Movies that you block out.

Tools    





"How tall is King Kong ?"
It can be sequels that retroactively lay waste to a story, by erasing its point, by changing its characters ("he acts like that now") and meanings ("this turned out fake/pointless"), by redefining its ending ("that character didn't die after all"). It can be standalone films that ruin an actor's or director's otherwise flawless filmography. Or pointless remakes. It can be movies too many people or medias tried to impose you, or simply related to bad memories...

Which movies are you simply erasing from existence ? Like : nope, never happened, dunno what you're talking about, never heard of it.

Because I tend to discard as poor fanfiction fanfiction every Star Wars outside the original trilogy.

And the four Indiana Jones doesn't register.

And I count only one Jaws movie.

And I ignore attempts to put Tolkien in images.

And I split the universe between Aliens and Alien 3 (Alien 3 is on the fence, it oscillates between existence and inexistence).

And Terminator 2 ends the saga.

And the Van Sant's Psycho remake is shrugged off. As well as the Ghostbusters reboot thingy.

And Robocop has one remake but no sequels.

Edit: Also the Bourne trilogy is a trilogy. Not for story-related reasons, but simply because the first 3 films are very good and the others' qualities drag them down.

And oh wow that's a lot.

Do you have your own kind of "yeah but nope, doesn't count" movies ?



This is an amasing thread. I’ve felt that so many times. Definitely have felt that with regards to all the post-Hitchcock Psycho iterations.

The most obvious one that springs to mind is El Camino. I know everything about it, but I never watched it because it would remove the uncertainly about the BB ending that I like. I’m not in the “maybe
WARNING: spoilers below
Walter White didn’t die” camp,
not at all, but to me, there’s an appealing uncertainty about their relationship in that ending that I cherish, so, great though El Camino may be, I just don’t feel like it.

There are countless examples when it comes to me, tbh. I hate Hannibal (2001) and plenty sequels and prequels alike. I don’t think it’s as strong as stated in the OP, though. Very often I like to view films, even sequels or prequels or parts of series, as stand-alones. I find it opens up more possibilities in terms of perception and interpretation. None of that fanfiction stuff or ignoring authorial intent, just taking each film/show as a separate, complete whole.

Also agree about the fourth Indiana Jones.

Strangely, I would add all the Bond films that are post-Casino Royale (2006). That one is self-defeating, right? Well, I’m a huge fan of the franchise overall. I will probably watch whatever comes out. But Casino Royale to me is very much a standalone, a great and complete “origin” story which, paradoxically, doesn’t require one to keep up with that which has been “originated”.

As for the “miss” films in someone’s otherwise stellar body of work, don’t think it’s quite the same thing, so I don’t tend to block anything out when it comes to that. If anything, it will always be there at the back of my mind, as in, “Yeah, but when it’s bad, it’s awful”.



The OP brought up Die Another Day in another thread, and I confess that's one where I've left my memories of the second half purposefully hazy. Let Brosnan have his cliffhanger ending.



Good topic...I generally hate reboots and endless sequels. Though some films have had great follow-up sequels only to then go onto yet another sequel that crumbles the original premise like a house of cards on a three legged table.

One such follow-up sequel that worked for me was Psycho II. Instead of explaining why I'll post my review link and hope somebody reads it. It's one of my best written reviews (IMO of course) and it's Spoiler Free.
https://www.movieforums.com/communit...73#post1772073

Oh, I'm rather proud of the 1st review image which I made in Photoshop.



This probably repeats what Flicker and xAgrippinax said, but I block out 99% of prequels because they mostly serve as explanations - not to mention boring and mystery-dispelling ones - about why things, people, etc. are the way they are that are better left for the audience's imaginations to fill in. Examples include X-Men Origins: Wolverine, the Star Wars prequels, the Hobbit trilogy and Captain Marvel. The only movie like this I can think of that works is Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me, maybe because it straddles the line between prequel and sequel. Also, it's not boring and makes Twin Peaks even more interesting and mysterious.



A system of cells interlinked
J.J. Abrams

What he did with the Star Trek reboots weren't Star Trek it was S*** Trek.
This continues on with many of the current stabs at shows, also. I think it says a lot that after we recently finished Deep Space 9, my wife and I decided to head back and watch TNG from the beginning again. Discovery was a total miss for us (soooo bad) and Picard was somewhat entertaining, but sort of trashed the character IMO. No interest in Lower Decks, unless it is the TNG episode of the same name.
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



This continues on with many of the current stabs at shows, also. I think it says a lot that after we recently finished Deep Space 9, my wife and I decided to head back and watch TNG from the beginning again. Discovery was a total miss for us (soooo bad) and Picard was somewhat entertaining, but sort of trashed the character IMO. No interest in Lower Decks, unless it is the TNG episode of the same name.
Totally agree with you on Star Trek TV shows. For me the last 'real' Star Trek TV show was Enterprise (with Scott Bakula), though it was off the rails at time, it did find it's footing in later seasons.

I did see Picard and it was well made but didn't have the moral/ethical tone and hopeful spirit of the earlier Star Treks. If Picard comes back for season 2, I don't think I'll watch it. I haven't seen Discovery yet, I guess I want to check it out but I have very low hopes. Not into Star Trek cartoons so the only Lower Decks for is the TNG one.



This probably repeats what Flicker and xAgrippinax said, but I block out 99% of prequels because they mostly serve as explanations - not to mention boring and mystery-dispelling ones - about why things, people, etc. are the way they are that are better left for the audience's imaginations to fill in. Examples include X-Men Origins: Wolverine, the Star Wars prequels, the Hobbit trilogy and Captain Marvel. The only movie like this I can think of that works is Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me, maybe because it straddles the line between prequel and sequel. Also, it's not boring and makes Twin Peaks even more interesting and mysterious.
Indeed. I mean, you weren’t really counting on Lynch explaining anything, were you? That would be sacrilege.

(I am joking, not being sarcastic or trying to insult anyone. Just in case).



I'm thinking that I block almost anything with Bruce Willis or anything that's a franchise that's gone on past "2 or II" (depending on whether you prefer Roman numbers). The Marvel universe has been used up for a while now, as has the DC universe, Batman or Fast and Furious. Even if I do plug in my 14 year old brain, I'm pretty sure that I would been used up on those when I was 14. My boredom quotient is set pretty low for car chases, superheroes and, since I have not mentioned it, Hunger Games too. Maybe we need Frankenstein 6.



A system of cells interlinked
I did see Picard and it was well made but didn't have the moral/ethical tone and hopeful spirit of the earlier Star Treks.
This was my main issue, also. Star Trek has always been about striving for what is best in people, and has been for the most part a very hopeful exercise in utopian science fiction. Picard shed all that for a grittier, sort of post-modern take on Star Trek. I did like that it didn't get to be too overtly political in super obvious ways, too often. Discovery is right off a cliff in that regard, dropping political anvils on your head in almost every scene.

What say, Deep Space Nine did differently, and pretty much perfectly for its entire run, was to present complex political and social issues in a very subtle way, while presenting multiple sides of the argument with a balanced perspective, and almost never outright telling you upon which side you should fall in the argument.



I'm thinking that I block almost anything with Bruce Willis or anything that's a franchise that's gone on past "2 or II" (depending on whether you prefer Roman numbers). The Marvel universe has been used up for a while now, as has the DC universe, Batman or Fast and Furious. Even if I do plug in my 14 year old brain, I'm pretty sure that I would been used up on those when I was 14. My boredom quotient is set pretty low for car chases, superheroes and, since I have not mentioned it, Hunger Games too. Maybe we need Frankenstein 6.
Note to self: need to try that.




The most obvious one that springs to mind is El Camino. I know everything about it, but I never watched it because it would remove the uncertainly about the BB ending that I like. I’m not in the “maybe
WARNING: spoilers below
Walter White didn’t die” camp,
not at all, but to me, there’s an appealing uncertainty about their relationship in that ending that I cherish, so, great though El Camino may be, I just don’t feel like it.

There are countless examples when it comes to me, tbh. I hate Hannibal (2001) and plenty sequels and prequels alike. I don’t think it’s as strong as stated in the OP, though. Very often I like to view films, even sequels or prequels or parts of series, as stand-alones. I find it opens up more possibilities in terms of perception and interpretation. None of that fanfiction stuff or ignoring authorial intent, just taking each film/show as a separate, complete whole.
I'm a huge fan of Breaking Bad; it's probably my #3 favorite TV show, and I'd say if you loved the show, there's no reason why not to like El Camino. Is it essential? Not really, but I do think it adds some layers to things we already know, plus it gives a bit more closure to the character of Jesse. I dug it.
__________________
Check out my podcast: The Movie Loot!



I'm a huge fan of Breaking Bad; it's probably my #3 favorite TV show, and I'd say if you loved the show, there's no reason why not to like El Camino. Is it essential? Not really, but I do think it adds some layers to things we already know, plus it gives a bit more closure to the character of Jesse. I dug it.
I see your point. And again, I’m not someone that cares about spoilers and I know what happens in it anyway. But at present, I am just a bit cautious. Can’t put my finger on it at all. But I’m concerned about exactly the sort of thing this thread is about (as I read it), namely, that it will irreversibly alter my perception of the thing itself.

But I’ll get around to it one of these days; don’t you worry. Really good to know you dug it as your taste mostly aligns with mine, from what I’ve seen you post here.



Welcome to the human race...
I'm not that arrogant. Franchises tend to cancel out their own worst installments anyway.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



Make a better place
Rocky 5 & 6
The Expendables 3


I'm sure there are much more, these are just what popped up in my mind right now
__________________
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're rational, should change your beliefs" Ricky Gervais