There's what seems to be legitimate buzz that The Last Starfighter is getting a sequel.
Not sure how I feel about this. It's one of the cheesiest of the attempts to jump on the Star Wars bandwagon. We have Professor Harold Hill from outer space, an entire trailer park interested in the high score on an arcade machine, a big bad who waves a truly ridiculous secret weapon/crystal scepter combo around, and abundant android duplicate humor.
On the other hand, it has a sort of goofy charm -because- of those cheesy elements.
If they do it, they ought to do it with only the low rent CGI and makeup the original film had.
Posted by Pegasus (Member # 10464) on :
Yeah, I know. I loved it too.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
But then it won't be the Last Starfighter!
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
No, for all that is holy, NO!
Sequels... BAD!
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
Wouldn't starfighting have become obsolete once it was proven that spinning around in a circle shooting laser beams in all directions can wipe out an entire armada?
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Loved it as a kid. I remember thinking that getting really good at video games would somehow amount to more than lost quarters and stunted social skills.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by prolixshore: Wouldn't starfighting have become obsolete once it was proven that spinning around in a circle shooting laser beams in all directions can wipe out an entire armada?
But only if they're in Death Blossom range.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Hell yes! I own this on dvd. The story has been begging for a sequel forever. I can't wait!!!!
After all... the Frontier is down, Xur escaped, and there is still danger.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I don't see how it can live up to the greatness of the original, but I'll give it a chance.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: I remember thinking that getting really good at video games would somehow amount to more than lost quarters and stunted social skills.
How did that work out for you? Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, as time passes more and more people seem to think that way, and the 'stunted social skills' part is at least lessened by commonality, hehe.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
For his 40th birthday, my dad got an old Defender machine from back before I was born. He was apparently REALLY good back then--but over one summer (right around when N64 came out), I took over all the high scores. He was very proud of me And people who watched me were impressed. Thus started my adolescent career in being awkward, geeky, and VERY good at video games. I was the best at a few of them--Super Smash Brothers, Super Monkey Ball(beat every level on expert)--I could beat Mario 1 in just over 5 minutes (like the speed runs you see on youtube today).
In the end, it's definitely amounted to countless hours of my life gone with nothing to show for it. I stopped playing video games seriously around sophomore year of college. Oddly enough, that roughly coincided with an increased ability to talk to girls, make friends, and not be awkward in public. I also got much more serious in my piano study, and I'm happy for that.
I think I developed some very valuable skills from video games (like being able to neurotically practice piano for hours and hours), but my honest opinion is that the video game age has taken away our ability to build things in the real world. We've lost an important connection with nature and the sun and other people.
I still sit at my computer wayyy to much. Oh well.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: No, for all that is holy, NO!
Sequels... BAD!
The Empire Strikes Back and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade were bad? Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I don't see how it can live up to the greatness of the original, but I'll give it a chance.
They ought to make it a musical.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
They could make it Son of the Last Starfighter and it's about a kid who's dad is a guy with no quarters and sparse social skills, who's mom got tired of and left, and the kid supplements his SSI check with a paper route, going to the store to buy mushroom soup and Grape Nuts, which they eat in one dish.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm skeptical of how good this'll be. I'm imagining massive CGI and a ridiculous plot. Thinly ridiculous as the plot was in the first one, I think it was the two main characters that made it watchable. The fact that it was memorable was probably because I saw it when I was like six for the first time and I thought a lot of stuff was cool then that I still think is cool probably only because I thought it was cool back then.
I'd have to see who they get to play the roles and what the plot is, but I neither like or dislike this as of now.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think the parts of it I glimpsed when I was visiting someone who had cable featured the robot imposter.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Launchywiggin : You were just before your time. Now kids are making 6-figure incomes as pro gamers. If you could transfer those mad skillz to Halo 3 and Gears of War, you could actually make some money.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I absolutely love this movie. But I imagine most of that love is due to thinking it was the coolest thing ever as a child, and nostalgia.
I can only imagine how bad a sequel would be.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat:
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: No, for all that is holy, NO!
Sequels... BAD!
The Empire Strikes Back and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade were bad?
No...but The Temple of Doom was.
Edit:
For my part, I liked the original movie. In a way, it reflects some of the premise of Ender's Game, that being that the "game" is more real than it would otherwise seem to be. Yes, the story is flimsy, yes, the final solutions are flimsy (death blossom and the collision with the moon...apparently a *very* small moon, at that, with what should have been a correspondingly small gravity well), but there were many good things in the movie. I think the three main characters (Alex, Centuari and Griggs) made it work, as another poster said.
Boy...it's kind of sad that I remember the characters' names without having to think all that hard, when the last time I saw the movie was ages ago.
A sequel? It could work, given a number of things. One would have to build from the assumption that the audience hadn't seen the original. It's not like Star Wars or Indiana Jones, which had huge fan bases already. But this starting point lets the creators have a great increase of flexibility in what they can do with creating a stronger story element. We'll just have to wait and see, I guess.
[ March 03, 2008, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: BandoCommando ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, people say that, but I have no idea why someone would dislike Temple of Doom -- especially compared to the Last Crusade. Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You know, people say that, but I have no idea why someone would dislike Temple of Doom -- especially compared to the Last Crusade.
In Temple of Doom, Indiana's character was different. They gave him the lame catchphrase "for Fortune and Glory" and an enemy and setting that wasn't easy for the audience to relate to.
The other two film have an easy Icon of Evil to set Indy against (Nazis) and the character seems less motivated by personal gain than by more grave, external motivations: Love, Honor, Country, the Pursuit of Knowledge, Respect for Antiquity ("this belongs in a museum"), etc.
In Doom I think they just wanted Indiana to be less of a quick-thinking rogue arcaeologist than an easily-marketed whip-swinging swashbuckler with neato catch-phrases. There's some of it in the other films too, but it always seemed really obvious to me in Doom.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
While I feel the plotting of the films is about the same, I feel The Last Crusade had better scripting.
Not that I dislike Temple of Doom, I just like the other film more.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In Temple of Doom, Indiana's character was different.
It was a prequel, wasn't it? I always figured that his decision to finally act on behalf of the village is what softened him up a bit for the later films.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
This is the funniest news I've heard in a long time.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It was a prequel, wasn't it? I always figured that his decision to finally act on behalf of the village is what softened him up a bit for the later films.
From Wiki:
quote:Set in 1935, a year before Raiders of the Lost Ark,
I never knew that. I had always assumed it was the sequel to Raiders. I'll have to watch it again and see if that perspective changes my opinion of the film.
Still, it doesn't fit with the early scenes with River Phoenix as young Indiana in Crusade. Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:You know, people say that, but I have no idea why someone would dislike Temple of Doom -- especially compared to the Last
I didn't really like it as a child, but I've grown to appreciate it a lot over the years. I still rank it third of the Indy movies, but it's a respectable third.
And how can you not love Short Round?
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
quote:You know, people say that, but I have no idea why someone would dislike Temple of Doom -- especially compared to the Last
I didn't really like it as a child, but I've grown to appreciate it a lot over the years. I still rank it third of the Indy movies, but it's a respectable third.
And how can you not love Short Round?
I'd call it a respectable third as well. Doom certainly is better than many other sequels out there.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Wake me up when they do a sequel to Ice Pirates.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
A friend made me watch that once. I still haven't forgiven him.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Apparently there is also going to be a new Tron.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
In my head, Ice Pirates is like a sequel to Tron. It's that good.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I think introducing either Crusade or Doom as evidence that sequels don't suck is patently wrong, considering both are inferior to the first. The first movie had the right balance of adventure (changing locations), excitement (great fight/chase scenes), and characters that we really cared about, like Marion and Sallah. It also had the best use of humor without detracting from the realness of the danger.
Doom fell shorter in every category. It became an average knockoff of the formula of the first--a silly thrill ride instead of a story. Crusade was better, but mostly I remember a bunch of gags instead of a great story.
Sure, they're all good, fun, action--but the later films don't improve on the first, which is frustratingly disappointing.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: I think introducing either Crusade or Doom as evidence that sequels don't suck is patently wrong, considering both are inferior to the first.
"patently wrong"?
It's so obvious that Crusade is a bad sequel that I shouldn't have even brought it up?
I genuinely think it's a great movie, one that never fails to catch my attention and hold it. I also think it had a good story.
"Realness of the danger"...in the first film? I have to disagree. I recall quite vividly that film had no end of unrealistic pulp tropes in every action piece and abundant gags used to defuse the tense moments.
Which was only being true to the source material.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I never said it wasn't a great movie, I said it was inferior to the first.
Compare the films in terms of tone, and the first takes itself more seriously than the latter two.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Achilles: Wake me up when they do a sequel to Ice Pirates.
quote:Originally posted by Strider: A friend made me watch that once. I still haven't forgiven him.
I don't know, it's hard not to have a little affection for a movie where Anjellica Houston gets to play a badass.
Regarding Dr. Jones: Doom felt much grimmer and more violent to me than Raiders. And the heroine was such a huge, shrieky let-down from Marion that having a female lead who turned out to be a traitor was actually a step up. ToD had some great action pieces and sets, but to me, it falls well below the other two.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
Speaking of sequels that didn't suck:
Terminator 2 (WAY better than the original, IMO) Back to the Future 2 Empire Strikes Back (as puffy mentioned) Aliens The Godfather Part 2 Jaws 2 (arguably...)
Anyone have any to add?
Posted by Slim (Member # 2334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It was a prequel, wasn't it? I always figured that his decision to finally act on behalf of the village is what softened him up a bit for the later films.
From Wiki:
quote:Set in 1935, a year before Raiders of the Lost Ark,
I never knew that. I had always assumed it was the sequel to Raiders. I'll have to watch it again and see if that perspective changes my opinion of the film.
Still, it doesn't fit with the early scenes with River Phoenix as young Indiana in Crusade.
That clears up a lot. I always thought Temple of Doom was first, and then I was completely baffled when I found out it was second. Turns out I was right all along.
I really liked The Last Starfighter as a kid. I should find it and watch it again.
In 25-30 years, there will probably be sequels and remakes of all the movies coming out right now. I wouldn't be surprised if in 7 years, they do a remake of Back to the Future with Doc played by Johnny Depp. (just kidding) Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BandoCommando: Anyone have any to add?
At least one of the Star Trek or Bond sequels has got to be rated higher than the very originals. There are also Once Upon a Time in China II, Drunken Master II, and Police Story 3 movies.
Posted by Pegasus (Member # 10464) on :
quote:And how can you not love Short Round?
quote:Wake me up when they do a sequel to Ice Pirates.
Please don't wake me up when they do a sequel to The Goonies. Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
re: sequels
The Road Warrior Rocky II
along with the others already mentioned.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Hello, Cinderella 3.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BandoCommando: Anyone have any to add?
At least one of the Star Trek or Bond sequels has got to be rated higher than the very originals. There are also Once Upon a Time in China II, Drunken Master II, and Police Story 3 movies.
Oy! How could I have left off some of the Star Treks!!! (2, 4, 6, and 8, to be specific..(who de we appreciate?)) And James Bond is definitely a winning franchise.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And people who watched me were impressed. Thus started my adolescent career in being awkward, geeky, and VERY good at video games. I was the best at a few of them--Super Smash Brothers, Super Monkey Ball(beat every level on expert)--I could beat Mario 1 in just over 5 minutes (like the speed runs you see on youtube today).