How To Ruin A Franchise: 5 Ways to Kill a Good Movie Series
by Josh Green
February 21, 2007
2007 will most likely be remembered as the year of trilogies. There are so many of them coming out this year, including Spider-Man 3, Shrek 3, Pirates of the Caribbean 3, Rush Hour 3, and The Bourne Ultimatum, just to name a few. It's easy to see that many of these films are quickly becoming the cash cow franchise that the studios have been craving. Franchises have been around forever and I feel it's too easy for Hollywood today to ruin many of everyone's favorite classic films by turning them into horrible franchises with terrible sequels. Here are some tips of what not to do to ruin a classic series.
Do NOT Go 3D!
While this was primarily a fad in the 80's, there have been a few films that have come out over the years including Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over and even last year's Superman Returns that went the 3D route. I can see someone suggesting that they make the next Die Hard or Saw in 3D. I actually think that IMAX is becoming the new 3D, on a completely different scale. Primarily because there are far more films going to IMAX than there ever were going to 3D. I also don't think IMAX is on the "cheap thrills" level that 3D initially was, and stands out in its image size and sound quality. I have seen some really good films on IMAX, such as V for Vendetta. So hopefully this 3D thing will soon go away and more films will just cross over to IMAX instead.
Do NOT Start Making Straight-to-DVD Sequels!
Not only does making straight-to-DVD sequels just lower the production value to barely anything, but we also lose the magic of getting to experience the film at the theater. For some reason it's the teen comedies that suffer this tragedy the most. It started off with the National Lampoon films, but now has branched out to the American Pie films as well, with spin offs that feature no major characters from the original - only a brother or nephew related to one of them. After the disaster known as Starship Troopers 2, I don't understand how Paramount is considering bringing a third film back to the theaters - I personally don't think they can recover. Whenever a franchise starts going straight-to-DVD you know it's already gone to hell and will never crawl its way back out.
Do NOT Change the Actor of the Main Character!
I think the franchise that suffered the most from this issue was the Batman franchise. Val Kilmer was tolerable but things went out of control when George Clooney was cast as the Dark Knight. The reason why this hurts a franchise is because usually a different actor is cast only around the 3rd or 4th film. By this point audiences have had 2 or 3 movies to get used to the main character, and when they cast a different leading man, it's hard to get used to the new actor all over again. Can you imagine if they recast John McClane or Jack Sparrow - it would be guaranteed disaster! The only franchise that has this change under control is the Bond series. This is because Bond is almost nothing more than a formula that MGM and Sony can plug into different ideas and crank out a Bond film. Luckily for us there is far more planning that goes into a Bond film than just that, as they end up turning out great (look at Casino Royale). Bond being the only exception, changing a lead actor in a major franchise is suicide.
Do NOT Forget to Keep At Least One Storyline to Connect All of the Films Together!
Why on earth would anyone want to make a sequel that doesn't connect with the rest of the franchise films? The horror genre is notorious for making this mistake. They pump out Jason movie after Jason movie, not connecting anything together and forgetting the fact the Jason has died numerous times already. The recent Hannibal Rising didn't connect to any other of the previous Hannibal films. It's like they were planning on making another prequel after this one because of the lack of substance to connect the films together with. When a franchise does this it's obvious that they are trying to squeeze as much money out of an audience as possible. Fortunately there are again a few exceptions, including Batman Begins, which is a successful fresh start on the old franchise.
Do NOT Focus On a Minor Character or Villain in a Sequel!
Everyone wonders why the latest Star Wars films were not as good as the originals, right? While there are many arguments out there, the biggest issue is that they focused too much on the villain. It's very hard to center a movie on a villain; it almost never works because it's hard for an audience to sympathize with that type of character. I'm not just pointing my finger at Star Wars, but every Jason, Freddy Krueger, and Hellraiser movie has done this, too. In the case of Star Wars and Hellraiser, these villains were not the main characters of the original films. But due to their popularity, decisions were made to base the following sequels around them. This is probably the best way to ruin a franchise - it just doesn't work.
Josh's Pick: Top 5 Franchises That Went to Hell:
5) The Police Academy
3) Hannibal Lecter
2) Friday the 13th
1) Star Wars
Josh's Pick: Top 5 Best Franchises:
4) George Romero's Zombie "of the Dead" Series
3) Harry Potter
1) James Bond
Keep in mind that this is all only my opinion. If you have any other ways that you think franchises have been ruined over the years, please comment. Let's just hope that some of the very highly anticipated franchise films coming out this year don't the same mistakes.
Reader Feedback - 55 Comments
FYI: Your #1 Best breaks rule #3. Just sayin'.
jenny on Feb 21, 2007
I agree with all of them except Star Wars. In my opinion, all the Star Wars movies were awesome. Yes, it is hard to focus on a villain throughout a series but I believe George Lucas did it very well throughout the last 3 movies. :]
Nick on Feb 21, 2007
I like how you explained that it was only your opinion. Very thoughtful. Back in the old days we used to just eat whatever Hollywood gave us. I remember enoying George Kennedy so much in Airport 79 that I didn't even compare it to the previous 78 Airports.
Patsy Kline on Feb 23, 2007
Josh's Pick: Top 5 Franchises That Went to Hell: 2) Friday the 13th Best joke ever?
Baron on Feb 23, 2007
I would disagree with the Bond Movies. Connery was the best bond, and Roger Moore did a pretty good job to capture some of that, but as stated earlier it's just a formula. Albeit a REALLY good formula, but after nearly 40 years it's long since worn thin. 1) Bond interupted by "M" to say that world is again on the brink of disaster. 2) Bond comes in says hello to Money Penny, and gets the new gadgets. 3) Bond makes contact with the arch villian and his soon-to-be love interest. (It never made any sense why they just don't kill him right then.) 4) Bond saves the world and gets the girl. 5) Arch villain's #2 comes back to try, always unsuccessfuly, to kill Bond at the end of the movie. Yawn. All of these obvious short comings made for a ton of joke material for Mike Myers on the Austin Power's series. About the Star Wars movies... I would agree that they did a good job on all of them, minus Jar Jar because that shit was just stupid, but personally speaking it's hard for me to get interested in a prequel when I already know the outcome. Finally, you left out the Lord of The Rings Trilogy on considering best franchises. Is 3 not enough?
JB4375 on Feb 23, 2007
The Star Wars franchise never went to hell...the Star Wars saga, as it should be called, is the only movie series of the examples above whose sequels weren't an afterthought. George Lucas' saga has been the subject of uneducated backlash...why? Because many of the original trilogy fans grew up and forgot what these movies are all about. All six of the Star Wars movies make up the best franchise out there...just ask all the 10 year old kids today who are still buying the toys. Why? Because Star Wars speaks to every generation...even more so than The Lord of the Rings or any other fantasy franchise... As far as the prequels basing the stories on the villain? That's the point!!! The prequels can't focus on the main character of the originals, because that's Luke and he wasn't born yet!!! The whole point of the prequels was to show how Anakin started out as a a hero, and then became a villain, a tragic victim that makes you watch the originals in a different and more appreciative light... Star Wars is the best thing to happen to cinema. Period. May the Force Be With You, George...all fo you spoiled, "Matrix" happy fair-weather fans: if you didn't like the prequels, your loss. Thanks Mr. Lucas for sticking to your vision...you did nothing wrong...you did it all right... - Adam Seely
Adam Seely on Feb 23, 2007
While I don't totally agree with my esteemed fellow commentator, Mr. Seely, that Star Wars is the best thing to happen to cinema (that honor goes to Jean-Luc Godard, IMO), I agree with him that the Star Wars films aren't a franchise. They're a saga. They were all part of a narrative constructed by Lucas, who was also the producer of all the films. Film franchises are more like the horror movie series you bring up, like Nightmare on Elm Street and the Jason flicks. They're used by studios as vehicles for producers and directors to make large stacks of cash, and they're only relatable to previous films through characters or loose plot structures. The studio had very little say in how the Star Wars films would be made. Lucas was left alone to make what he wanted. I'd say Romero's zombie films are the same: a saga. They were all part of Romero's vision, and not something that the studio had control over.
