I was wondering how you all feel about the movie endings we get lately? I think we have all become accustom to the franchise series and we have more movie franchises going on now than ever. There are a lot of times when the ending of one film leaves enough room for the next film or even leads in straight to another film. Yet each film usually at least resolves some of the current plot.

So now we are seeing more of the half-movie or third-of-the-movie. Of course the Star Wars trilogies have been going on for a while. Harry Potter was more than that and even broke up the last film into two films. So I realize this is nothing new, its just become more annoyingly common.

SPOILER ALERT: Infinity Wars, which just opened, is half of a movie. I think most people already know that since the actors have already filmed the second part, but I'll give it a spoiler alert anyway.

OK, so my question is, am I the only one who resents this? Am I the only one who wants to see a complete movie and not a never ending story? I don't mind it so much when the characters keep coming back, that's sequels. But I do mind it when the whole story/movie just ends with a cliffhanger. I did not pay for half a movie, why should I get one?

As a result I won't be going to Infinity Wars this weekend . I will wait for the 2nd half and probably see the whole thing on a cheap DVD some day. If you have to wait until next year for a finish anyway, why get into it now? Obviously I'm in the minority because it will make a fortune, but I don't feel that asking for an ending is as unreasonable as it seems to have become.

I think worse scenarios are where movies are remade where there is absolutely no way the originals could be bettered (Ben Hur, Total Recall), come to a satisfying end with no need for a sequel (The Matrix, The Mask), or my own pet peeve, the remake that could have expanded on the original. War of the Worlds could have seen the Martians return, The Day the Earth Stood Still, where Klaatu comes to make good the promise of destroying the planet because we didn't heed the warning he gave, or The Time Machine where George tries to change history. The last three would have all been better than what we were served up.

I don't mind a movie that purposefully ends on a cliff-hanger. It's where one stops open-ended so there may be a sequel if the first makes enough cash which gives me the rats. The sequel always seems forced. The Avengers: Infinity War couldn't have done anything else but be a two-parter because of the storyline. I can highly recommend it purely because it needs to be seen several times to absorb what's happening. I know that if I'd seen it first on DVD, I would be forever stopping and running back to see a sequence again. That's why you have to take the movie first at the cinema. Apart from that, IT'S AWESOME!!!

Well my main focus is always on the ending, because if the ending of a movie doesn't wrap things up properly for me, no matter how much I enjoyed it up until then, I always feel cheated.

I do agree with you about unnecessary remakes though and most of them really seem to be inferior to the originals. You have to figure that the original was good to begin with, or no one would want to copy it. Then it seems like the comparisons just don't hold up, even though modern films may have better actors and better technology for the effects. Maybe its because those older versions are so easily found, why bother. Even a silly horror flick like Fright Night was butchered in the excessive remake, except for one good scene.

I would also add remakes made on good foreign films that are redone for English language audiences, like The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo or Let the Right One In, to the peeve list. I find that these films are almost always better with the sub-titles than when they try to adapt them to a different country of origin or to different attitudes that then alter the story.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
I would also add remakes made on good foreign films that are redone for English language audiences, like The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo or Let the Right One In, to the peeve list. I find that these films are almost always better with the sub-titles than when they try to adapt them to a different country of origin or to different attitudes that then alter the story.

I can well understand that view but that also points to a set of films that were both good and bad. The original 'The Magnificent Seven' was a remake of 'The Seven Samurai'. It was a truly great movie as was the japanese original. I can still sit down and watch it and thoroughly enjoy it even though I've seen it many times. The sad apology of a remake that escaped into the cinemas last year was dire and should never have been made.

As a passing note, I got to see Avengers: Infinity War in the cinema earlier today. Well worth seeing. Without making the film about 5 hours long, there is no way this storyline could take place in a single movie. I didn't have a problem with that. My only winge would be having to wait until the very last credit rolled before the inevitable 'credit scene' popped up

The Magnificent Seven was a classic western with an all star cast, even though most of them were not truly known as stars until years after they did the movie. It was a remake of The Seven Samurai, but the change from feudal Japan to the American West really altered it in a way that the same basic story satisfied both cultures. So I think it the best possible exception where everyone was happy. I agree, that last one was terrible.

Its also interesting to make note of how many movies use that same device from The Magnificent Seven. You know the one I mean. Let's go out and gather the gang and explain their back stories as they come on board. Justice League was probably the last one to do it. I haven't seen Infinity War yet, but I think we are supposed to know everyone already with that one.

Digressing from the topic of endings, but seeing as it has been mentioned...

I get really irritated by pointless remakes. Graham said it already but the original Total Recall just could not be bettered. The remake is so phenomenally poor it's hard to see why they thought it was worth doing.

Robocop '87 is another modern classic that was infinitely better the first go around.

Planet of the Apes, Halloween, Psycho... why re-do them?

It is a VERY rare thing when a remake is better than the original.

