What 2 film franchises do you regard as the most overrated ?

Post by Dave
Compared to any other ones you also dislike, what 1 or 2 (live action
or animated)
film franchises do you regard as the most overrated one/s and please
say why, for each one mentioned.

It's dificult to find 2 franchises rated highly period.

z***@yahoo.com

2007-07-21 20:32:29 UTC

Post by Dave
Compared to any other ones you also dislike, what 1 or 2 (live action
or animated)
film franchises do you regard as the most overrated one/s and please
say why, for each one mentioned.

It's dificult to find 2 franchises rated highly period.

I don't think so. Right off the top of my head, I can think of several
film franchises which are highly rated (even if you don't happen to
care for them), for example:

Star Wars
Raiders of the Lost Ark
James Bond
Lord of the Rings
Back to the Future

Magnus, Robot Fighter

2007-07-22 02:30:07 UTC

Post by Dave
Compared to any other ones you also dislike, what 1 or 2 (live action
or animated)
film franchises do you regard as the most overrated one/s and please
say why, for each one mentioned.

It's dificult to find 2 franchises rated highly period.

I don't think so. Right off the top of my head, I can think of several
film franchises which are highly rated (even if you don't happen to
Star Wars

No one in their right mind does so with 4 out of 6 films being poor.

Post by z***@yahoo.com
Raiders of the Lost Ark

I guess 2 out of 3 aint bad.

Post by z***@yahoo.com
James Bond

Too many stinkers to highly rate the franchise.

Post by z***@yahoo.com
Lord of the Rings

I don't think you can call it a franchise.

Post by z***@yahoo.com
Back to the Future

See above...

z***@yahoo.com

2007-07-22 03:17:00 UTC

Post by Robert D. Mahan
Star Wars

No one in their right mind does so with 4 out of 6 films being poor.

That's silly. Obviously you don't like the movies and that's fine,
but it's factually incorrect to claim that the series is not highly
rated, at least as far as the original trilogy and the last film of
the 2nd.

Post by Robert D. Mahan
Raiders of the Lost Ark

I guess 2 out of 3 aint bad.

No isn't bad at all. Not every entry in the series has to be "Citizen
Kane" for people to rate the franchise highly.

Post by Robert D. Mahan
James Bond

Too many stinkers to highly rate the franchise.

Again, you're being silly. The mere fact that the series has been
around longer than any other (by a long shot) is evidence of the fact
that people have rated it highly.

Post by Robert D. Mahan
Lord of the Rings

I don't think you can call it a franchise.

I can and do call it a franchise. Why dont' you?

Post by Robert D. Mahan
Back to the Future

See above...

Again, it's a franchise. Not sure why you wouldn't consider it such.

Howard Brazee

2007-07-22 12:31:27 UTC

Post by Michael O'Connor
Lord of the Rings

I don't think you can call it a franchise.

I can and do call it a franchise. Why dont' you?

It is limited to a single book.

David Oberman

2007-07-22 16:54:49 UTC

Post by Michael O'Connor
Lord of the Rings

I don't think you can call it a franchise.

I can and do call it a franchise. Why dont' you?

It is limited to a single book.

I think of the Hope-Crosby Road pictures as a franchise, or the
current run of Scary Movies. People go to the McDonald's franchise
because the quarter-pounder will taste exactly the same as the last
one they had. They go to the latest Scary Movie to get exactly the
same laughs with the same shtick.

Frank R.A.J. Maloney

2007-07-22 17:17:49 UTC

Post by David Oberman

Post by Michael O'Connor
Lord of the Rings

I don't think you can call it a franchise.

I can and do call it a franchise. Why dont' you?

It is limited to a single book.

I am very bothered by the confusion between a series and a franchise. I
haven't worked it all out yet but my gut tells there is a difference.
"Franchise" is a marketing term; I'm not all sure when it was first
applied to film -- Star Trek seems a promising place to begin; but
certainly calling a series from 50 or 60 years back by this very modern
term is at least anachronistic. It's like calling _The Women_ a chick
flick; well, yes, sort of, but not really.

The Road pictures, the Thin Man films, Maisie, Blondie, the Mexican
Spitfire, Andy Hardy, the Saint, Sherlock Holmes, Ma and Pa Kettle,
Francis the Talking Mule: these are all series.

Other than historical context, one of the things missing from these
series that disqualifies them as franchises is lack of merchandising
connected with them. No Nick Charles action figure, no toy Francis that
talks when you pull his tale, and certainly no Happy Meals tie-ins at
the local short-order place or greasy spoon hamburger joint.

--
Frank in Seattle
____

Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
"Millennium hand and shrimp."

David Oberman

2007-07-22 18:27:21 UTC

Post by Frank R.A.J. Maloney

Post by David Oberman
I think of the Hope-Crosby Road pictures as a franchise, or the
current run of Scary Movies. People go to the McDonald's franchise
because the quarter-pounder will taste exactly the same as the last
one they had. They go to the latest Scary Movie to get exactly the
same laughs with the same shtick.

Oops. Do I have the "franchise" concept wrong insofar as it applies to
movies?

Post by Frank R.A.J. Maloney
Other than historical context, one of the things missing from these
series that disqualifies them as franchises is lack of merchandising
connected with them. No Nick Charles action figure, no toy Francis that
talks when you pull his tale, and certainly no Happy Meals tie-ins at
the local short-order place or greasy spoon hamburger joint.

Good point, Frank! In that light, then, it seems that "Star Wars" is
the most influential & most commercially successful movie franchise of
all time.

Howard Brazee

2007-07-23 00:15:06 UTC

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 10:17:49 -0700, "Frank R.A.J. Maloney"

Post by Frank R.A.J. Maloney
I am very bothered by the confusion between a series and a franchise. I
haven't worked it all out yet but my gut tells there is a difference.
"Franchise" is a marketing term; I'm not all sure when it was first
applied to film -- Star Trek seems a promising place to begin; but
certainly calling a series from 50 or 60 years back by this very modern
term is at least anachronistic. It's like calling _The Women_ a chick
flick; well, yes, sort of, but not really.

I guess it is a franchise when you can pull out another movie and
expect to automatically make money. I associate the term with
business, not art.

Nil

2007-07-23 01:01:17 UTC

Post by Howard Brazee
I guess it is a franchise when you can pull out another movie and
expect to automatically make money. I associate the term with
business, not art.

I would consider it a franchise if you can take the basic elements,
characters, setting, tone, etc. and craft any number of stories out of
it, as the marketing need arises. "Lord of the Rings" isn't a
franchise, because the story had a beginning and end, and has been
told. It could become a franchise if they start making up new stories
about Middle Earth and Hobbits and such, besides what Tolkien wrote.

Bond is a franchise. Halloween is a franchise. Nightmare on Elm Street
was a franchise. The Hope and Crosby movies Road movies were a
franchise. Star Wars may be a franchise - I don't know if the stories
were planned out from the start, but it seems not. Indiana Jones is a
franchise. Harry Potter is sort of a limited franchise - it was planned
out from the start to have a long marketing life, but unless they start
creating new stories about Wizards and Hogwarts and such, I don't think
it's a true franchise.

z***@yahoo.com

2007-07-23 01:57:46 UTC

Post by Michael O'Connor
Lord of the Rings

I don't think you can call it a franchise.

I can and do call it a franchise. Why dont' you?

It is limited to a single book.

So what?

And in fact, even though Tolkien would have preferred it to be a
single volume, it was in fact published in 3 separate volumes. And
each volume was actually split into 2 "books", for a total of 6.

And why don't you call the Back to the Future movies a franchise?

gerry

2007-07-23 02:22:36 UTC

Post by Michael O'Connor
Lord of the Rings

I don't think you can call it a franchise.

I can and do call it a franchise. Why dont' you?

It is limited to a single book.

So what?
And in fact, even though Tolkien would have preferred it to be a
single volume, it was in fact published in 3 separate volumes. And
each volume was actually split into 2 "books", for a total of 6.
And why don't you call the Back to the Future movies a franchise?

Roy Rogers and Arby's. Wait a second, you don't mean food
franchises? If you asked about movie series, that is another story.
None are overrated because everyone expects the sequel to be worse
than the original. I am still waiting for part two of the Remo
Williams movie series (Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins was
released in 1985, it has been a long wait).

Remo Williams had a ridiculous premise, about a crooked arms supplier
who cheats the U.S government with the help of a corrupt general.
What could be next, a Remo Williams movie about an Army supplier who
is close friends with the President's brother and who sells defective
body armor for soldiers? Maybe that is why Remo Williams flopped, it
wa ahead of its time. Or maybe it was that really annoying Remo
Williams theme music whenever he went into action.

Jim Beaver

2007-07-21 11:42:21 UTC

Post by Dave
Compared to any other ones you also dislike, what 1 or 2 (live action
or animated)
film franchises do you regard as the most overrated one/s and please
say why, for each one mentioned.

STAR WARS. I saw the first three when they came out and was increasingly
bewildered by what audiences could find to like in them beyond a certain
(initial) fun with the special effects. Years later, I went back and saw a
couple of them again and wondered why I had not hated them any more in the
first place. I cannot bring myself to see the new batch. While there are a
couple of Gene Autry movies I've enjoyed less, there are no Roy Rogers
movies I've enjoyed less.

Jim Beaver

moviePig

2007-07-21 13:26:32 UTC

Post by Dave
Compared to any other ones you also dislike, what 1 or 2 (live action
or animated)
film franchises do you regard as the most overrated one/s and please
say why, for each one mentioned.

Imo, the first SW was indeed "initial fun" (with special effects)...
but, thereafter, we were asked to care, which was an intergalactic sea-
change...

Meanwhile, though, if you're able to compare kids' movies (like Roy's
and Gene's) watched at a single-digit age with those from 20-and-up,
then you're a better man than I am Gunga Din (Charlie Brown, etc.)...

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

OneOhEight

2007-07-21 14:27:20 UTC

1. X-men movies

2. SAW movies

Jim Beaver

2007-07-21 22:18:52 UTC

Post by moviePig

Post by Dave
Compared to any other ones you also dislike, what 1 or 2 (live action
or animated)
film franchises do you regard as the most overrated one/s and please
say why, for each one mentioned.

Imo, the first SW was indeed "initial fun" (with special effects)...
but, thereafter, we were asked to care, which was an intergalactic sea-
change...
Meanwhile, though, if you're able to compare kids' movies (like Roy's
and Gene's) watched at a single-digit age with those from 20-and-up,
then you're a better man than I am Gunga Din (Charlie Brown, etc.)...

Who said I saw Roy's and Gene's movies as a kid? I didn't. I saw Roy's TV
show as a kid, but not the movies. I saw the Rogers and Autry films
contemporaneously with the Lucas movies, more or less. I try to be pretty
careful in my comparisons. I.E., I didn't compare Star Wars unfavorably to
High School Confidential, which I've only seen as a single digiter. That
wouldn't be fair. ;-)

Jim Beaver

moviePig

2007-07-21 22:54:55 UTC

Post by Dave
Compared to any other ones you also dislike, what 1 or 2 (live action
or animated)
film franchises do you regard as the most overrated one/s and please
say why, for each one mentioned.

Imo, the first SW was indeed "initial fun" (with special effects)...
but, thereafter, we were asked to care, which was an intergalactic sea-
change...
Meanwhile, though, if you're able to compare kids' movies (like Roy's
and Gene's) watched at a single-digit age with those from 20-and-up,
then you're a better man than I am Gunga Din (Charlie Brown, etc.)...

(Btw, nice to see you're not deadwood at HBO... popping up throughout
my Mon. evenings... including ENTOURAGE and CONCHORDS eventually, no
doubt...)

All right, I give up. How did you manage a Roy/Gene festival in '77?
(If the answer is Sat. morning tv, make something up...)

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

Jim Beaver

2007-07-22 07:21:53 UTC

Post by moviePig
All right, I give up. How did you manage a Roy/Gene festival in '77?
(If the answer is Sat. morning tv, make something up...)

Local TV in Oklahoma City and Dallas. Plenty of that stuff.

Jim Beaver

Alric Knebel

2007-07-21 15:28:40 UTC

Post by Dave
Compared to any other ones you also dislike, what 1 or 2 (live action
or animated)
film franchises do you regard as the most overrated one/s and please
say why, for each one mentioned.

I couldn't agree more. I saw all three of the earlier ones in the
theater, because they were these BIG movies, with cutting-edge sound and
so forth. But they're boring beyond special effects. The relationships
are so childish, especially the one between the princess and Hans. They
behaved like two elementary school children making faces and sticking
their tongues out at one another. When the first chapter of the new
batch came out, a friend of mine (who was at an impressionable age at
the time the first movie came out) insisted we go. I was bored numb by
the time it was over, though the special effects were light-years
advanced from the original trilogy. But eye candy is everywhere these
days, so context matters now. And I left baffled by the enormous
popularity of the whole phenomenon, which hasn't been without its
negative effects, primarily that science fiction became an action genre,
and dumbed down again afer Kubrick and Heston had reframed it as
something mature.

