Pfft thats nothing, my man Gojira has 29 movies(discounting a horrible American movie even though it was technically canon I admit to liking the cartoon).
I gotta watch the eight I haven't seen, I feel like a poser for not. TO GOOGLE!
[Movies] Let us rank series of movies.
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
- Status
I gotta watch the eight I haven't seen, I feel like a poser for not. TO GOOGLE!
He means that the Fast and the Furious isn't a franchise that warrants six movies--there are several franchises with more movies than six.
Well story wise yes, but entertainment wise no. These films entertain the lowest common denominator, and that is always the majority of who goes to movies.
And now he's validated
Than explain how Michael Bay keeps making movies.
Good example. Michael Bay movies are pretty exactly on the same level as the entire F&F franchise. Same audiences majority too.
Also: INB4-nah-
ww, am drunk and n a brken keybard, but there are s many reasns why yu're wrng. mchael bay s an vuerve. and way dfferent frm the f/ f franchse but they bth wn adn make dstnctve awesme mves. ugh fuck ths keybard.
thats me
Nah.
Just saw 6.
The action in it destroys most other action movies with how ridiculous it is, how well it's filmed and how rad it gets. I loathe most Michael Bay films and I had a fucking amazing time at Fast 6. Justin Lin is an amazing action director. He's apparently done making FF movies now and is going to be doing new things. I am stoked to see what he does.
The movie is derpy retarded but it makes up for it with how rad everything else is (It's like the anti-Star Trek, where I think the action in the new Star Trek is kind of shitty).
It's the bombastic 80's action movie that the Expendables wishes it could be.
Yeah, you just described Michael Bay movies to a tee. (Derpy Retarded with action scenes) just because you enjoyed F&F and not Transformers doesn't not make them mutually different fundementally.
#1: The transformer movies were cacphonic insanity, shit like Armageddon wasn't.
#2: The Rock can be as awesome as ever, as Bruce Willis has been in Michael Bay films. Same difference.
What can I say, I haven't enjoyed a Michael Bay movie since The Rock (heh). I didn't even much care for Fast 5 but this one hit the spot.
Every character was a super hero, with Bourne Identity fighting skills and Justin Lin can film a fist fight, better than most by miles. The fight between Tyreese, Sung Kang and police vs evil Asian guy while Gina Carano is brutally knee fucking Michelle Rodriguez to death is one of the best hand to hand fight scenes I've seen in a big budget mainstream film in years.
Every character was a super hero, with Bourne Identity fighting skills and Justin Lin can film a fist fight, better than most by miles. The fight between Tyreese, Sung Kang and police vs evil Asian guy while Gina Carano is brutally knee fucking Michelle Rodriguez to death is one of the best hand to hand fight scenes I've seen in a big budget mainstream film in years.
Evil Asian Guy was the lead in The Raid: Redemption, where he had even more fighting to do
He was the sergeant actually. Certainly one of the most important support characters, but not the main character.
Harry Potter 1=Harry Potter 2>Harry Potter 3>Harry Potter 4>Harry Potter 7 pt 1 & 2> Harry Potter 5>>Harry Potter 6.
Now to be fair to HP6 the lady they got to be Umbridge was PERFECT so there was no doubt on the antagonist. However, there were still problems, for one the fact that Hagrid's half-brother didn't have ANY lines during the film as well as having the worst cg design EVER. They also never explain what "Half blood Prince" meant like they did in the book. And of course, Dumbledore's lame ass death scene. It was just utterly MEH, probably the most boring death scene I have ever seen on cinema.
And why the hell was Tonks so underplayed? I'll admit she didn't do that much in the books, but she was still interesting. Her most memorable scene to me was her saying "Don't call me Nymphadora" and I can't remember her doing anything interesting. Also I thought it was annoying how her and Lupin getting together just happened in the movies, no explanation-AT ALL! I know, the whole series is CRAMMED full of romantic bull-crap but just a SMIDGE more development would've been nice.
Another character they messed up was Fenrir who was BORING! He looked and acted like the Harry Potter equivalent of Sabretooth sans memorability.
And having Harry just BREAK the elder wand? UN-UH! That wand was the most powerful fucking thing in that world, NO WAY could someone just break the damn thing.
Finally there is all the other little smid-bits that I would've liked to see but were cut out because they weren't necessarily necessary. Really I feel this series shouldn't have been turned into a movie franchise and should've been a TV franchise instead.
Now to be fair to HP6 the lady they got to be Umbridge was PERFECT so there was no doubt on the antagonist. However, there were still problems, for one the fact that Hagrid's half-brother didn't have ANY lines during the film as well as having the worst cg design EVER. They also never explain what "Half blood Prince" meant like they did in the book. And of course, Dumbledore's lame ass death scene. It was just utterly MEH, probably the most boring death scene I have ever seen on cinema.
One qualm I have with the film series as a whole is how Dobby was only in two FREAKIN' movies when in the books he was an important character through-out the series albeit having sporadic apearances. Also when he returns in movie 7, he is still in his rags even though after a house-elf is set free from their human masters they can dress however they want to and in the books he dressed in nice clothes. I won't knock the movie for not going into house-elf culture, I'll admit that did not progress the story and it could've been there or not.And why the hell was Tonks so underplayed? I'll admit she didn't do that much in the books, but she was still interesting. Her most memorable scene to me was her saying "Don't call me Nymphadora" and I can't remember her doing anything interesting. Also I thought it was annoying how her and Lupin getting together just happened in the movies, no explanation-AT ALL! I know, the whole series is CRAMMED full of romantic bull-crap but just a SMIDGE more development would've been nice.