Did you hear that this fall there is an 11th HALLOWEEN film coming out, once again starring Jamie Lee Curtis ?

And confusingly, it is simply titled HALLOWEEN-- just like the original from 1978 and the 9th film from 2007.

The unnecessary remake I sadly sat through recently was Murder on the Orient Express. Don't even bother with this snore fest. The one from the 70's was at least fun to watch for the all star cast. This one wanted to be politically correct, even though they did not change the era or location, and none of the actors were especially good in their parts. It was a preachy film where you cared about not one character.

Most people don't know that the famous 1941 Humphrey Bogart film "The Maltese Falcon" was actually the second version, that it was previously done in 1931. The earlier one is mostly forgotten, but it is available on DVD

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
Most people don't know that the famous 1941 Humphrey Bogart film "The Maltese Falcon" was actually the second version, that it was previously done in 1931. The earlier one is mostly forgotten, but it is available on DVD

It was actually the third version. There was a 1936 adaptation of the book called Satan Met a Lady .

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
Did you hear that this fall there is an 11th HALLOWEEN film coming out, once again starring Jamie Lee Curtis ?

And confusingly, it is simply titled HALLOWEEN-- just like the original from 1978 and the 9th film from 2007.

Yes, very much looking forward to seeing what they do with it as it is meant to be a straight sequel to the first one.

I do find it funny that retconning film franchises is pretty much accepted these days. Too hard to work with what has come before? Just ignore it!
This new 'Halloween' is like a do-over of H20, except this one is 40 years later!

There are so many remakes of the Christie books it's ridiculous. On TV and in the cinema.
Currently, Julia Mackenzie is playing Miss Marple, doing the exactly the same stories that Geraldine McEwan (2000's) and Joan Hickson (1980's) have already done.

quote:

Originally posted by X:

Yes, very much looking forward to seeing what they do with it as it is meant to be a straight sequel to the first one.

I don't know what you mean by that. Halloween 2 was a straight sequel to the first one. I believe the time frame was about 10 years later. I'll clarify that, it was 10 years later in story time. Myers was locked up, so there was nothing going on and the second film was a direct extension of the first one.

So then a straight sequel to the first one would be a remake of Halloween 2.

Also I saw H20 and was disappointed with it. Can't imagine what's left for any H40.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Raven,

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

quote:

Originally posted by X:

Yes, very much looking forward to seeing what they do with it as it is meant to be a straight sequel to the first one.

I don't know what you mean by that. Halloween 2 was a straight sequel to the first one. I believe the time frame was about 10 years later. I'll clarify that, it was 10 years later in story time. Myers was locked up, so there was nothing going on and the second film was a direct extension of the first one.

So then a straight sequel to the first one would be a remake of Halloween 2.

Also I saw H20 and was disappointed with it. Can't imagine what's left for any H40.

Halloween II (1981) was set immediately after the cliff-hanger of the original Halloween (1978), minutes later in fact.

Then the 'anthology' Halloween III about the masks that they deemed a misfire.

So then they brought Michael Myers back for 4, 5 & 6 dealing with his niece or whatever. I couldn't even tell you.

Then #7 (H20) was meant to ignore 4,5,6 and be a sequel to 1 & 2. I quite enjoyed it and thought they could have finished things there nicely given the ending.

Resurrection followed on from H20, SPOILER killing off Jamie Lee Curtis. An abysmal film and one reason I am glad of the new film's retcon of the spoiler I mention.

Then we got the Rob Zombie reboot Halloween 1 & 2.

Now Halloween (2018) is meant to wipe the slate clean of ALL previous sequels and be a direct sequel to Halloween (1978).

Right, I stand corrected about the 10 years, he was already locked up. But I did recall that Halloween 2 was a straight extension, as opposed to a more regular sort of sequel.

But I still don't get the meaning of this new movie. They are leaving the original movie alone and picking up with a completely different plot for Halloween 2, is I guess what you're saying.

Why? Just to get the teenagers and 20 somethings that may never have actually seen any of the films?

Nah, I'm really not for this revisionist history thing. You just don't wipe out what has come before and pick it up at whatever point you choose. If you are changing the course of a story, just do a new story. The studios want it both ways, just to capitalize on an old title that might bring in some name recognition.

Yeah, it is basically a new go at a Halloween 2.

As I said, I'm looking forward to it. The first one is a classic and the idea seems to try and recapture some of that magic and they've been doing lots of things to generate some goodwill with the fans:

- John Carpenter is involved for the first time in a long time (doing the music)
- Nick Castle is back playing The Shape
- They've recreated the original 'Shatner' mask
- Little nods to some continuity: the new poster (when enhanced) shows Myers with a scarred eye - after his knitting needle injury in the original
- And Jamie Lee Curtis is back, after the diabolical way they handled her character in Resurrection

I'm really hoping it's good. Shouldn't be too hard given how bad most of the others in the series are!