The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Bond was better when he had Blofeld to deal with, and the threat of SPECTRE. Blofeld and his organisation had time to develop over a number of movies, and we knew what the threat was right away. Yeah there were all of the sub-divisions and plots he had to deal with - eg Goldfinger, but at least it was a proper threat. The worst recent example would have to be Tomorrow Never Dies, when our villain is a media chap. Ooh, scary. I can't help but think that the quality of the Bond movies would improve if SPECTRE still existed, sometihng consistent to tie the films together.
If you want to really see the problem with multiple villians though, with a new one for each movie, look no further than Star Wars. Darth Vader. Bad Guy in the first movie, gets blasted off into space. But he's okay, and back in the second, when we learn that he's actually Luke's father! Then in the third, there's redemption. What an arc! What a villain!
New movies, Darth Maul looks like he could be a fantastic villain for the trilogy. But he dies at the end of the first movie. Damn. But that's okay, because we've got Count Dooku (albeit in a rather confused role) he's bound to play a significant part in the next two movies. Yes, and he lives through the second. Only to die in the first scenes of the third movie. When we get General Grevious. A coughing robot. Where the hell did he come from? Oh, a cartoon series. Great. But if you haven't seen it it's just another bad guy with no past, no story, just a plotsticle.
I watched the X-Men the other day. The relationship between Professor X and Magneto is a fascinating aspect of the series. Whilst they have to work together in the second, it seems they'll be enemies again later on. What's more, a Magneto prequel is planned. So he has a backstory, and more importantly, he has a future.
One of the failing of the Batman series of the 90's was its constant killing of its bad guys. Fair enoguh when you've only got one to deal with, but by the time the turkey that was Batman and Robim arrived you had two new villains backstories to tell (and Arnie demanded an awful lot of screen time) don't you think if the bad guys lived to fight another day the battles between good and evil would mean a little more? I've yet to see the new Batman, but the focus isn't so much on the villains here anyway, is it? As it's more about Batman's beginning (funny that)
Maybe it's just me. Being a second child, I always had to play the bad guys. I had the decepticons. Skeletor and his crew. In play, I'd want them to get away, even if I didn't actually want my evil plots to succeed...
Doesn't it make more sense to let evil live to fight another day though? Learning the strengths and weaknesses, creating even greater battles? It's odd, especially in super-hero type movies where they like to leave it open for a sequel, that t's not through the nemesis? Does it say something about the world we live in today that evil has to be defeated? Must good always triumph in every single aspect? Can today's movie going public not live with the idea of the bad guy getting away, even if to make his downfall greater in the long run?
If you want to really see the problem with multiple villians though, with a new one for each movie, look no further than Star Wars. Darth Vader. Bad Guy in the first movie, gets blasted off into space. But he's okay, and back in the second, when we learn that he's actually Luke's father! Then in the third, there's redemption. What an arc! What a villain!
New movies, Darth Maul looks like he could be a fantastic villain for the trilogy. But he dies at the end of the first movie. Damn. But that's okay, because we've got Count Dooku (albeit in a rather confused role) he's bound to play a significant part in the next two movies. Yes, and he lives through the second. Only to die in the first scenes of the third movie. When we get General Grevious. A coughing robot. Where the hell did he come from? Oh, a cartoon series. Great. But if you haven't seen it it's just another bad guy with no past, no story, just a plotsticle.
I watched the X-Men the other day. The relationship between Professor X and Magneto is a fascinating aspect of the series. Whilst they have to work together in the second, it seems they'll be enemies again later on. What's more, a Magneto prequel is planned. So he has a backstory, and more importantly, he has a future.
One of the failing of the Batman series of the 90's was its constant killing of its bad guys. Fair enoguh when you've only got one to deal with, but by the time the turkey that was Batman and Robim arrived you had two new villains backstories to tell (and Arnie demanded an awful lot of screen time) don't you think if the bad guys lived to fight another day the battles between good and evil would mean a little more? I've yet to see the new Batman, but the focus isn't so much on the villains here anyway, is it? As it's more about Batman's beginning (funny that)
Maybe it's just me. Being a second child, I always had to play the bad guys. I had the decepticons. Skeletor and his crew. In play, I'd want them to get away, even if I didn't actually want my evil plots to succeed...
