| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| ragingfluff |
Posted - 03/06/2007 : 20:27:52
Lots of television series "jump the shark" (the point where the show gets ridiculously silly or bad and never recovers, named after the episode of Happy Days where the Fonz jumped over a shark).
I'm interested in movies that do the same; i.e. movies that betray their early promise, where a good first act gives way to ridiculous plot twists or a useless third act. Not necessarily films with bad endings. Lots of good films have bad endings (Minority Report, for example)
I mean movies that completely undermine themselves. An example I watched recently is MAN ON FIRE with Denzel Washington. The first hour is really good and patiently builds up a believable story. The last hour is crap and highly improbable and ruins the whole movie.
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| roger_thornhill |
Posted - 03/15/2007 : 01:49:57
Downtown wrote:
quote:
That represents the lowest point in the series, but by no means was it the beginning of the end of anything. Calling The Phantom Menace "jumping the shark" is totally inaccurate, if not from an artistic standpoint, then certainly considering what Revenge of the Sith did at the box office. "Jumping the shark" is the moment when it becomes glaringly obvious that a series has gone on too long and should end, and while TPM pretty much sucked, I'm glad the series continued after that.
Well, that's according to your opinion, as I suppose you intended to write. Though you do write as if your opinion had the force of law. Like many others, I consider the entire prequel trilogy to have been a disaster. But apparently my view is "totally inaccurate" and "by no means" correct.
Box office success is a separate issue from artistic success. Many series (it is widely agreed) jumped the shark long before they ceased to be profitable. Look at, for instance, Friends. |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 13:53:30
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
Anyone seen A History of Violence.
Third act completely bottomed out.
Yes, I liked it. I thought the conviction of the actors carried it through the foray into 'gangster land' - and at least it didn't have a twee happy ending. I'd go into more detail but I don't want to give spoilers.
A very uncronnenburg movie you'll agree though.
I thought it started out with everything pointing to a great twist and ....oh....into spoiler territory.
off to find it's other thread |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 07:59:22
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Stallone jumped the shark immediately after the first Rocky movie, if you ask me.
Stallone jumped the shark immediately before the first Rocky movie, if you ask me.  
Hence I haven't seen any of the sequels and won't be.
Hehehe!
|
| Sean |
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 07:32:29
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Stallone jumped the shark immediately after the first Rocky movie, if you ask me.
Stallone jumped the shark immediately before the first Rocky movie, if you ask me.
Hence I haven't seen any of the sequels and won't be. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 06:52:58
Stallone jumped the shark immediately after the first Rocky movie, if you ask me.
|
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 21:33:30
Both Wedding Crashers and Hard Candy turned to crap after twenty minutes. I also believe I can point to the exact moment where The Girl Next Door turned from fantastic to shit. |
| turrell |
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 07:47:11
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy C
'Matrix: Revolutions' jumped the shark for me. For most people it might have been the second one that made the leap, but I really enjoyed 'Reloaded'...  Third one was just a fridge too far though, as Brando might have said.
I might go the Reloaded route here - Matrix was such a perfect movie in its genre and both sequels were such massive letdowns in comparison that I vote for jump the shark when they decided to make a sequel. |
| TitanPa |
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 07:15:19
The Sequel to 'Honey I Shrunk the Kids' Jumped the shark. Sure I enjoyed the first movie. Now why DO I gotta watch a huge baby destroy Las Vegas????????? |
| silly |
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 00:21:38
It just reminded me (because one of the movies is on):
Terminator, any of the movies where Arnie is a good guy. He played a great bad robot and they had to get all big-budget on us. |
| Paddy C |
Posted - 03/09/2007 : 00:04:03
'Matrix: Revolutions' jumped the shark for me. For most people it might have been the second one that made the leap, but I really enjoyed 'Reloaded'... Third one was just a fridge too far though, as Brando might have said. |
| turrell |
Posted - 03/08/2007 : 20:04:57
I am well aware that Lucas conceived the story in 9 parts before he shot part 4 - however - he did not write all the screenplays then. There are many irksome elements of the later trilogy such as Boba Fett witnessing his father's death and thus he seeks his revenge. This is an indulgence in my opinion - "look I can explain every last detail" - I am surprised we didn't get the back story on Han Solo's grandmother.
Also I didn't say that you had to be a Sci-fi geek to enjoy these - I implied that the films were made to cater to sci-fi aficianados, who love back story and detail and everything explained. I believe that a movie must be able to stand on its own - not to say it can't build on other preceeding films in the series, but it shouldn't be solely for the purpose of tying up loose ends and I feel that while not wholly designed to do this, the latter trilogy laregly was for explaining why episodes 4 - 6 were the way the were. Even in Sith - every bit of promotion for the film was "find out how Anakin becomes Darth Vader". To me you must only establish he is a bad guy, hint at how he became that way, but not show us the path. The dialogue in the last three films was far inferior to the first three films and the acting was largely poor. So for me the fact that he made the second trilogy without getting help from professional screenwriters and directors was Jumping the Shark. But even Happy Days remained a top ratings show after Arthur Fonzarelli water skied over a hungry fish in a leather jacket - so while artistically the Str Wars franchise suffered greatly in its 21st century incarnation, it obviously had financial success. |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 03/08/2007 : 09:54:45
quote:
Originally posted by silly
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
Why should I hate a movie because it includes a character that was irritating in another movie, especially when that character doesn't even have any lines in the current film?
I hated the dancing teddy bears long before I met Jar-Jar. He was funny, sortof, at least. The fozzy bears (that "helped helped" ended the empire)? Just annoying.
They didn't do it on their own... |
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 03/08/2007 : 09:34:38
Spoiler of a film that I think jumps the shark:
The Forgotten is not a great film, but for the most part is enjoyable. The suspense as to how the parents' memories have been erased builds. One wonders whether it is some kind of government plot etc. etc. Then, right at the end, it suddenly turns out to have been an alien experiment and Julianne Moore has to fight their supernatural powers. Perhaps this could have been pulled off, but it isn't. |
| silly |
Posted - 03/07/2007 : 23:41:27
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
Why should I hate a movie because it includes a character that was irritating in another movie, especially when that character doesn't even have any lines in the current film?
I hated the dancing teddy bears long before I met Jar-Jar. He was funny, sortof, at least. The fozzy bears (that actually ended the empire)? Just annoying. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 03/07/2007 : 23:30:59
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
For me it was jumping the Shark - I thought the entire second trilogy was a waste of time, and basically Lucas trying to piece every last part of the puzzle together. The movies could not stand on their own as movies but merely sought to explain every last bit of back story in the series - can you imagine Tarantino destroying the brilliance of Pulp Fiction by putting out 3 sequels explaining every little mystery?
Maybe for the sci fi geeks these movies were interesting, but I thought they were downhill starting with Jar-Jar.
I'm not a Lucas/Star Wars faniac or anything, but I saw him being interviewed where he said he conceieved of all six films/storylines in the 70s, but wanted to wait for the improvements in special effects to film the first three. In other words, the last three films weren't filling in story backwards from the first three, they were always following on from them. Anyone else heard him talk/write about this? (Boy, it's hard making logical sense in this paragraph when 'the first three' are really 'the last three' )
Well, considering that A New Hope was always supposed to be "episode IV" and those words were only removed from the original scrolling text on Fox's insistence, I'd say it's a given.
I've chosen not to be offended by the comment that only "sci-fi geeks" would like Revenge of the Sith after seeing Jar-Jar Binks in a different movie, partly because I can't even follow the logic of that statement. Why should I hate a movie because it includes a character that was irritating in another movie, especially when that character doesn't even have any lines in the current film? |
