If that period wasn't there, there sure would be some dangerous weaponry going off.Firefilm said:...even just the conclusion to the new Star Wars trilogy in Revenge of the Sith. I think I've been able to peg exactly why those movies failed as a third entry to an otherwise good movie series.
What about that is a paradox? You're gone, a new you is living your life. That's it.Gatx said:Put another way, if you were replaced by an exact copy in every respect (but a few seconds displaced in time!) would you have been reborn? Cloned? Is it meaningful to talk about such a distinction? It's the same paradox in a Star Trek teleporter.
Just FYI the link on the first page to Monty Oum's series is broken. I don't know if you can edit articles once they go up, but if you can it looks like you just forgot part of the commands.Firefilm said:Spider-Man 3 Caused WWII
The best things don't always come in threes.
Read Full Article
**blinks**RJ Dalton said:Okay, for starters: Babylon 5. Five years to tell a complete story. Fucking. Awesome. Just because YOU may be too impatient to let a story take it's time and tell itself, doesn't mean that the rest of us need everything nicely resolved at the end of our 45 minute waiting period so that the reset button can be pushed. Personally, I think that is a poisonous attitude to take because it limits what we can do with the medium of television.
I've never seen that said about RotS. Overwhelming consensus has always seemed to be that it's a definite step-up from the other two. Certainly not amazing, but still the best.there are plenty of other thirds that bother people, such as Spider-Man 3 or even just the conclusion to the new Star Wars trilogy in Revenge of the Sith.
It's a lot of things. It's most definitely also a Jesus thing, but there are a lot of reference points and connected ideas.Grenaid said:Pretty sure sure the whole Neo getting absorbed wasn't a Jesus thing, but a philosophy thing.
Sorry, he mentioned Lost. I assumed that meant TV shows were on the table.Bara_no_Hime said:**blinks**
What does Babylon 5 have to do with this? It was a weekly TV series (and yes, it kicked ass) that was planned from beginning to end (even if it got quickly modified in season 4) and gave its viewers a semi-weekly dose of plot to keep them sane (or insane, take your pick).
You may be right about Spiderman 3 (I wouldn't know, the first one was disappointing, like pretty much all pre-Iron Man live action Marvel movies, so I didn't bother with the sequels) but the thing that made The Avengers awesome was that it stuck to the textbook -- by which I mean, the original comics. Traditionally, superhero films have been embarrassed of their comic book origins, and wound up being pretty terrible because of the attempts to distance themselves from the source material. The Sam Raimi Spiderman trilogy is an example of this.SoMuchSpace said:I don't even like Spiderman that much, but the amount of hate i see for Spiderman 3 is ridiculous.Meanwhile cliche, completely 'safe' textbook superhero films like The Avengers comes and everyone wets their pants.
They're not complaining about cliff hangers, though. People forget this, but The Empire Strikes Back ended on a cliff hanger, and it's pretty widely regarded as not just the best of the trilogy, but one of the best sci-fi films of all time.RJ Dalton said:Sorry, he mentioned Lost. I assumed that meant TV shows were on the table.Bara_no_Hime said:**blinks**
What does Babylon 5 have to do with this? It was a weekly TV series (and yes, it kicked ass) that was planned from beginning to end (even if it got quickly modified in season 4) and gave its viewers a semi-weekly dose of plot to keep them sane (or insane, take your pick).
I still don't necessarily think it's quite right to assume that movie trilogies inherently need to follow a format where they have a complete resolution at the end of every film to be good. I don't have anything against cliff-hangers, either. At least not intrinsically. The only real rule about art that remains constantly true is that, if you're good at what you're doing and you know exactly what you're doing, you can break any rule. This is a matter of assumption. Just because no movie trilogy has ever successfully pulled off what is being discussed, it doesn't necessarily mean it can't be done and I think, before we go proclaiming that this is an inherently failing method of film making, we ought to wait and see someone who's actually talented try their hand at it.
Good luck finding anyone in Hollywood who's talented, though.
I think I need to reread the article. I may have missed a point somewhere.Owyn_Merrilin said:No, the complaint was about movies that are pretty obviously building up to a conclusion, but in order to make more money by getting yet another film into theaters, the last 20 minutes are chopped off and expanded into a bloated mess of a movie. That was the problem with both the third Pirates film and the third Matrix movie.
I thought Lost was an example of the writers going in with no idea what they were doing, making up stuff as they went along, and thus creating an unsatisfying ending when they finally had to explain everything and the explanation was kinda stupid.RJ Dalton said:Sorry, he mentioned Lost. I assumed that meant TV shows were on the table.
I still don't necessarily think it's quite right to assume that movie trilogies inherently need to follow a format where they have a complete resolution at the end of every film to be good. I don't have anything against cliff-hangers, either. At least not intrinsically. The only real rule about art that remains constantly true is that, if you're good at what you're doing and you know exactly what you're doing, you can break any rule. This is a matter of assumption. Just because no movie trilogy has ever successfully pulled off what is being discussed, it doesn't necessarily mean it can't be done and I think, before we go proclaiming that this is an inherently failing method of film making, we ought to wait and see someone who's actually talented try their hand at it.