Matrix prequel trilogy in the works for 2017

Famm_sl said:

Not sure what Batman they are talking about, but if its Nolan's they have 1 & 2 backwards.

Click to expand...

my opinion:

Star Wars - i still prefer Return of the Jedi to New Hope, so 2>3>1
Indiana Jones - 3>1>2
Matrix - correct
Star Trek - not a fan,never saw it.
Superman - all bad
Jurassic Park -correct
X-men - 3 should be negative
Spider-man - hate the 2nd and 3rd movies
LOTR - not a fan but....3=2>>>>1
Mad Max - 2>1>>>>>>3
Jaws - there is a 3rd movie?LOL
Back to the future - 3rd movie i really don't like it
Die Hard - 1>3>2
Blade - 1>>>>>2=3
Planet of the Apes - i only have seen 3: the '68 movie,the one with mark wahlberg (awful) and Rise of the planet of the apes.so it goes: '68>Rise>>>>>>>>>>marky mark

Godfather - 1>2>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>3
Rocky - there are 6(LOL) but between the 1st 3, 1>3>2
Terminator - i only know 2 and 1>>2
Rambo - 1>3>2
Batman - old ones right? 1>2>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>3
Batman (Nolan) - 2>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>1. 3 doesn't exist for me
Alien - 1>2>>>3

and:

Robocop - 1>>>>>2>>>>>>do not compute
Predator - 1>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>2>predators.
Starship Troopers - 1,the other 2 are unwatchable
Bourne - 2>3>1
Iron Man - 1 and that's it
Lethal Weapon - 2>3>1>4 (not a triology i know)
Mexico Trilogy - El Mariachi> Once upon > desperado

Also, Jurassic Park 3 is much better than 2. The Raptor nightmare still cracks me up every time I see it.

i totally disagree with terminator 2 being better than the first, and die hard 2 sucked donkey balls. the rest i can agree with.

T1 and T2 are both very, very good and for different reasons. T2 just has the crazy mainstream commercial success so it gets a nod.

the storyline in t2 is basically a mirror of t1. t2 has top notch stan winston effects but the movie is hurt by the presence of john connor and shit like "why do you cry?" t1 has pretty good special effects for its time, but its a little dull in some spots. t2 is just balls to the walls spare no expense excess and their CGI looks pretty goddamned good even 20 years later. id say both movies are equally good, but cameron tried a lot harder with t2 and it shows.

ohkcrlho_sl said:

Blade - 1>>>>>2=3

Click to expand...

How can you say this? Three is pretty bad, but two is good. Not as good as the first, but it's certainly better than three by a wide margin.

Maester Chuk_sl said:

the storyline in t2 is basically a mirror of t1. t2 has top notch stan winston effects but the movie is hurt by the presence of john connor and shit like "why do you cry?" t1 has pretty good special effects for its time, but its a little dull in some spots. t2 is just balls to the walls spare no expense excess and their CGI looks pretty goddamned good even 20 years later. id say both movies are equally good, but cameron tried a lot harder with t2 and it shows.

Click to expand...

the storyline in T1 is much, much better. T1 is man vs. machine, T2 winds up being machine vs. machine (the terminator in the end winds up saving the day). also, the whole john connor being a whiny, punk brat was a bit much. and the terminator not allowed to kill anyone? are you kidding me? he's a terminator! and why in the hell would john connor send a terminator back in time to save his mother who is an exact replica of the one who was sent back to kill her??? not saying that T2 was entirely bad, but special effects aside, it doesn't come close to the original.

Yeah, lots of people consider Star Trek 1/3 to be almost as good as ST2, and would rate them so high overall. And by lots of people I mean fucking nobody.

Unless that chart was supposed to be ST2, ST4, ST6.

etchazz_sl said:

the storyline in T1 is much, much better. T1 is man vs. machine, T2 winds up being machine vs. machine (the terminator in the end winds up saving the day). also, the whole john connor being a whiny, punk brat was a bit much. and the terminator not allowed to kill anyone? are you kidding me? he's a terminator! and why in the hell would john connor send a terminator back in time to save his mother who is an exact replica of the one who was sent back to kill her??? not saying that T2 was entirely bad, but special effects aside, it doesn't come close to the original.

Click to expand...

the t-1000 more than made up for the bodycount that arnold terminator did not do. john connor was the worst part of t2. both movies have the same plot.

x comes from the future to protect x from super killing machine. its the same thing. t2 wasnt machine versus machine only, it was man and machine version machine. yeah arnold saved the day, but he was reprogrammed by a human to save the day.

Maester Chuk_sl said:

the t-1000 more than made up for the bodycount that arnold terminator did not do. john connor was the worst part of t2. both movies have the same plot.

x comes from the future to protect x from super killing machine. its the same thing. t2 wasnt machine versus machine only, it was man and machine version machine. yeah arnold saved the day, but he was reprogrammed by a human to save the day.

Click to expand...

T2 would have been exponentially better if sarah connor sacrificed herself at the end and tackled the terminator into the molten steel, instead of arnold showing up at the last second and shooting the terminator and giving a cliche "i need a vacation" line.

they need to remake the terminator, starring shia labouf as john conner, will smith jr as the terminator, and the chick from twilight as sarah conner. skynet evolves from farmville and facebook.

wish negs were back, huh????

Kreugen_sl said:

Yeah, lots of people consider Star Trek 1/3 to be almost as good as ST2, and would rate them so high overall. And by lots of people I mean fucking nobody.

Unless that chart was supposed to be ST2, ST4, ST6.

Click to expand...

Three was fine in itself, it was just overshadowed by two and four.

Alex_sl said:

How can you say this? Three is pretty bad, but two is good. Not as good as the first, but it's certainly better than three by a wide margin.

Click to expand...

2 was just lazy (super zombies and blablabla).3 was more comedy than anything:

yes both were weak,maybe 2 is better than 3 but i didn't enjoy any of them

Arbitrary_sl said:

T1 and T2 are both very, very good and for different reasons. T2 just has thecrazy mainstream commercial successso it gets a nod.

Click to expand...

This.
T1 is more terror (unstoppable machine vs human).T2 is more action (similar to Alien/Aliens)
BUT.....T2 uses the same formula from the 1st movie: one baddie and one goddie use time travel to kill and to save a connor,respectively.so it's nothing new.great movie yes but T1 is superior.

Die Hard 3 is much better than Die Hard 2, a classic in fact.

I didn't really like the first Blade that much so I never watched a sequel.

Famm_sl said:

Click to expand...

No Toy Story on that list?

Jeaus, that image is going to rustle jimmies for a thousand pages.

People that hate Godfather 3 are the worst, theonlything that wasn't great was the casting.

I liked Andy Garcia, his daughter was the only bad part really. That and the convoluted plot with the church and the corporation, it was kind of dense.