Why is the first movie always the best movie?

>>79739235

It's not trying to impersonate itself.

Limitations and true creative vision.

As soon as something is a success money gets thrown at it and this kills the IP.

>>79739235
it's fresh and co do what it wants. Sequels and prequels suffer from trying to do something new while still conforming to the lore and end up fucking up both. Very rarely do sequels/prequels ever turn out to be as good and usually requires the same writer/creators

>>79739313
>co do
can do

>>79739254
Pretty much.
Also part for the blame is the studio that dont really know what made the movie good in the first place and just want more money.
This goes the same for Jarhead for example.

File: Terminator2poster.jpg (50KB, 258x384px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 258x384px

>>79739235

not sure op

because only really good movies get sequels.

File: SW_-_Empire_Strikes_Back.jpg (62KB, 288x446px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 288x446px

>>79739235
>>79739364

still not that sure

>The Godfather II
>Empire Strikes Back
>Spider-Man 2
>The Road Warrior
>Terminator 2
>The Dark Knight
>The Good The Bad and the Ugly
>literally about 20 of the Bond films after Dr. No
>Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade
>Captain America: The Winter Soldier
>Arguably Toy Story 2, then 3

Plus, in reality, Silence of the Lambs is a sequel to Manhunter.

It happens, OP. Some of the best films are sequels.

Aliens is bad now?

File: In_the_Name_of_the_King_-_theatrical_poster.jpg (54KB, 279x415px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 279x415px

>>79739368

haha when will you autists learn

What surprises me is how often sequels manage to live up to or surpass the original

>Aliens (I prefer Alien but it manages to create its own legacy)
>For A Few Dollars More
>Empire Strikes Back
>T2 (Again I like T1 better but different strokes)
>Spider-Man 2
>Toy Story 2
>Temple of Doom (Fucking fight me)
>The Lost World
>X-Men 2
>Godfather 2
>The Dark Knight

The real question is why is the third film ALWAYS the worst. Is there a single series where 3 is best?

>>79739457

you could argue Return of the King for that since it swept the oscars

>>79739489
>since it swept the oscars
Not him but that means nothing and you should know better.

>>79739457
There's fewer, because less franchises/trilogies exist than sequel pairings.

>Return of the King (maybe... I prefer FotR myself, but most prefer RotK)
>Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade
>The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
>Prisoner of Azkaban, if you count the first three Harry Potter movies as a group.
>Goldfinger (Connery Bonds)
>Skyfall (Craig Bonds)
>Iron Man 3

And of FUCKING COURSE
>Sky Kids 3-D: Game Over

>>79739513

just throwing the notion out there. two towers is my favorite desu

>>79739550
Extended or Theatrical?

Be aware, there is a right and wrong answer.

>>79739235
simple answer. The first in any series is the one most worked on. The others are only made because of the firsts success. Meaning fast turn around and sloppy shit.

>>79739547

I'd argue 2 for Indy and Dollars. 1 for Iron Man. But fair on the rest.

>>79739667
I honestly don't think I've ever met anyone who prefered Temple of Doom over Raiders or Crusade.

>>79739755

It's a much darker and meaner Indy. I absolutely love it. I know I'm in the minority though.

>>79739815
I feel. That's probably why I didn't like it as well. Not because it's a darker, meaner Indy like you said... but because he's a darker, meaner Indy juxtaposed with a silly, over-the-top character group (the woman and Shortround) and just downright silly shit like eating monkey brains, minecarts, etc

Still fun though. And better than Crystal Skull, which is a blessing.

>>79739235
Aliens was a fucking mistake anon

>>79739562

theatrical desu. for all of them

>>79740389
Man, if you liked Lord of the Rings, I highly, highly insist you make some time and experience the extended versions. For one, they are the actual films that Jackson and Wingnut and WETA set out to make. Where the theatricals glow, the extendeds shine. The story is more precise and flows much better. The things they cut for the theaters range from "very neat to see" to "fucking crucial - who allowed that to be cut?"

I actually got to interview Grant Major - the Oscar-winning Production Designer on the three films - and he said that the theatrical versions, as good as they are, are travesties and the extended versions are just "the real versions."

The scene after the prologue in Fellowship ALONE is worth the extended trilogy price tag.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PcUnqlPA8A

>>79739562
extended is absolute garbage

>>79740492
I refuse to believe this is anything other than trolling

>>79739441
Someone made a dungeon siege movie? But why?

>>79740477

I bought the Blu Ray set with the Extended Versions but here's my question.

I've never seen the LOTR movies. Should I watch Theatrical first or just go whole hog extended?

>>79740647

Honestly, ignore the theatricals. These aren't really 'extended editions' so much as they are the actual films that had to be cut by a total of, like, three hours to fit into theaters. In 1 and 3, the cuts are very unnecessary and you miss out on a ton of world building, characterization, and some awesome scenes to boot. In 2, however, the scenes that are cut are CRUCIAL to the story.

The 'extended' tag is more for marketing. They are the actual films. 'Theatrical' implies 'original,' but the original cuts were, in fact, what is called 'extended.'

Makes sense?

Also, if you like the films, the Blu-ray set has "The Appendices" making-of documentaries (hours and hours of them) and they are worth your time; each one of them. You see the absolute passion and love and care that went into every single frame (and some things you'd never get to see) and they are quite entertaining.

I do envy you, Anon - seeing LotR for the first time. They're my favorite films of all time. Be sure to make a thread or something when you finish them.

File: 1484093170453.jpg (65KB, 411x412px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 411x412px

>>79739457
>temple of doom

>>79740737
This guy is totally right. The Extended Editions are the only real way to watch the trilogy. You get so much that was intended to be in the original release, it should be criminal to exclude them.

>>79740477
that was comfy af
redpill me on the extended versions

Star Trek is an outlier. Part 2 and 4 being better than Part 1.

>>79739235
Because the filmmakers ego hasn't inflated past the point of no return
So you get something more pure

>>79741136
I hope Ridley Scott sees this as he's twiddling away on his macbook like little faggot

>>79739457
>Is there a single series where 3 is best

for you

>>79739457
In trilogies none that I can think of, unless Linklater's Before films stays at three, I could see one arguing for Before Midnight. Return of the King is really good as well, but it's still probably my least favorite of the three.

If you're going with film series I could see people arguing for Goldfinger or The Prisoner of Azkaban. But, of course, as a rule, by the time you reach the third series, especially for trilogies, that movie isn't going to be very good.

>>79740477
Definitely worth it. I only wish they hadn't cut Tom Bombadil. He was one of my favorite minor characters from the books. I understand why they did, but I still wish he was there.