Dateline1945 on Feb 23, 2007
How about movies franchises trying to save themselves through storylines that take place before the first movie? (see Star Wars, Hannibal, Smallville, Cube,...) Or franchises with too many films? Those that do not know when to stop and jump the shark? (e.g. Austin Powers, Jurassic Park) Also not mentioned: Trilogies Species, Matrix, etc, etc. Since when is it a rule in Hollywood to make Trilogies out of every goddamn movie?
Klappstuhl on Feb 23, 2007
Wow, Adam really likes Star Wars. But come on, Attack of the Clones and every scene that involved Jar-Jar did suck.
Lee Collyer on Feb 23, 2007
Also, your #4 also breaks rule #2. Land of the Dead was, I believe straight-to-DVD....it was also garbage.
Buck on Feb 23, 2007
Buck - Land of the Dead was not straight to DVD. You are correct that it was garrbage though...especially the ending. Now, as far as rule #5 , I'd say the Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street franchises were pretty much HUGELY successful despite focusing on a villain. They may be garbage, but the sheer volume of sequels means people saw 'em.
Rosoce on Feb 23, 2007
The reason that the three Star Wars prequels SUCKED was not because of the focus on the villain. The story of Anakin Skywalker's transformation from a good and powerful man to the personification of evil that is Darth Vader was one of the most widely anticipated storylines ever released to film. The problem was when George Lucas's so-called "vision" was transmogrified from the gritty, romantic, powerfully emotional feel of episodes IV - VI to the tacky, cheesily animated, over-produced schlock of episodes I-III. If Lucas had even remotely attempted to stay true to the feel of the original Star Wars films he would have improved the prequels incalculably.
Soren Petersen on Feb 23, 2007
Alien Resurrection is a festering pile of dung, any Rocky after III is total garbage(Go, Tommy Gun!), and Romero's Land of the dead totally blew. I waited decades for the fourth Dead film and I get John Leguizamo and Dennis 'Hey, It's A Paycheck' Hopper?! Good points though overall, although I continue to disagree with the public verdict that the 3 Star Wars prequels were really that bad. Sure, Jar Jar sucks big time, but so did the Ewoks...
jaffo on Feb 23, 2007
To Mr. Petersen's comment, Lucas did stay true to the feel of the original trilogy. All six of those movies feel like one big movie, no easy feat considering they were made over 3 decades... I would argue that the "romance" and "emotional power" is in fact, just as present in the prequels than in the originals... The scene of Anakin and Padme by the river on Mustafar alone is worthy of being considered the most powerful scene in all six movies. "Revenge of the Sith" is perhaps the most powerful of all six...in a lot of ways, it tops "The Empire Strikes Back"...(wow, the replys I'll get for that statement...) That said, I'm still horrified that Star Wars is being lumped in among other movie series such as Frdiay the 13th and Land of the Dead... But hey, one man's zombie is another man's Jedi...
Adam Seely on Feb 23, 2007
i find it interesting that the "number 1 best franchise" breaks more than one of those rules.
drew on Feb 23, 2007
What about the Saw trilogy, where does it rank? I thought that they were all quite good and stayed true to the mail plot.
Drew on Feb 23, 2007
Another case in which rule 3 was broken but it still worked is the Jack Ryan movies. Harrison Ford, Alec Baldwin and Ben Affleck have all played Tom Clancy's hero very well. I've never had a sense of disappointment when I watch any of those movies.
Brettzky42 on Feb 23, 2007
Well, for Batman, it was not the actors, Kilmer and Clooney would be just as good as anyone, but replacing Burton with Schumacher killed the movies. It happened with Terminator 3 - Arnold was there but Cameron wasn't - it sucked. It will probably happen with Die Hard 4 - no McTiernan means it will suck. Directors are ones that matter. And it works in reverse, too - if only someone else than Lucas directed new 3 Star Wars movies, they wouldn't be just my-cgi-is-better-than-yours showcase, they would probably have that magic that first three had.
Jack on Feb 23, 2007
The "new" Star Wars movies sucked for 2 reasons: 1. Hayden Christenson (sp?) is a terrible actor. Lucas hired the wrong guy. 2. George Lucas was too obsessed with advancing computer generated movie technology and forgot the reasons people loved the first 3 movies: the characters, the story lines, and the action. The "new" Star Wars movies all looked like large video games that you couldn't play.
