JohnCavil01 t1_ixjusx5 wrote
Reply to comment by The_Stank__ in Which movies do you believe didn't deserve the sequel they got or the franchise that it became? by Imposingtitle
Ok - but why did that mean it had to also be bad?
The_Stank__ t1_ixjys65 wrote
Because it’s an inherent parody. WB was going to move along without them and Lana basically said nope, I’ll do it.
And instead of continuing the story thoughtfully she made a parody on reboots and remakes. I like that it was kind of an unintended nail in the coffin for the series.
JohnCavil01 t1_ixjzpl3 wrote
Yeah but just because something’s a parody doesn’t mean the performances have to be terrible.
I hear this argument a lot and it just feels like covering for the fact that Lana Wachowski made a bad movie. In terms of satire and parody it’s about as subtle as sledgehammer and worst of all it’s just plain boring. If she didn’t have an idea but knew the movie was going to get made anyway rather than making a half-asses movie that people were going to pay $15-20 a pop to see she could have just let somebody else do it on the off chance they actually had a good idea for a sequel.
Which isn’t so much to ask since the Wachowskis demonstrated twice that they didn’t really have an idea for sequels before.
The_Stank__ t1_ixk09lj wrote
Idk, I thought it was fine. The sequels weren’t great so for me it wasn’t much of a loss.
IceLord86 t1_ixjzsba wrote
It wasn't a good parody though. If that's what they wanted then fine, but it wasn't well done and was an unfocused mess that wanted to have it both ways and IMO failed at both.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments