on screen for 40 years back then, so none should have been really surprised if they had decided to quit it).

No, the franchise was not in crisis after Die Another Day -- that movie was a huge hit worldwide. It wasn't one of the better movies in the series, but that's a different matter altogether. The Brosnan movies were extremely well-received by audiences, which makes the decision to refocus the movies' content and go with a different, mostly unknown, actor an extremely audacious one.

Luckily, it seems to have paid off.

I meant the quality crisis, not financial. Despite the high box office results, the movie was badly received. It's not a coincidence they waited longer than usual before they did Casino Royale. Even though it's the money that matters in the business, not the quality, it seems the EON executives realised that they turned into dead end and following that path could kill the franchise.

I didn't think Die Another Day was that bad. It was a pretty fun ride imo. And if Live and Let Die, Octopussy, A View to A Kill and The Living Daylights couldn't keep 007 down, nothing will. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
(...)

I didn't think Die Another Day was that bad. It was a pretty fun ride imo. And if Live and Let Die, Octopussy, A View to A Kill and The Living Daylights couldn't keep 007 down, nothing will. :P

Actually I find Live and Let Die quite all right (for a Moore-Bond flick) and The Living Daylights is one of my favourite installments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
(...)

I didn't think Die Another Day was that bad. It was a pretty fun ride imo. And if Live and Let Die, Octopussy, A View to A Kill and The Living Daylights couldn't keep 007 down, nothing will. ^_^

Actually I find Live and Let Die quite all right (for a Moore-Bond flick) and The Living Daylights is one of my favourite installments.

There isn't one single Bond movie I dislike -- with the exception of the faux-Bond spoof Casino Royale -- but there are a number of them that I would call bad movies. Live and Let Die is definitely one of them. The Living Daylights is not; I think it's handily one of the top ten Bond movies.

Going back to the "crisis" following Die Another Day, I see your point -- I just didn't know you meant quality-wise.

Oddly, the previous Bond flick that was the guiltiest of going overboard in terms of unbelievability and campiness -- the wrecthed Moonraker -- also led to the producers deciding to go with a leaner, more realistic 007. The result was For Your Eyes Only, which is generally one of the more liked films in the series. And let's remember: Moonraker was also a huge hit, just like Die Another Day would later be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
(...)

Oddly, the previous Bond flick that was the guiltiest of going overboard in terms of unbelievability and campiness -- the wrecthed Moonraker -- also led to the producers deciding to go with a leaner, more realistic 007. The result was For Your Eyes Only, which is generally one of the more liked films in the series. And let's remember: Moonraker was also a huge hit, just like Die Another Day would later be.

I agree, however I don't find Moonraker too different from much more acclaimed The Spy Who Loved Me. I even like it better than TSWLM, mainly because of Barry's terrific score and slightly toned goofiness of the predecessor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Living Daylights is one of my favourite installments.
The Living Daylights is not; I think it's handily one of the top ten Bond movies.

I don't know. Dalton made a decent Bond of sorts, but I found the villian too bland and Maryam D'Arbo hardly compelling as a Bond girl. And then there's that climactic bit which has to be dumb even by Bond standards. The baddie has a bulletproof face armor attached to his gun and Bond can't figure to shoot him in the leg or something?

Link to post
Share on other sites
ok batman begins isn't a "sequel" its a whole new start, so MSM is being a dummy when he/she put this together.

Of course I know it isn't a sequel, but I expected the IQ of the majority of the people here to be high enough to understand what the meaning of this thread would be.

I apologize to the people who do not belong to this group :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
(...)

Oddly, the previous Bond flick that was the guiltiest of going overboard in terms of unbelievability and campiness -- the wrecthed Moonraker -- also led to the producers deciding to go with a leaner, more realistic 007. The result was For Your Eyes Only, which is generally one of the more liked films in the series. And let's remember: Moonraker was also a huge hit, just like Die Another Day would later be.

I agree, however I don't find Moonraker too different from much more acclaimed The Spy Who Loved Me. I even like it better than TSWLM, mainly because of Barry's terrific score and slightly toned goofiness of the predecessor.

I'm with you -- the only huge difference in those two movies is that Moonraker is goofier (Jaws' girlfriend, anyone?), and more fantastical. But it's only by a matter of degree. Both movies are campy almost beyond belief, and I can't believe anyone ever took them at all seriously. They've aged very poorly.

But they're both a lot of fun (especially The Sky Who Loved Me, which has awesome stunts and just generally looks like a big-budget romp of a movie), so I find it hard to dislike either of them, even though they are bad, bad, bad movies.

And the score for Moonraker is certainly one of the musical highlights of the series, and of what I know of Barry's career. I don't care ofr most of Hamlisch's Spy Who Loved Me, although "Nobody Does It Better" can make a serious claim to being THE best Bond song.

The Living Daylights is one of my favourite installments.
The Living Daylights is not; I think it's handily one of the top ten Bond movies.

I don't know. Dalton made a decent Bond of sorts, but I found the villian too bland and Maryam D'Arbo hardly compelling as a Bond girl. And then there's that climactic bit which has to be dumb even by Bond standards. The baddie has a bulletproof face armor attached to his gun and Bond can't figure to shoot him in the leg or something?

Yeah, I see what you mean. The climax is definitely weak, and the villains are not the best.

But I love Dalton in that movie. He's not the Bond the world seemed to want at that point in time, but I think his performance has stood the test of time. In some ways, he's a similar Bond to the one we've got now -- Craig is better, of course, because he's manlier than ought to be legal.

To me, the story hangs together better than most of the post-Connery, pre-Brosnan Bonds manage. It might fall apart a bit toward the end, but I'll take this over Diamonds Are Forever ('cause I don't care what anyone says, that's a post-Connery Bond movie), Live and Let Die, The Man with the Golden Gun, The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker, Never Say Never Again (see above parenthetical), and A View to a Kill any day of the week. I might give For Your Eyes Only and/or Octopussy the advantage, but probably not by a lot.

One of the great things about the Bond series is the ability to compare/contrast for days on end. I think it's a big part of the reason the series is still vital, and probably will be for the forseeable future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The name of the thread is "which is the best sequel". What did you expect people to think?

There is some explanation in the original post. I just meant which is the best movie of the latest releases of new films belonging to old franchises. Is it really that difficult?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You asked people to choose the sequel in a poll, then included one that wasn't actually a sequel. You labeled the thread wrong, so don't call anyone stupid who points out that flaw.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You asked people to choose the sequel in a poll, then included one that wasn't actually a sequel. You labeled the thread wrong, so don't call anyone stupid who points out that flaw.

I wasn't starting the name calling. Btw everyone understood the purpose of this thread flawlessly including Joey. So aren't you taking this too seriously? Anyway, I have changed the smiley.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.