TF on Feb 23, 2007
Thanks TF for some agreement. Mr. Seely, I appreciate your optimistic outlook on the Star Wars prequels. I'm also going to stop criticizing George Lucas for making them; because, even though the prequels haunt my dreams, he still created three of my favorite and arguably three of the greatest science fiction movies of all time.
Soren Petersen on Feb 23, 2007
NO, no no no, no and no you guys missed the mark completely on that one. COME ON!!! Remember Starship Troopers? seen Starship Troopers 2? Case Closed.
FRank on Feb 23, 2007
I also think that if Lucas wouldn't have directed the prequels they would have been much better. Remember he didn't direct Empire nor Return of the Jedi. I am glad that he made the prequels though because the story of Darth Vader HAD to be told. He was by far the most popular character of the origional trilogy. At first I was disapointed with Revenge of the Sith because how they killed off General Grevious (I had big expectations for Grevious, he was susposed to be a super bad ass fighter), Mace also didn't live up to his reputation. Even with that said its still my favorite one because of all the action and how the story climaxed and answers to a lot of the questions the first 3 left. You have to give Lucas some credit for producing these 3 without contradicting the first 3 (for the most part). Plus that was one bad ass fight between Obi Wan and Vader.
DW on Feb 23, 2007
This list is pretty good at pointing out potential pitfalls, but by no means a rule book. Off the top of my head I can think of a movie franchise that defies each specific rule and is "successful". Whether one thinks a movie is bad entertainment or not is a judgement call... 1. No 3-D - Spy Kids... Not my cup o' tea, but the kiddies liked it - and I'm fairly certain it made some good money for Rodriguez too. No one's claiming it's oscar worthy, but it was successful in what it was attempting to do. 3-D is a gimmick anyways (to get people into the theater - and it usually works). There aren't that many 3-D movies to begin with to really consider this a major pitfall. 2. Straight to DVD sequels - The Prophecy... The first one pretty much was straight to DVD to begin with and it was a "success". So why not keep 'em coming in that same manner? I bet if you asked your video store clerk, they'd say that all three get rented fairly regularly (or at least as regularly as any genre horror movie). 3. Do not change actor of main character - The Talented Mr. Ripley and Ripley's Game... Matt Damon and John Malkovich playing the same role, very differently - yet both "owning" the role very much in good movies. Oh yeah, Ripley's Game was a straight to DVD release as well. Oops for number 2 again. 4. Do not forget to connect story lines - You named Romero's "Dead" series in your "Best Franchises" list... I see it! It's right there! 5. Do not focus on the villian - Uhh... Godfather II anyone? Some say it's the greatest American movie ever made... Despite what rappers may tell you, Michael Corleone is not a "good guy".
Jeff on Feb 23, 2007
star wars was a great series, so i dont agree there and hannibal made perfect sense if you knew the story or read one of the books, so in my opinion, not a very good article.
symbionic1975 on Feb 23, 2007
Hannibal Rising connected to all of the stories because it talked about the beginnings of the series' most important character. It explains why and how Hannibal became what he did. To say there wasn't any relevance or connection is ridiculous. Just my . 02
Lawlrus on Feb 23, 2007
harry potter ... common
common on Feb 23, 2007
Batman Begins yo
Pol on Feb 23, 2007
Good points all. The Tom Clancy example is an ok one. The reason for different actors can be explained by time frame of the books. Sum of all Fears takes place years before Hunt for Red October or Clear and Present Danger. I like the Star Wars movies and can't wait for the new batman movie with Christian Bale and the return of The Joker.
Coder2000 on Feb 24, 2007
Are you insane? Hannibal Rising was awesome AND connected with the rest. Maybe you didn't pay attention. Young Hannibal Lived in France, hence it is where he retreated to between SotL and Hannibal, his "aunt" taught him how to wield a weapon, he went to medical school (DOCTOR Lecter anyone?) and it all ties up nicely at the end of Hannibal: if you pay attention, it seems he might be on a flight to Japan, perhaps to pay respects. The whole thing about Hannibal Lecter is that nobody knew his past; this showed his past and how he came to be. Human beings are creatures of habit, and it FINALLY shows where his habits originate from.
ZeroX on Feb 24, 2007
To each his own, but I'm just here to let you know that according to George Lucas, the human who made the effing films, all 6 movies are CENTERED around DARTH VADER, not made for him because he became popular after the original trilogy. 4,5,6 came out 1st to keep the Luke Leia sibling deal an audience mystery. After all, other than R2D2, C3P0 & .....Vader/Annikan Skywalker is the only character that appears in all 6 films. I won;t disagree that the quality of the more recent films is as good as the original, but Episode 3 was a fantastic movie, & you're just plain hating if u think otherwise. PS~ Rocky 3 & 5 were real good... No Lord of the rings???? Indiana Jones??????? George Rmero?
Ann Nonnamiss on Feb 24, 2007
"I won;t disagree that the quality of the more recent films is as good as the original, but Episode 3 was a fantastic movie, & you're just plain hating if u think otherwise." Ok, I'll bite. Episode III was by far the worst of the prequels. The only prequel which to me felt like a Star Wars movie was Episode I. Stop using fallacious statements to defend a movie as well, example : " if you don't like this, then you are CLEARLY this!". How about going through the merits of the film? As far as I can tell, there are none. Wooden acting, zero special effects (for effects to be special this means they aren't used in EVERY single goddamn shot). Barely any REAL sets, which also affects the acting as there is a clear disconnect between what you see happening on screen and how each actor is reACTING to everything around them. Not to mention all the over-used cliches tossed in at the end and irrational behavior that defies all logic. Certainly interesting how FAST Anakin switched from Light to Dark and embraced his alter-ego, where's the pacing or storyline arc? Fuck that, BOOM Anakin is Vader in less than a few minutes, uh wtf? This whole movie was an unorganized, disheveled, and uninspired mess. I grimaced when I read that Sith is the superior movie to Empire, it's your opinion obviously but jesus man, have you no sense of decency! Meh...Cheers!
AnimalsForCrackers on Feb 24, 2007
ok, correct me if im wrong, but didnt lucas write all six stories (movies) before even the first was released????? ok there may be a few little changes made but if this was the case, surely this goes against the rules?! lucas did not write the following 3 movies purley because the first 3 were successful., and they werent based around the popularity of the villains from the originals. (well they may have been based around them but not because of any media attention) the storyline was created many many years ago and yes due to the success they were made! but the original storyline was not altered based on the success or failure of earlier characters.
pc on Feb 24, 2007
Absolutely right. It's not the storyline itself per se, but more the way it was translated into live action that irks me. Reading a long story and then developing it into a 2-3 hour long movie is tricky business indeed...
AnimalsForCrackers on Feb 24, 2007
Edit (cont.) :...as the story/canon of the Star Wars historical timeline is incredibly rich + detailed.
AnimalsForCrackers on Feb 24, 2007
Back to the Future wasn't mentioned? Shocked. All three were classics. I'll never understand why some people dislike BTTF3. It wasn't as special as the first two, but it still wasn't even close to mediocre.
Scott Nichols on Feb 24, 2007
I definately think that talk of franchises like this NEEDS to include LoTR and Harry Potter, so I am glad others have mentioned this (but no mention of the ALIENS movies?). I'll take this hypothesis a little farther though and apply it to LOST. Everyone has been wondering why the show has sucked this year, it is because it has focused WAY too much on the "villians" (the others) of the show, instead of the original "castaways"...
Chriswho on Feb 24, 2007
the back to the future trilogy is in my opinion one of the best around!. i understand why people dont like the idea in general but for it rocks! everytime im ill i chill on the sofa and watch all 3 back to back. thats my illness ritual haha. and as for LOST, i think this series is great, yes it does revolve around 'the others' more than the crashee's at the moment, but it has to! im finding their lives much more interesting and intriguing if im honest. it would be a boring program without them. the program wouldnt survive without the focus being on the others for a series or 2! IMO this is an exception to the rule and is benefitting greatly due to the focus being on the others i repeat, this is only my opinion. the matrix has been mentioned briefly but i think this is one of the greatest trilogy's made to date! at first i boycotted the movies once i had seen the third but after viewing it again and again, my mind has been changed. p.s. i cant wait for the final bourne identity film! i loved the first two and thought they were a refreshing change from the crap that has been released over the last couple of years.
pc on Feb 24, 2007
I didn't really want to read every comment to see, but after reading thirteen and finding that not one person remarked on the fact that ANAKIN SKYWALKER IS THE PROTAGONIST OF THE STAR WARS FILMS really just made me sad. The movies start with his discovery, end with his death, and climax at his change of heart. You can't really argue with that. Besides, Lucas intended to make the first three all along so so i have a problem with people saying that they were made purely for money. The story wasn't complete without them. The originals were better though.
Bo on Feb 24, 2007
edit, i kept reading and few people recognized, so my b, most of yall are dumb though
Bo on Feb 24, 2007
Great article, Josh. I couldn't agree more with the statement that the Star War Saga went to hell in a bad way. Lucas may very well have had some vague outline for the prequel trilogy in his mind, but the number of inconsistancies and pure crap of the prequel trilogy has killed the series. I couldn't agree more that the scene where Anakin and Padme are just looking out over their balconies is the most powerful scene of the prequel trilogy, but to me that just illustrates how weak the trilogy was in the first place. It wasn't bad enough that you had Anakin and Padme literally roll through a field of flowers in Attack of the Clones. I actually didn't believe my friends when they told me that scene was in there. Even worse, there is never an actual establishment of the friendship between Obi and Anakin that is mentioned in A New Hope. On top of all of this, Anakin finally turning to the dark side is quite possibly the least compelling or believable scene I've ever laid eyes on, and I saw Ghost Rider. And don't even get me started on the midiclorian BS or the fact that you can block Force Lightning with a light saber. At the same time, I will also freely admit that the Original Trilogy is flawed to say the least and is held in high esteem by me because of the role it played in my childhood. For that reason, I really don't argue the trilogy with the generation behind me because I and understand that perspective completely. And yes, Star Wars is arguably te best thing to ever happen to cinema.
FS Dave on Feb 25, 2007
What exactly are the 'inconsistencies' from the SW prequels that you speak of? Man, I really am amused by the fact that people somehow think that they own Star Wars and that George Lucas somehow owes them. Get over yourselves guys. Jeez, stop thinking you A) know more than George Lucas about the storyline of HIS creation and B) somehow were 'owed' whatever you may have expected from the prequels. They are not yours. You don't own Star Wars. George Lucas owns the franchise--which, by the way, is and really always has been for children. And as far as Obi and Aniken not being friends--did you even watch episodes II and III?! What more could have been done to show you that they were friends? You were hoping for a shower scene, maybe?!
jaffo on Feb 25, 2007
On the subject of using a villain for the main character I bring to your attention the Riddick movies, Pitch Black and The Chronicles of Riddick. Both use a criminal as a main character and are successful. If its properly written anti-heroes are just as interesting as a proper hero.
Coder2000 on Feb 25, 2007
Jaffo, you asked for inconsistincies? Enjoy reading all night long this site and the other two episodes's sites: http://www.chefelf.com/starwars/ep1.php
Scott Nichols on Feb 26, 2007
Scott, that list is not a list of inconsistencies at all. It is just another ass wasting your time telling you why his geek ife was so ruined by Episode I. Some of his assertions are not just wrong, but also show how little attention he actually pays. One example is his complaint that Watta has a 'force-resistant' head. I guess he never noticed that Jabba made it a point to state that he too is impervious to jedi mind manipulation in Return of the Jedi, huh? In truth, all of these sites boil down to this: 'Waaaaa!!!Waaaaaa!!!Star Wars should be how I wanted it!!!Waaaaaaaa!!!'...
jaffo on Feb 26, 2007
I'm going to be completely honest with you, jaffo. I haven't watched the prequel trilogy since initially seeing it. I saw Episode I four times in the theater trying to like it. The second one was Netflixed and I still felt ripped off and I saw the third for free. The reason I tell you this is because unlike some people who have made it their mission in life to try to destroy Lucas (as if that was possible to destroy the Flannel Jedi), I've finally made peace with the fact that I'm just never going to accept the prequel trilogy and have moved on with my life. The only time I get riled up is when someone calls them some of the best movies ever made. For me to go back and get the facts would entail me suffering through them again and it's just not going to happen. So I will concede the point about inconsistancies and retract my statement. Let's move on to your argument that I have no right to complain about the films. I'm sorry, but didn't I give money to Lucas and invest myself in this saga? Didn't Lucas put his work out there for criticism? I understand that it is his series and he can do what he wants with it. The sheer amount of money he's made clearly puts my opinion in the minority. However, that doesn't mean that I don't have a right to my opinion. I've decided that I would vote with my wallet and I didn't spend a dime on Star Wars until he released the theatrical versions on dvd. Sure, I would have liked to have it in anamorphic widescreen and have them use the 5.1 or 7.1 mix that was made when the film released, but Lucas put out what I wanted and I didn't have such a hate that I still found a way to hate and not buy it. I plunked down my cash and picked it up. I think I'm being as open-minded as possible and have just decided to enjoy the parts of Star Wars I enjoy and leave the rest alone. Oh, and yes, I wanted a shower scene...with Max Reebo's band covering Let's Get It On. It would have relieved the obvious sexual tension between Obi and Anakin. Actually, that would explain why Obi considered Anakin such a good friend. He was still pining after Ani. You really didn't expect me to leave that alone, did you? All in all, Star Wars just isn't worth arguing about anymore. If I started our first flamewar about Star Wars at fs.net, then I apologize. I'm willing to bet that I have plenty in common in terms of film taste with jaffo outside of Star Wars, and I won't let that saga ruin a future diologue. Sorry to stir the pot, dude.
FS Dave on Feb 26, 2007
I actually like 3-D, but only in IMax. Maybe not for real movies, but it made Polar Express tolerable.
J-Bone on Feb 26, 2007
Well said and I agree in large part. Good riff on the shower scene. I had hoped for a little humor. You certainly have a right to an opinion and I would never try to say otherwise. Sorry you didn't enjoy the prequels. They are by no means the height of cinematic excellence, no doubt there. But they were entertaining at least. I guess my whole thing is just a sort of bewilderment at the venom some people seem to feel the need to hurl at the 'flannel jedi'--another good one, by the way. Here's another way to ruin a franchise: introduce Chris Rock and Joe Pesci as characters!
jaffo on Feb 26, 2007
at least the Batman series has been redeemed at this point by the latest film, but i do agree that the previous two had pretty much ruined it for a while.
apdx on Feb 27, 2007
It's all good, jaffo. Honestly, I really would have a hard time understanding the venom too, if I didn't have some at some point myself. The point is that most poeple who post here are film enthusiasts, and that's really quite an understatement. We should be coming here to debate articles and lists and talk about our love of movies. I really think that Star Wars has become such a polarizing force that it just turns into name calling most of the time, and I already see that far too often at other sites. I'm going to do my part to make sure that doesn't happen here. As for your Pesci and Rock comment, are you sure that Jet Li didn't unknowingly had a bad effect on Lethal Weapon 4 all by himself? The guy had essentially one line through the entire movie that he said over and over!
FS Dave on Feb 27, 2007
umm i was readin alot of the comments i only read the 1st half its mostly one big star wars arguement, to be honest in my opinion i think if u can make millions of dollars for a movie, it must be a good franchise, but anyways alot of people put the comment jar jar sucked lol umm 1st of all who cares, he was just a side character in the 1st movie and played a small ass role in 2 and 3 actually i dont even remember him in the 3rd movie to be honest, but its been a while since i last seen it but like i said who cares the 3rd movie had a great storyline and made a huge bridge to the other movies thats what made it so good, but it focused on the villian look at the brightside he was good guy through 1st 2 and half of the 3rd one so yea it focused on the good guy and one the last movies 4-6 it focused on luke so yea but anyways i just fe just felt like sayin a peice
heartless on Mar 11, 2007
I have to admit that straight-to DVD titles are generally crap. I do think that both Michael Keaton and Val Kilmer were good as Batman. Keaton was the best with his psychological musings, and Kilmer was quite athletic. More to the point Christian Bale is the best Batman and will continue to do well in its sequels. Finally, as a dedicated Star Wars fan I like ALL of the Saga, and Hayden was a good enough actor to be Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader. He was particularly good in Revenge of the Sith.
Mohammed Mehboob on Mar 22, 2007
Sorry, no commenting is allowed at this time.