Doesn't it make more sense to let evil live to fight another day though? Learning the strengths and weaknesses, creating even greater battles? It's odd, especially in super-hero type movies where they like to leave it open for a sequel, that t's not through the nemesis? Does it say something about the world we live in today that evil has to be defeated? Must good always triumph in every single aspect? Can today's movie going public not live with the idea of the bad guy getting away, even if to make his downfall greater in the long run?
Page:
I suppose the terminator was a continuing bad guy/good guy.
Smith was excllent in the first film, but he annoyed the hell out of me in Reloaded and Revolutions. All that crap with tons of different versions of him, really got on my proverbial breasts.
Having said that though I Revolutions was actually a pretty decent sequel.
Having said that though I Revolutions was actually a pretty decent sequel.
ßora† §agdiyeV wrote:
> If they choose to make a fourth film, which I am almost 100% sure of,
What makes you so sure?
I'm all for another one. Reloaded and Revolutions were a bit weak, but the idea behind the Matrix is probably one of the most fascinating ever to hit the film world. So much more could me done with it and of course, who wouldn't want to see more of Smith, the most entertaining villain since Alan Rickman in "Robin Hood".
> If they choose to make a fourth film, which I am almost 100% sure of,
What makes you so sure?
I'm all for another one. Reloaded and Revolutions were a bit weak, but the idea behind the Matrix is probably one of the most fascinating ever to hit the film world. So much more could me done with it and of course, who wouldn't want to see more of Smith, the most entertaining villain since Alan Rickman in "Robin Hood".
Good point. And he was one of the better things in the later movies.
Thanks for finding an example to prove my point that I hadn't thought of. ;o)
Thanks for finding an example to prove my point that I hadn't thought of. ;o)
Maybe someone already made this point, I got sidetracked with all the bond speak, but Agent Smith prevailed throughout the matrix trilogy, and became stronger as it progressed.
If they choose to make a fourth film, which I am almost 100% sure of, I hope to see him return. It is inevitable.
If they choose to make a fourth film, which I am almost 100% sure of, I hope to see him return. It is inevitable.
True.
Tiltawhirl wrote:
> How the hell was Judge Dread dark and sadistic?
> It was entertaining, but it certainly wasn't dark or sadistic. Infact
> neither was The Punisher, it was more violent and graphic than most
> Marvel films, but I wouldn't call it dark or sadistic.
In comparison with Spiderman, The Hulk etc, it was.
> How the hell was Judge Dread dark and sadistic?
> It was entertaining, but it certainly wasn't dark or sadistic. Infact
> neither was The Punisher, it was more violent and graphic than most
> Marvel films, but I wouldn't call it dark or sadistic.
In comparison with Spiderman, The Hulk etc, it was.
How the hell was Judge Dread dark and sadistic?
It was entertaining, but it certainly wasn't dark or sadistic. Infact neither was The Punisher, it was more violent and graphic than most Marvel films, but I wouldn't call it dark or sadistic.
The new Batman, now that's a dark comic book movie.
It was entertaining, but it certainly wasn't dark or sadistic. Infact neither was The Punisher, it was more violent and graphic than most Marvel films, but I wouldn't call it dark or sadistic.
The new Batman, now that's a dark comic book movie.
Hedfix wrote:
> The game's fun, I want to see the movie. I heard it was bad but the
> general opinion here seems to differ from the reviews.
>
> I'll probably love it since I really enjoyed Dredd. :)
Yeah, it's quite similar to Judge Dredd in the way that the whole super hero thing is done in a much darker and more sadistic fashion.
I ought to buy Dredd, great film.
> The game's fun, I want to see the movie. I heard it was bad but the
> general opinion here seems to differ from the reviews.
>
> I'll probably love it since I really enjoyed Dredd. :)
Yeah, it's quite similar to Judge Dredd in the way that the whole super hero thing is done in a much darker and more sadistic fashion.
I ought to buy Dredd, great film.
Generally I don't. It's just the sheer amount of bad stuff I'd heard about The Punisher movie did influence me.
Page: