Join 3,494 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Can a sequel
November 9, 2000 11:55 AM   Subscribe

Can a sequel be so bad that it could stop studios from producing them? Are remakes ever justified? Do we even want to stop the what mutations appear outside of the movies? All this as we may experience the most horrid sequel of all!
posted by john (11 comments total)

 
Score 4 - Funny and Sad.
posted by cburton at 12:00 PM on November 9, 2000


The proliferation of bad movies must stop! Why is this type of thing still allowed? I am outraged!

Clearly what is needed is some system for fining or punishing studios and directors that release bad movies.

It might seem obvious to just tell movie goers that they don't have to go see something that is obviously crap, but isn't it just as obvious that our fundamental rights are being trampled on by all these bad sequels? Shouldn't we expect movies to be better in the 21st century?

Perhaps studios could be licensed, and that could be revoked if they put out too many bad movies.

Sure, we could only see movies that we thought we'd like, but that would require us as individuals to censor our own behavior. Shouldn't we expect the studios to bare some of that responsibility?
posted by y6y6y6 at 12:44 PM on November 9, 2000


I was thinking "wow, a mefi post that has something to talk about besides politcal and election day garbage!!"... until I saw the link to gwb's site. dangit, john.
posted by jamescblack at 12:47 PM on November 9, 2000


The Tribune's itinerant culture critic Michael Kilian begs to differ on Blair Witch 2, listing "eight good things" about the movie. (One of them is actress Erica Leerhsen, whom he apparently wishes had been given a nude scene.)
posted by dhartung at 1:24 PM on November 9, 2000


y6y6y6, What if I like crappy movies?
posted by daveadams at 1:43 PM on November 9, 2000


What we really need is a system where volunteers (or maybe folks would get paid for this) would agree to see a movie right when it comes out, and let us know whether it sucks or not. Then if it's bad, we don't need to see it ourselves.

That could totally solve the sucky sequel problem. Hollywood could release as many as they want and we'd never have to sit through the sucky ones.
posted by straight at 1:50 PM on November 9, 2000


I thought we were those volunteers.
posted by harmful at 1:59 PM on November 9, 2000


Better yet - We could have trained journalists sit through movies before they were released. And then they could publish their thoughts about the movies.

It would make sense that these "reviews" would be put in local papers and on the Internet so that people could find out whether a movie sucked before they went.

This seems like a good idea. Anyone know if something like this is being worked on?
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:03 PM on November 9, 2000


Would never work: the studios would figure out a way to co-opt these "reviewers" by giving them special treatment or something, then you'd never know if what they said was really what they thought, if they just wanted to make sure they got seated next to Carmen Diaz at the next studio function...
posted by m.polo at 2:06 PM on November 9, 2000


I'd sell out for that perk, m.polo.
posted by pnevares at 3:57 PM on November 9, 2000


Want to find out if a movie sucks before you go see it?

Wait a couple of weeks, check out what your friends, family, coworkers, reviewers, online discussion groups, etc. are saying about it.

If you're afraid to spend a couple of hours on a movie you may not like, then don't go at all, because no matter what everyone else says, you may not agree with them.
posted by daveadams at 7:54 AM on November 10, 2000


« Older Disenfranchised felons...  |  Ficus2000... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments