Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
I like this idea, only I think it should be run by the government.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                                                       

"The Quickening" Rule

Informing movie goers what to expect.
  (+15)(+15)
(+15)
  [vote for,
against]

All movie sequels that are vastly inferior to the original and/or screw around with the original movie's concept/universe should be given the subtitle: "The Quickening" tacked next to its title.

Alternately, all movies that are sequels "that no-one asked for" should be subtitled: "The Rage".

mrkillboy, Sep 06 2000

Highlander II: The Quickening http://us.imdb.com/Title?0102034
Classic example how NOT to do a big budget sequel. [mrkillboy, Sep 06 2000, last modified Oct 04 2004]

Carrie 2: The Rage http://us.imdb.com/Title?0144814
The excellent original wasn't exactly open ended, was it? [mrkillboy, Sep 06 2000, last modified Oct 04 2004]

Darkman III: Die, Darkman, Die http://us.imdb.com/Title?0116033
Okay, so I haven't actually seen it, but am I likely to be far off the mark? I don't think so. [centauri, Sep 06 2000, last modified Oct 04 2004]

Brunching Shuttlecocks review. http://www.brunchin...hlanderendgame.html
No, I didn't steal it from him. I had it first... [StarChaser, Sep 06 2000, last modified Oct 04 2004]

Quickening News http://artbell.com/quicknews.html
[1978tomy, Sep 06 2000, last modified Oct 04 2004]

Jumping the shark http://www.jumptheshark.com/
Same genus, different species. [bungston, Oct 04 2004]

[link]






       Second sequels whose very existence flies in the face of logic and taste should be subtitled "Die, [main character's name], Die."
centauri, Sep 06 2000
  

       There Should Have Been Only One.
StarChaser, Sep 07 2000
  

       There Should Have Been Only One: Part 2
Alcin, Sep 09 2000
  

       I meant 'there should have only been one movie'...and definately not a movie that totally changes everything every sequel...
StarChaser, Sep 09 2000
  

       'This is not a book to be set aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force.' -- Dorothy Parker   

       (Never saw it attributed, just the quote...)
StarChaser, Oct 27 2000, last modified Oct 28 2000
  

       [Which is an unattributed bastardization of the original Dorothy Parker quote: "This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force." Anyone know *which* book she was writing about?]
jutta, Oct 27 2000
  

       Don't forget "Alien 3: The Quickening" and ESPECIALLY (in my opinion) "Alien: Resurrection aka The Quickening". Shows exactly how to steer a burgeoning sci-fi series straight into a brick wall.
mrkillboy, Oct 27 2000
  

       Applicable to computer games as well. "Ultima 8: The Quickening".   

       I like. It's such a succinct way of explaining everything that's wrong with the game.
baf, Jan 09 2001
  

       a rare exception, nil. I'm with you on that one, but then again, saying that B&T2 was better than B&T1 isn't saying much at all.
absterge, Mar 16 2001
  

       There are some sequels which, while largely independent of the preceeding film, nonetheless succeed in their own right. Superman II and Star Trek II, for example. Generally, however, the key to effective sequels is that they be logically tied in with the previous film, and that there be larger issues left unresolved.   

       Even here, though, the best films are often not the best-connected. Return of the Jedi flows much more from The Empire Strikes Back than the latter did from the original Star Wars, and yet The Empire Strikes Back was probably the best of the three films.   

       While it's often annoying when a movie without a sequel leaves open many unresolved issues, oftentimes a movie which opens up issues (e.g. what will happen to Han Solo, what of the relation between Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker, etc.) can be more satisfying than one which resolves them.   

       Regardless of how well movies tie together, though, the *numbering* of sequels, especially beyond "II" is often a sign that a movie's not likely to be all that great. Oftentimes a filmmaker will be limitted in what they can do for an original film, but once the concept is proven they can better fulfil their vision in the second. After the second movie, however, the filmmaker has often used up their real inspiration and subsequent sequels become formulaic. This is especially true with numbered sequels; with a few exceptions like Star Trek VI, numbered sequels beyond movie #3 are generally nowhere near as good as the first or second movie.   

       BTW, a trilogy which breaks the pattern of the second being the best and the third the weakest is the Indiana Jones trilogy. There the first movie was by far the best and the second the weakest. The reason for that, IMHO, is that the first movie was surprisingly able to articulate its vision; after the end of it there wasn't really anything more to be said (but since producers wanted more movies Spielberg had to come up with something).
supercat, Mar 16 2001, last modified Mar 17 2001
  

       My general rule of thumb for sequels is along the same lines as supercats: If it has a number (and the movie isn't called something like Seven or 12 Monkeys), then it isn't worth seeing.
AfroAssault, Apr 25 2001
  

       Supercat's theory is borne out with the Mad Max series. II being the best, based on the premise set out in the original, while III was over-hyped run-out-of-ideas bollocks.
Gordon Comstock, Apr 25 2001
  

       "Speed 2" anyone?
*All* the "Back to Future" films blur into one for me.
I read yesterday that "Bridget Jones's Diary 2" is planned...
hippo, Apr 25 2001
  

       Well I agree 2nd indiana was weakest of three, but also think third was at least as good as the first (probably because of Sean Connery). And just to throw another sprat amongst the widgeon, what about sequels which arew all as good as each other - i.e. The Godfather Trilogy. Certainly II was better than I. However, when a film clearly has a non-returnable ending like Highlander did, sequels should simply be banned. Could you imagine, "When Harry met Sally: The Divorce", "Casablanca:Return to Africa" or how about "The Great Escape:Back Inside"?
goff, May 01 2001
  

       "Thelma and Louise: That cliff wasn't as high as it looked"
hippo, May 01 2001
  

       Unforgiven II: Maybe I'll Consider Forgiving You This Time. Punk.
globaltourniquet, May 01 2001
  

       I'm personally holding out for 'The Beverly Hillbillies: The Rage'.
RobGraham, May 01 2001
  

       Saving Private Ryan II: Back to the Village
globaltourniquet, May 01 2001
  

       A great idea... except for the fact that Highlander II is about a hundred times *better* than Highlander (*despite* the absence of James Cosmo, and the addition of the appalling Virginia Madsen.)

A better subtitle would be "Judgment Day".
macm, May 02 2001
  

       OK, how about "The Death of Mary, Queen of Scots, Part II: She Lives." Anyone up for "Breakfast Club II: Hey, We're All Forty"? "Braveheart II: Fooled You, I Escaped"? "Dr. Strangelove II: Inside the Mine Shaft"?   

       On the other hand, there were the people who changed "The Madness of King George III" into "The Madness of King George" just because they didn't want anyone to mistakenly think it was a sequel *boggle*. . . .   

       . . . . which still doesn't explain "The Return of the Secaucus Seven."   

       And anyone who thinks "Highlander II" was REALLY better than "Highlander" should have his, um, head examined. . . .
deacon, May 14 2001
  

       I would like to know on what points the second highlander was better then the first. [macm], care to explain?
barnzenen, Sep 07 2001
  

       I'm not so sure this thread should be taken up again, but it's too late now. I consider "Evil Dead 2" much better than the original.
snarfyguy, Sep 08 2001
  

       A big fat smack for MCAM on that one. There can be only no reasons...   

       PeterSealy, while I defer to your superior insight on most topics, I liked the fourth book, even if I can't spell it (Techanu?) - or am I thinking of a totally different series? I don't think I am.   

       Hitchhiker's guide to the galexy 4 - "so long and thanks for all the quickening."   

       Centauri: "Austin Powers II: Die, Vanessa, Die". Maybe that was the point, though, I could never tell.
Deity, Sep 08 2001
  

       From Corona Coming Attractions, reported May 2000:   

       "The title Universal is using is now The Mummy Returns. And we're sure that means the third film will be called The Mummy Forever."   

       In my opinion, that's actually a pretty damn good title.
mrkillboy, Sep 08 2001
  

       The Batman naming scheme. <And weren't the last two of those movies stinkers, too...whoo! I mean, did we -really- need to see Schwarzenegger's nipples lit up with blue neon?>
StarChaser, Sep 08 2001
  

       A.I. The return of mommy...
RayfordSteele, Feb 15 2002
  

       But if they had never made the third Mad Max movie, my town would probably never have had the idea to build our Municipal Thunderdome!   

       Some good came of it.
cpt kangarooski, Feb 16 2002
  

       I am holdibg out some hope for the Lord of the Rings films... but then Tolkien considered the whole thing to be one book in 3 volumes so maybe it is just one film?   

       Just hope there never is a titanic 2...
RobertKidney, Feb 16 2002
  

       Actually, Tolkien thought of his magnum opus as one work in six "books." If I recall correctly, it was Houghton-Mifflin which broke it into three volumes (two books per volume). Tolkien called the two books in the first volume (commonly called "The Fellowship of the Ring") are entitled "The Fellowship of the Ring" and "The Ring Goes South" (if memory serves). Tolkien himself wanted the last volume to be called "The War of the Ring." Houghton-Mifflin decided to name the second volume "The Two Towers," and Tolkien acquiesced, even though he had thought of no such name.   

       In short, the Lord of the Rings is a single work, and doesn't suffer from the dreaded Onus Sequelae. (Can you imagine "Fellowship II: Frodo Returns"?) Ironically, however, The Lord of the Rings is itself a sequel. Tolkien wrote The Hobbit first, and when he determined to write more about them, he had to think up something from The Hobbit which would easily blend into a good story for the next book. He decided to use Bilbo's ring, and the rest, as they say, is history.   

       Thankfully, however, Tolkien was a literateur, not a movie mogul, so his masterpiece is not called something barbaric such as "Hobbit II" or "The Hobbit Returns." Or "Bilbo: the Quickening."
Sme, Sep 13 2002
  

       I hope the film version doesn't screw it up.
Sme, Sep 13 2002
  

       I doubt it. I saw a 1-minute trailer to Two Towers last week, and it made me weep. I shit you not. The majesty, the tragedy, the WW2 analogies... WEEP I tell you.
General Washington, Nov 18 2002
  

       The Lord of the Rings movies are a little different situation from the norm. All three movies were made at the same time to avoid the irritating effects of aging on the actors. Thus, both of the sequels were already in the can when the first one was released. In retrospect the strategy is genius, as using this method will produce three movies with similar acting and production values, and with actors who are no older than they were at the end of the previous movie. And when the whole set comes out on DVD in Spring/Summer '04 you'll be able to sit back and basically watch a single 10 hour movie! But if Fellowship had been a flop, they would have taken a 3-movie hit in the wallet for the price of one!
ton80, Nov 18 2002
  

       It was a flop, ton80. full of questionable behavior. barefoot hiking? what's with that? I'm just killing time here waiting for Faster and Furiouser. That or YYY.
Admiral Hackbar, Nov 18 2002
  

       I like it. The Quickening rule reminds me of the concept of Jumping the Shark, derived from the Happy Days episode where Fonzie is waterskiing and jumps the shark: the point in time which marks the start of the inexorable decline. Check the link. It is a term the english language needed. I'm sure the german had it already.
bungston, Nov 18 2002
  

       The filming of Superman II was largely overlapped with Superman I; I don't know if any sets were built for Superman II before Superman I was released, but scenes which took place on sets from the first movie were filmed when the first movie was produced. This avoided the expense of having to rebuild sets for the second movie, or of having to spend insane amounts of money keeping sets in storage.   

       Screen tests used scenes from both films, in part because some characters (esp. Ursa, Non, and General Zod) had much larger roles in the second film than the first. It would have been very bad to shoot the first film with people in those roles who would be unable to act usefully in the second.
supercat, Nov 18 2002
  

       Highlander 2 should never have been made. I think it is telling that the third highlander movie ignores the existence ofthe second and continues on from the first.   

       I have heard that Dumb and Dumberer (the quickening) is in the works. Why god why?
madradish, Feb 08 2003
  

       I can't remember if it was 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre III, or TCM IV, that had Dennis Hopper in it, but it was by far the best of the series. Its a bit hard to find , but its totally outstanding. Hopper at his most wired. Pukka!
briandamage, Feb 09 2003
  

       The new matrix films may buck this trend somewhat. They are sequels made by the same people, so #2 should be subject to the 'proven concept, make better film second time round' idea that supercat writes of, above. However they will also be subject to the LOTR effect, as I belive they were also filmed in one shoot. Plus I saw the trailer on the big screen yesterday and it was way beyond cool.
Zircon, Feb 10 2003
  

       [goff:] //Well I agree 2nd indiana was weakest of three, but also think third was at least as good as the first (probably because of Sean Connery). //   

       When I first saw the third, I would have agreed with that sentiment. When I saw the first one again, though, I was struck by how great a movie it was, and the third seemed shallow by comparison.
supercat, Feb 10 2003
  

       BTW, in an era of unimaginatively-named sequels, it's interesting to look back in time at what may be the least imaginatively-named sequel ever.   

       In 1876, Henry C. Work wrote what may be the most famous of his songs (notable for adding a common term to the English lexicon): "Grandfather's Clock"(*)   

       In the years soon following, a number of songwriters came up with variations on that theme: "Grandmother's Clock", "Grandmother's Watch", and "Since Grandfather Died" [the latter being most clearly a sequel]. Henry C. Work's sequel, while musically probably the best (I also like Grandmother's Watch), has the least imaginative title: "Sequel to Grandfather's Clock".   

       (*) The title of the song, clearly printed on the original sheet music and advertisements therefor, is "Grandfather's Clock". Webster's Dictionary in defining "grandfather clock" refers to the song as "My Grandfather's Clock", but I believe it errs there.
supercat, Feb 10 2003
  

       Love it. Godfather 3: The Quickening.   

       How about a subtitle for sequels that many critics thought were great, or superior, but were really crap? I think the prototype of this is "Babe: Pig in the City." "Star Wars: Episode 2: Pig in the City."
kevindimie, Mar 31 2003
  

       "Reloaded" is shorter and easier to say.
ato_de, Jun 19 2003
  

       "Lord of the Rings IV"

Gandulf: "I meant to tell you this before, Frodo, but actually there's an even more powerful ring"
hippo, Jun 01 2004
  

       There was an excellent sketch on Deadringers last night. Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King Special Collectors edition DVD, featuring an extra 98 false endings to the film. The final one occurs as Gandalf and Frodo are about to board the ship. Gandalf points out to sea and cries "Oh my god! Shark!" Which chimes nicely with bungston's anno about Jumping the Shark.
DrBob, Jun 01 2004
  

       useless trivia:   

       apparently (so some bloke told me) the original title of 'The Madness of King Geore' was 'The Madness of King George III' but the producers were worried that an American audience wouldn't go and see it if they hadn't seen the first two.   

       groan.
etherman, Jun 01 2004
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle