Viewing Thread:
"Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, why was the sequal pants?"

I know the first wasn't exactly a fantastic masterpiece but the second one in comparison was just god awful. I didn't really notice until now (watching the original on VHS) but the original is actually quite a good film just to pick up and watch. You could do worse! A LOT worse! Anyway I can't quite put my finger on it, so I want you to tell me why they messed up that sequal so much?

wasn't there lots of shirt potato bouncing, skin tight shorts action? what more do you want?

I haven't seen the second one, I watched about the last 30mins of the first one, and that was more than enough.

films and computer games shouldn't be mixed.

It stank of week-old ass. And like the first one, the whole 'end of the world' thing could have been prevented by destroying the bit of the sacred orb/parchment/plot device that Lara had. I wasted two hours of my life watching it, so as payback, I punched a girl with a ponytail on my way out of the cinema.

tphi wrote:
> As Mav said, the first one was pants, so why expect the sequel to be
> any better?
>
> Sequels are always worse. (Except Empire Strikes Back and Two
> Towers).

...and Karate Kid 2. that rocked :)

sorry misred the post

Whats the script? wrote:
> tphi wrote:
> As Mav said, the first one was pants, so why expect the sequel to be
> any better?
>
> Sequels are always worse. (Except Empire Strikes Back and Two
> Towers).
>
> I have to disagree with that theres no way the two towers is worse
> than fellowship of the ring anyway my point is sequels are not always
> worse.

Thats why he said "Except Empire Strikes Back and Two Towers".

Godfather 2 (although I didn't really enjoy the first)
Aliens.
Star Trek II. (still the best trek movie)
Mad Max 2 (IMHO)

tphi wrote:
> As Mav said, the first one was pants, so why expect the sequel to be
> any better?
>
> Sequels are always worse. (Except Empire Strikes Back and Two
> Towers).

I have to disagree with that theres no way the two towers is worse than fellowship of the ring anyway my point is sequels are not always worse.

Fígó wrote:
> cipro wrote:
> >like the beginning where Lara gets to fight a robot only
> >to find out that it’s a bloody test dummy. What a waste of time.
>
> I thought that was quite a good opening for the film. Finding out it
> was a test dummy made it even better.

It was crap, no sense of danger, it didn't feel threatening, and this was before we find out it's just an over the top target for Lara to practice on. Rubbish, why doesn't it go around with lasers killing people? That's what I want to see, not some daft bint jumping about the place trying to look cool while shooting over excited robot that poses no threat.

As Mav said, the first one was pants, so why expect the sequel to be any better?

Sequels are always worse. (Except Empire Strikes Back and Two Towers).

The original Tomb Raider was awful.

Cub!st wrote:
> I know the first wasn't exactly a fantastic masterpiece but the second
> one in comparison was just god awful. I didn't really notice until
> now (watching the original on VHS) but the original is actually quite
> a good film just to pick up and watch. You could do worse! A LOT
> worse! Anyway I can't quite put my finger on it, so I want you to
> tell me why they messed up that sequal so much?

I don't agree I thought the sequel was better than the first film there was more going on but then that is my opinion.