Three case studies come to mind (as of this moment).
Star Trek II was an enormous improvement on the first Star Trek movie.
1974's Godfather II was just as good as 1972's The Godfather.
I also liked 1990's Godfather III but I know it has its detractors.
True Detective series two was a big and largely incomprehensible disappointing follow up to series one (with Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson).
Good thread! My 2 cents, as I am sure the whole forum is expecting them.
1. Star Trek fans are lobotomized, have no taste, and deserve to have
their eyes gouged out. So, I cannot comment.
2. Godfather can be seen in two ways: as a whole or in parts. In parts,
the filmic and dramatic breakthroughs of the first outdo the surprise
element from the second and third, making it a more authentic and
refreshing piece of artwork. As a whole, well, some think it is among the
best body of film ever made.
3. True Detective: a big resounding yes. Awesome piece but, just like
Garcia Marquez, I think Pizzolatto emptied himself with that first one and
won't deliver anything worth watching anymore. Truly sad.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29595
Originally posted by FMFI'm a little surprised you had high hopes for the second series of True Detective. The casting didn't bode well.
Three case studies come to mind (as of this moment).
Star Trek II was an enormous improvement on the first Star Trek movie.
1974's Godfather II was just as good as 1972's The Godfather.
I also liked 1990's Godfather III but I know it has its detractors.
True Detective series two was a big and largely incomprehensible disappointing follow up to series one (with Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson).
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI didn't have high hopes. I was simply disappointed. It wasn't bad because of how good the first series was. It was just bad.
I'm a little surprised you had high hopes for the second series of True Detective. The casting didn't bode well.
I don't think I had any idea who was in the cast when I sat down to watch it. I don't ever see any advertising or trailers for films because I don't watch telly and I hardly ever go to the cinema.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29595
Originally posted by FMFCouldn't bring myself to watch the second series. McConaughey was awesome in the first. A sequel without him just wouldn't be a sequel. (And i abhor Vince Vaughn).
I didn't have high hopes. I was simply disappointed. It wasn't bad because of how good the first series was. It was just bad.
I don't think I had any idea who was in the cast when I sat down to watch it. I don't ever see any advertising or trailers for films because I don't watch telly and I hardly ever go to the cinema.
One the musical front:
Tin Machine II was a lot better than the first Tin Machine album. I thought Tin Machine II was one of about only 5 goodish Bowie albums post-Scary Monsters.
I thought Radiohead's 2nd album The Bends was in a different league altogether from their merely adequate debut Pablo Honey.
The B-52s first and second albums were both classic - although I prefer Wild Planet (2nd album).
As much as I like Lloyd Cole and The Commotions, I thought Easy Pieces, the follow up to their first offering Rattlesnakes, was weaker by comparison, although my favourite was their third and last ~ and mostly panned (as far as I can glean) ~ 1987's Mainstream.
Not a sequel exactly, but after the hugely enjoyable satire on the Thatcher years in Britain called "What a Carve Up!" by Jonathan Coe, published in 1994, there came, three years later, its follow up called "The House of Sleep" which, despite the fact it won awards, I simply could not get into and therefore never managed to finished if I remember correctly.
By contrast, having enjoyed Mark Haddon's "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time" very much, I was also well entertained by "A Spot of Bother" which was his next novel, although I recall that it got mixed reviews.