Although i can't complain when good filmmakers create follow ups to amazing films some examples include Jurassic Park, Alien and Star wars. However i will complain when the follow up films aren't all that good.
I will start with Jurassic park 3, the first two were awesome films, shot well, brilliant graphics and sound design i couldn't fault them, even the story lines were well thought out. But why didn't this happen with the third film??????? A dare devil boy goes to close to the island while hand gliding or something and gets trapped there (good start) a lie is told to get an expert and mercenaries to go and rescue him, also a good start. But the first problem for me is when Alan (the expert) is on the plane and he dreams of a velocaraptor in the plane that talks to him..... OK, i can understand how he'd have a bad dream about a dinosaur in the plane, but why the hell did it talk? i don't know whether Ive missed anything but for me that took away the scariness of this dinosaur because it humanized it too much, maybe if it was explained a little more then maybe it would've been OK. the second error is: why did they change the look of the velocaraptors?? in the first and second films they were a simply plain dark green/Grey color. but in the third film some of them were almost multicolored, and some of them had weird thing on their heads which looked strangely like a Mohawk hairstyle. then there is no break from them being chased by something that wants to eat them, in the first two films they have time to regroup and talk and plan and it makes for a little more interesting story. but in the third film all they do is run, call me a skeptic but in my opinion only athletes who train a lot have the ability to run as much as they do in the film. seriously though a mother (who's job is not reviled) an office worker, a 14 year old boy and two people who spend most of there time on their knees brushing dust off bones, something tells me that these people aren't trained athletes. and if i was attacked as much as they were in this film id just give up... big dinosaur that looks oddly like a tyrannosaurus Rex but isn't, then they run into an actual tyrannosaurus and then the big dinosaur comes back (and as a side note the big dinosaur is meant to be bigger than the tyrannosaurus but its smaller but still wins in a fight... oh and yeah the big dinosaur also has a mohawk thing), then velocaraptors, then the big dinosaur, then big man eating birds, then the big dinosaur and then velocaraptors. they never seem to meet any nice herbivores.
Now i'll move onto the 'Alien' quadrilogy. the first 2 films again i couldn't fault them. the Third and fourth films are filled with so many continuity errors its not even funny. The basic principles of the film is that a face hugger lays one egg inside a host then dies. So in the third film why is it that the one face hugger that is on board the escape ship manages to lay 2 eggs? one in a dog and one in Sygorny Weever. In the fourth film Ripley (Sygorny Weever) is cloned, however in the cloning process the cloned sygorny weever gets Alien blood, which is essentially acid, so when she gets hit in the nose and her blood burns through the floor why does it not burn through most of the ship as it does in the first film? then because of the cloning process the Alien queen has a human womb which she uses to birth a alien human hybrid, so where do all the face huggers come from?? because as far as the story implies apart from the single egg that was on the escape ship, all the face hugger eggs and aliens were destroyed in the second film, and with only a human womb the alien queen can't lay face hugger eggs!! WHY WON'T THIS FILM MAKE SENSE??????
To be honest, i think that people should just stick to trilogies, because a fourth film always seems rushed and just annoying. and if they are going to make a third film, PUT MORE THOUGHT INTO IT INSTEAD OF DOING IT FOR MONEY.
I will give the benefit of the doubt, because Steven Spielberg is making a 4th Jurassic Park film, so with any luck he will revisit the style of the first two films, (i would like to make it clear that the benefit of the doubt is given in this instance only because it is Steven Spielberg.)
No comments:
Post a Comment