Another character they messed up was Fenrir who was BORING! He looked and acted like the Harry Potter equivalent of Sabretooth sans memorability.
And having Harry just BREAK the elder wand? UN-UH! That wand was the most powerful fucking thing in that world, NO WAY could someone just break the damn thing.
Finally there is all the other little smid-bits that I would've liked to see but were cut out because they weren't necessarily necessary. Really I feel this series shouldn't have been turned into a movie franchise and should've been a TV franchise instead.
Wow, this is perfectly opposite of my rankings, almost exactly. I've not read the books, obviously, and treat the movies as movies
I haven't watched the Harry Potter movies in a long time, but I think I'm more with Charlie with this one (OH GOD, WHAT AM I DOING?!). The core cast really
grew as actors as they progressed. The first ones aren't unenjoyable by any means, but compared to the later movies, the kids are just so clumsy with their acting.
Although I would cast 6 pretty low. I really didn't like it when I saw it.
I think it might have to do with studios trying too hard to create another franchise. You look at the Green Lantern debacle. They were trying to sow the seeds for Justice League and it just failed miserably. I also think it's about them trying to go too big, like The Dark Knight Rises, where they tried cramming in everything from Knightfall to No Man's Land in one movie.
It has worked out well in some cases, though. Avengers is probably the best example of everything working, but honestly, that was either going to be a huge success or a gigantic disaster. No in-between for that one.
grew as actors as they progressed. The first ones aren't unenjoyable by any means, but compared to the later movies, the kids are just so clumsy with their acting.
Although I would cast 6 pretty low. I really didn't like it when I saw it.
I think it might have to do with studios trying too hard to create another franchise. You look at the Green Lantern debacle. They were trying to sow the seeds for Justice League and it just failed miserably. I also think it's about them trying to go too big, like The Dark Knight Rises, where they tried cramming in everything from Knightfall to No Man's Land in one movie.
It has worked out well in some cases, though. Avengers is probably the best example of everything working, but honestly, that was either going to be a huge success or a gigantic disaster. No in-between for that one.
Harry Potter 6 was your favorite? Are you Bizzarro me?
Also I feel kinda silly for forgetting Umbridge was in Harry Potter 5, which now that I think about it is probably second best. I guess my brain just put Umbridge in my memories of HP6 as I have no good memories of that freakin' movie. It was just so forgettable , which it shouldn't have been because that was based on the book where Snape killed Dumbledore. It was one of the most memorable scenes in the books, and one of the dullest deaths I have seen on cinema. Though maybe I am just dwelling on the one bad scene.
Now that I think about it my list is more like this.
Harry Potter 1=Harry Potter 7 pt 1>Harry Potter 5>Harry Potter 3>Harry Potter 7 pt 2>Harry Potter 2>Harry Potter part 4>>>>Harry Potter 6.
I put Harry Potter 1 at the top because I feel it was a good start to the series, and I like it was a smidge more light-hearted than the later ones. If the other films are on TV, I have to argue with myself if I want to spend the time watching them, but not philosopher's stone.
6 = 5 >7p1 >7p2 >>> 4 >x100 1=2
edit : haven't seen 3
edit : haven't seen 3
Man, I just can't believe anyone can think that HP 3 isn't the finest film in that series, for a variety of reasons:
1) Alfonso Cuarón.
2) Alfonso Cuarón.
3) It's a terrible, talky book and Cuarón turned it into the tightest little Harry Potter film you can find.
4) He drastically changed the visual tone from the mediocre Chris Columbus designs that screamed "generic fantasy" and gave it some actual depth.
5) He moved the series away from kid friendly fantasy and in much more mature direction.
6) It's the only one without any real bloat. It's a remarkably tight film that never veers from the story. Everything in that film serves the story and I don't think any other HP film can say that, but especially not the first 2.
Oh and: 7) Alfonso Cuarón BITCHES.
1) Alfonso Cuarón.
2) Alfonso Cuarón.
3) It's a terrible, talky book and Cuarón turned it into the tightest little Harry Potter film you can find.
4) He drastically changed the visual tone from the mediocre Chris Columbus designs that screamed "generic fantasy" and gave it some actual depth.
5) He moved the series away from kid friendly fantasy and in much more mature direction.
6) It's the only one without any real bloat. It's a remarkably tight film that never veers from the story. Everything in that film serves the story and I don't think any other HP film can say that, but especially not the first 2.
Oh and: 7) Alfonso Cuarón BITCHES.
As I said I haven't seen it!
I hated the third movie, but that's mostly because it was my favorite book in the series. As with most book to movie transitions, the things you have the most affection for are the ones it's hardest to satisfy on film.
Also, by cutting out all the stuff about Harry's father and Snape, it really makes Snapes story much weaker.
Also, by cutting out all the stuff about Harry's father and Snape, it really makes Snapes story much weaker.
Interesting. Personally it was the only book of the series I had a hard time getting through. I was just exposition upon exposition and it felt like next to nothing happened other than Rowling going, "Shit! I gotta cram in as much of the crap in my head into all these speeches as I can." Granted, it's been years since I read it, but I just remember it being talky and boring, which is part of what made Cuarón's translation so engaging IMO.
Hey does anyone know who directed Harry Potter 3?
- Status