It tells you that the plot will involve accomplishing a task "in time," which sets up the repeated ticking clock scenario that everyone is living under. It's not as creative as the first title, but it doesn't "tell you nothing."
Edge of Tomorrow 2
- Thread starter Starbreaker
- Start date
Not to mention the old soap opera Search for Tomorrow.
Since when was Edge of Tomorrow a guilty pleasure? It did better with critics than general audiences.
I'm not sure how they could make a sequel without it being a rehash. I suppose they could flip the script and have the US government be using day repeating to kill aliens. Like, they found a way to take the ability from Tom Cruise and started experimenting on it to use it for galactic dominance.
I'm not sure how they could make a sequel without it being a rehash. I suppose they could flip the script and have the US government be using day repeating to kill aliens. Like, they found a way to take the ability from Tom Cruise and started experimenting on it to use it for galactic dominance.
Last edited:
Around the same time as "All You Need Is Kill" made sense as a title. It's right up there with "All Your Base are Belong to Us" as far as sensible phrases/titles go.
The only thing I can think of is that they show it from someone else's perspective. Maybe Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt's characters weren't the only ones to be affected by it. I mean, there had to be some reason they had to keep resetting that battle (and presumably others, since that wasn't the initial invasion) beyond just them.
But yeah, even that would result in a rehash one way or another. But... since that gimmick is pretty much the only thing the movie has going for it, it's sort of hard to avoid rehashing it. It's like expecting Groundhog Day 2 to not include a similar temporal loop, or the next Indiana Jones movie not to include an archaeologist searching some lost artifact.
It's more about how you're going to make that gimmick interesting a second time.
I really liked Oblivion and find it to be an underrated movie, but I think EoT/L.D.R. was the superior movie it excited me more and had a more interesting premise. For me. That said, Oblivion lends itself better to a sequel than EoT/L.D.R. does; not even sure where they can go from here. What, he gets the ability again? Since he already knows how it works and likely would have told Blunt's character about it afterwards (since it happened to her to) isn't half any potential story gone since part of the "fun" of it was him learning and manipulating the rules of the resetting day? Not really sure where a sequel can go.
That could work, but I suspect any sequel would want to capitalize off Cruise's name and star power and they couldn't do Blunt's character's story and not have Cruise around in a non meaningful role (since she's unfamiliar with him when they first meet. Hell when he meets her at the end she doesn't even seem to treat him like an officer.)
The problem with having a prequel is that it's already known how it ends and that it does not end in a real victory.
As said elsewhere, the story itself is more the point than the greater meaning behind it.
Audiences flocked to see three Star Wars prequels despite knowing the third would end with Anakin turning evil and killing everyone else.
Heck, that was the thing that made the third prequel work better than the first two -- the weight given its events by the looming sense of inescapable tragedy.
And lots of movies tell stories whose outcomes are already known. I doubt many people went to see Valkyrie expecting it to end with Hitler's assassination. Or went to see Ben-Hur expecting Charlton Heston to rescue Jesus from the cross and stage a daring chariot escape.
Enjoyed the first two thirds of Edge of Tomorrow (a title I actually prefer to the others; there's a kind of poetry to it, especially if you think of the edge as a metaphorical knife's edge), but found the third act pitiful, which soured me on the movie as a whole, and certainly have no interest in a sequel.
Cruise has always done big, dumb movies, some good and some bad, but he used to alternate those with artsier, riskier projects. Over the past decade since 2007's Lions for Lambs (in which he was only an ensemble player), however, it's been almost all action franchise stuff, most of it escapist and frothy, though he is doing a fact-based thriller coming out next January that might have some dramatic heft. I wonder if artsier filmmakers have been shying away from him due to the Scientology stuff, or if he's become more narrow-minded and insular for the same reason.
Cruise has always done big, dumb movies, some good and some bad, but he used to alternate those with artsier, riskier projects. Over the past decade since 2007's Lions for Lambs (in which he was only an ensemble player), however, it's been almost all action franchise stuff, most of it escapist and frothy, though he is doing a fact-based thriller coming out next January that might have some dramatic heft. I wonder if artsier filmmakers have been shying away from him due to the Scientology stuff, or if he's become more narrow-minded and insular for the same reason.
That was Star Wars, and only the end result was known, not all the details. We knew Anakin became Vader, but we did not know why or how. Millions of people spent decades being emotionally attached to those characters and those stories. Historical or religious stories with known endings are different because they are foundational stories of our culture and people enjoy celebrating them, and they usually are used to bring out emotional performances from actors.
Not a lot of people are emotionally attached to the characters of Edge of Tomorrow, and far more of the details are spelled out in the original.
Last edited:
But isn't that why audiances (or part of them) went to see the PQ to see how Anakin fell to the dark side.
Audiances flocked to the cinema to see Titanic despite knowing how it ends.
If a story were only worthwhile if you didn't know how it ended, then no story would ever be worth rereading or rewatching. Surprise can be nice, but it's not the exclusive purpose of all fiction.
Which is fitting--in that was what happened all through the first movie anyway.
Start over.
In a sense, isn't Edge of Tomorrow its own sequel many times over? Or is that its own remake?
From a marketing standpoint, in my professional opinion, All you Need is Kill makes no sense as a movie title for the original, as it says nothing about what the movie might entail (Yes I know there was a lot of killing, but that wasn't the point of the story). The point is for the title to actually have something that alludes to what's going on in the movie, because the now shorter-than-it-used-to-be attention span of the average movie viewer would see that and go "huh?"...
I wholeheartedly agree that AYNIK is very edgy, but not having any reference as far as the original novel goes, I'd be completely lost unless i'd seen the trailers or was a big Tom Cruise fan. Edge of Tomorrow is very safe, descriptive (Ooo! Timey Whimey!) and very "popcorn fun," which is what that movie was.
I wholeheartedly agree that AYNIK is very edgy, but not having any reference as far as the original novel goes, I'd be completely lost unless i'd seen the trailers or was a big Tom Cruise fan. Edge of Tomorrow is very safe, descriptive (Ooo! Timey Whimey!) and very "popcorn fun," which is what that movie was.