It's a good movie, but it's not better than 2001: A Space Odyssey, not by a long shot.
Superior sci-fi sequals?
- Thread starter saturn5
- Start date
It's a good movie, but it's not better than 2001: A Space Odyssey, not by a long shot.
S
Stone_Cold_Sisko
Guest
Wrath of Khan
Empire Strikes Back
Spider-Man 2
X-Men 2
The Dark Knight
Empire Strikes Back
Spider-Man 2
X-Men 2
The Dark Knight
Really? I found them both about equally good. Maybe Bride is better, but I can't remember it being significantly so that it would be considered so by "almost everyone". Been a little while since I've seen them though.
But I enjoy pretty much all of those Universal horror films, including all of the later combined ones.
I voted for Terminator 2 and TWOK. But how could anyone not vote for TWOK?
Along with Godfather II, Bride is routinely cited by critics and film scholars as one of the best sequels ever. It gets points over the original for being wittier, more blackly comic in places, and having a more colorful supporting cast. You've got Ernest Thesiger as Dr. Praetorious, the heart-breaking scene with the old blind man, the bit with the miniature homunculi, the scene where the monster is crucified by the villagers, the Bride herself, and plenty of classic dialogue. "To a new world of gods and monsters!"
And no turgid drawing-room scenes with John Boles . . .
Along with Godfather II, Bride is routinely cited by critics and film scholars as one of the best sequels ever. It gets points over the original for being wittier, more blackly comic in places, and having a more colorful supporting cast. You've got Ernest Thesiger as Dr. Praetorious, the heart-breaking scene with the old blind man, the bit with the miniature homunculi, the scene where the monster is crucified by the villagers, the Bride herself, and plenty of classic dialogue. "To a new world of gods and monsters!"
And no turgid drawing-room scenes with John Boles . . .
Hm well maybe it's time I watch them both again and pay more attention this time.
Expo67
Captain
Perhaps I should have been more specific. I'm not saying that it is better than the 1968 MGM classic. No way that one could be better than the other.
I'm saying that the 1984 MGM sequel classic is just as excellent as the classic Stanley Kubrick film.
Both are equal in cinematic excellence and quality.
Loosely translated, both are equally great and on the same level in terms of excellent science fiction cinema.
I'm not too fond of 2010: The Year We Make Contact, mostly because I don't think it holds up too well next to 2010: Odyssey Two. I suppose it's still a pretty good movie, though, and my family who watched both movies but hadn't read the books liked it.
Expo67
Captain
I've tried watching 2001 5 or 6 times, and just can't get into it. I'm interested in seeing 2010 one day, as I understand it's more entertaining for those of us who just couldn't get into 2001
2001 simply is boring. You could condense the movie to about 15-30 minutes and would lose no information at all.
What I love are people that always complain about the "two-hour-Enterprise-flyby" of TMP and then say how 2001 was a friggin' masterpiece.
What I love are people that always complain about the "two-hour-Enterprise-flyby" of TMP and then say how 2001 was a friggin' masterpiece.
Last edited:
It's all about your expectations. If you're expecting an exciting science fiction blockbuster, with colorful characters and clever one-liners, you're going to be disappointed with 2001. But that's like attending a classical musical concert and complaining that are no good tunes to dance to.
If you're in the right frame of mind, and watching the movie on a big screen, it can be an awesome, majestic experience. It's not a story about people. It's about marvelling at vast expanses of time and space . . . .
But, yeah, I can't imagine watching it on tv. It's an experience, not a story . . . .
The difference between 2001 and the flyby in TMP is that STAR TREK isn't a cerebral art film about human evolution. People wanted adventure and excitement and humor--like in the old tv show.
If you tried showing a foreign art film to an audience that was expecting a summer blockbuster, you would get the same complaints. Even though the same audience might enjoy the art film if that's what they set out to see.
If you're in the right frame of mind, and watching the movie on a big screen, it can be an awesome, majestic experience. It's not a story about people. It's about marvelling at vast expanses of time and space . . . .
But, yeah, I can't imagine watching it on tv. It's an experience, not a story . . . .
The difference between 2001 and the flyby in TMP is that STAR TREK isn't a cerebral art film about human evolution. People wanted adventure and excitement and humor--like in the old tv show.
If you tried showing a foreign art film to an audience that was expecting a summer blockbuster, you would get the same complaints. Even though the same audience might enjoy the art film if that's what they set out to see.
I watched 2001 already knowing what it was about and what it was supposed to be. I didn't expect 'splosions. Still: boring.
I don't know. I've watched my Blu-ray of it a couple times on my 40" LCD and Surround Sound.
I agree with this, they are almost different genres so it is hard to really say one is better than the other. Most of the other selections are very similar films to there predecessor.
But Alien was more of a suspense horror movie, and Aliens was more of a generic action movie, one of my all time favorite action movies, but still not the really the same kind of movie Alien was