--
_________________
Alric Knebel

http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com

z***@yahoo.com

2007-07-21 20:42:12 UTC

Post by Alric Knebel
I couldn't agree more. I saw all three of the earlier ones in the
theater, because they were these BIG movies, with cutting-edge sound and
so forth. But they're boring beyond special effects. The relationships
are so childish, especially the one between the princess and Hans. They
behaved like two elementary school children making faces and sticking
their tongues out at one another.

Ok, I'll stick up for the Star Wars films. Yes, the first ones came
out when I was an impressionable kid, so I certainly can't pretend to
be objective about the whole thing. But even as an adult I've enjoyed
re-watching them for both the whiz-bang fun, and because Lucas knew
what mythic archetypes to use to draw us in. It's been said so much
as to seem cliche now, but he really did try and set up the whole
thing as a space-age myth with the associated quests, princesses,
heroes, old wizards, magic, and pirates to go along with it.

Which is part of the reason why the character relationships aren't
complex on the surface. In other words, of course you're not supposed
to evaluate Luke Skywalker and Han Solo's actions in a modern,
"realistic" way, any more then you're supposed to think about how
illogical it is for Achilles to refuse to go to war just becaues
Agamemnon stole his girlfriend, or complain about the somewhat
illogical fact that Dido threw herself on the funeral pyre when Aeneas
left. Now, I'm not trying to imply that people will be watching "Star
Wars" in several thousand years the way we still read "The Iliad" and
"The Aeneid," but it's certainly fun to watch it now - at least for a
lot of us.

Jim Beaver

2007-07-21 22:22:46 UTC

Ok, I'll stick up for the Star Wars films. Yes, the first ones came
out when I was an impressionable kid, so I certainly can't pretend to
be objective about the whole thing. But even as an adult I've enjoyed
re-watching them for both the whiz-bang fun, and because Lucas knew
what mythic archetypes to use to draw us in. It's been said so much
as to seem cliche now, but he really did try and set up the whole
thing as a space-age myth with the associated quests, princesses,
heroes, old wizards, magic, and pirates to go along with it.
Which is part of the reason why the character relationships aren't
complex on the surface. In other words, of course you're not supposed
to evaluate Luke Skywalker and Han Solo's actions in a modern,
"realistic" way, any more then you're supposed to think about how
illogical it is for Achilles to refuse to go to war just becaues
Agamemnon stole his girlfriend, or complain about the somewhat
illogical fact that Dido threw herself on the funeral pyre when Aeneas
left. Now, I'm not trying to imply that people will be watching "Star
Wars" in several thousand years the way we still read "The Iliad" and
"The Aeneid," but it's certainly fun to watch it now - at least for a
lot of us.

Then why would I enjoy Jason and the Argonauts or even (shudder) Clash of
the Titans about a thousand times more than the Star Wars pictures, which
bore the bejabbers out of me? Because it isn't JUST about the mythic stuff.
I've got to believe (within the context of a fantastic world) AND care.
Most Kerwin Mathews movies pulled that off. Lucas didn't, for me.

Jim Beaver

z***@yahoo.com

2007-07-22 03:12:04 UTC

Post by Jim Beaver
Then why would I enjoy Jason and the Argonauts or even (shudder) Clash of
the Titans about a thousand times more than the Star Wars pictures, which
bore the bejabbers out of me? Because it isn't JUST about the mythic stuff.

Never said it was. In the case of Star Wars, Lucas combined the myth
stuff with whiz-bang space opera. For a lot of people, it was great
fun. Evidently that wasn't the case for you. Ultimately I can't
explain why you didn't like it as much as other people did any more
than I can explain why I did.

Alric Knebel

2007-07-22 05:01:58 UTC

Ok, I'll stick up for the Star Wars films. Yes, the first ones came
out when I was an impressionable kid, so I certainly can't pretend to
be objective about the whole thing. But even as an adult I've enjoyed
re-watching them for both the whiz-bang fun, and because Lucas knew
what mythic archetypes to use to draw us in. It's been said so much
as to seem cliche now, but he really did try and set up the whole
thing as a space-age myth with the associated quests, princesses,
heroes, old wizards, magic, and pirates to go along with it.
Which is part of the reason why the character relationships aren't
complex on the surface. In other words, of course you're not supposed
to evaluate Luke Skywalker and Han Solo's actions in a modern,
"realistic" way, any more then you're supposed to think about how
illogical it is for Achilles to refuse to go to war just becaues
Agamemnon stole his girlfriend, or complain about the somewhat
illogical fact that Dido threw herself on the funeral pyre when Aeneas
left. Now, I'm not trying to imply that people will be watching "Star
Wars" in several thousand years the way we still read "The Iliad" and
"The Aeneid," but it's certainly fun to watch it now - at least for a
lot of us.

Come on. CLASH OF THE TITANS isn't even close to shudderingly bad.

--
_________________
Alric Knebel

http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com

s***@slidge.com

2007-07-23 13:56:29 UTC

Post by z***@yahoo.com
Ok, I'll stick up for the Star Wars films. Yes, the first ones came
out when I was an impressionable kid, so I certainly can't pretend to
be objective about the whole thing. But even as an adult I've enjoyed
re-watching them for both the whiz-bang fun, and because Lucas knew
what mythic archetypes to use to draw us in.

And this is my problem with the Star Wars franchise. Lucas didn't set out
intending to draw us in with "mythic archetypes" - he set out to make a
Western in outer space. These westerns have plenty of pre-packaged
"mythich archetypes" and they translated well to the setting. Then Lucas
got wind of these archetypes via Campbell, and then he set out to inject
the "mythic archetypes" into the films, and failed miserably, which is why
the prequels suck so bad.

RogerM

2007-07-23 14:07:43 UTC

Post by s***@slidge.com
And this is my problem with the Star Wars franchise. Lucas didn't set out
intending to draw us in with "mythic archetypes" - he set out to make a
Western in outer space. These westerns have plenty of pre-packaged
"mythich archetypes" and they translated well to the setting. Then Lucas
got wind of these archetypes via Campbell, and then he set out to inject
the "mythic archetypes" into the films, and failed miserably, which is why
the prequels suck so bad.

The suckage started with RotJ, not Episode I. 'Sith' is actually better.

--
Best Online comic: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html

z***@yahoo.com

2007-07-24 03:43:31 UTC

Well, I obviously don't have first hand evidence of it, but both Lucas
and Campbell said that Lucas specifically had the Campbell myth stuff
in mind when he came out with the first "Star Wars." And it seems
plausible to me. The book "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" came out in
1949 (i.e., well before "Star Wars"), and before he made "Star Wars"
Lucas was into weird, avante garde films - not just westerns and the
like.

Of course Lucas was influenced by Westerns too. For instances, he's
said that "The Searchers" was a big influence on certain scenes in the
first "Star Wars," as well as a lot of Japanese movies from the 50s
and 60s (e.g. Akira Kurosawa). And it's true that Westerns and some
of those Japanese films had some of the archetypes that Campbell talks
about, but that's the point - these are themes that show up a lot in
heroic stories.

None of that means that you have to like the movies, of course. If
you're really into movies with crisp dialog or psychological tension
in a very naturalistic setting, then clearly these movies aren't for
you. But it's not as if every single film that comes out has to be
like that.

George Peatty

2007-07-21 19:59:15 UTC

Post by Jim Beaver
STAR WARS. I saw the first three when they came out and was increasingly
bewildered by what audiences could find to like in them beyond a certain
(initial) fun with the special effects. Years later, I went back and saw a
couple of them again and wondered why I had not hated them any more in the
first place. I cannot bring myself to see the new batch. While there are a
couple of Gene Autry movies I've enjoyed less, there are no Roy Rogers
movies I've enjoyed less.

Rogers could act and sing. Autry could only sing. I love The Phantom
Empire, but in the same way some people love Plan 9 ..

I had somewhat the same reaction to Star Wars. I remember leaving the
theater immensely disappointed after Empire .. I saw Phantom Menace, but not
the last two. It was clear after Jar-Jar that this was not my Star Wars. I
thought, too, that Lucas doesn't understand his own characters, but that's
another thread ..

Spob

2007-07-23 04:07:54 UTC

But that's what they are. A comic book brought to life. Special
effects and FANTASTIC music - one of the most amazing title themes, if
not THE most amazing - with a modest effort to cobble together a more
or less cohesive story line.

If you can't enjoy the Audio/Visual festival, then no, you won't find
much in them to enjoy.

S. Fu

2007-07-23 05:50:10 UTC

Ah, interesting. Yeah, by the end of the third S.W. flick I felt that
the plot development was so shaky that I was really having my doubts
about George Lucas as a filmmaker. And before someone shouts
derisively, "What plot?", keep in mind that his model was the old Flash
Gordon sci-fi serials which were, in a crude and obvious way, primarily
plot-driven. "Action in every scene," and plenty of it. The ability
of Lucas to pull off the "sci-fi" serial model dropped remarkably in
the first two sequels, but I gave him a pass since he didn't direct
those himself.

The second three Star Wars films destroyed any remaining doubt.
They're astonishingly dysfunctional films in very fundamental narrative
terms. The plotting erodes the basic willing suspension of disbelief
at every turn, and the character development is just ghastly. They're
stunningly bad films, even by pulp serial standards. I mean, one bad
film you can forgive, but when you take three more swings at a proven
franchise formula, with gobs of dollars to blow and seriously good
actors in your cast, and you jake it at each at-bat...wow.

I guess I'd disagree with Jim and say that the original premise of the
franchise was reasonably solid, although the execution was waning there
at the end of the third episode...and after that, well, I suppose we
all wish George had just rested on his laurels instead.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Robert D. Mahan

2007-07-21 16:13:19 UTC

Post by Dave
Compared to any other ones you also dislike, what 1 or 2 (live action
or animated)
film franchises do you regard as the most overrated one/s and please
say why, for each one mentioned.

Star Wars

Batman

Alric Knebel

2007-07-21 16:28:10 UTC

Post by Dave
Compared to any other ones you also dislike, what 1 or 2 (live action
or animated)
film franchises do you regard as the most overrated one/s and please
say why, for each one mentioned.

Star Wars
Batman

James Bond, except for the most recent entry, is overrated. It's simply
ridiculous, and I can't see anything good in it. To many long chases
and silly stunts. How it got that way from its humble beginnings is
amazing.

STAR WARS, of course, is a big children's morality tale. It does try
hard, though, to be important with all sorts of psuedo-religious talk
and grand conspiracies. Spectacular snoozer.

Halloween. Cheesy attempts at frights, but there's never a really tense
moment for me. Mostly it's, like, whoever is the person having the most
fun is the next to get the knife.

Friday the 13th. For years, Halloween and Friday the 13th were so
interchangeable, I'd get them mixed up. In fact, I might have them
mixed up right now. They vary only slightly in theme. If at all.

--
_________________
Alric Knebel

http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com

Invid Fan

2007-07-21 16:44:21 UTC

Post by Alric Knebel
Halloween.
Friday the 13th.

It is hard to call these overrated, when they're never rated very
highly by anyone :) The first Halloween is fun, but beyond that...

--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS

RobertJM

2007-07-21 17:15:38 UTC

Post by Invid Fan

Post by Alric Knebel
Halloween.
Friday the 13th.

It is hard to call these overrated, when they're never rated very
highly by anyone :) The first Halloween is fun, but beyond that...

Well , I for one love the 13th's :)

--
RobertJM

Jared

2007-07-23 03:58:32 UTC

Post by Invid Fan
It is hard to call these overrated, when they're never rated very
highly by anyone :) The first Halloween is fun, but beyond that...

The first one does seem to be viewed as the seminal slasher, but IMO
that's like being the shiniest turd. I like III: "Season of the
Witch" which is downright weird and doesn't really belong in the
series anyway. The rest are just crap (I would imagine, life being
too short to actually watch any of them).

Michael O'Connor

2007-07-21 17:18:47 UTC

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Dave
Compared to any other ones you also dislike, what 1 or 2 (live action
or animated)
film franchises do you regard as the most overrated one/s and please
say why, for each one mentioned.

Star Wars
Batman

I think Casino Royale was the best Bond film since On Her Majesty's
Secret Service. This new movie saved the franchise. I just hope they
don't start remaking the early Connery films like Goldfinger.

I thought the first Matrix movie was clever and original (in the way
they took concepts from other movies and repackaged them in a new
way), but the sequels were disappointing. They should have stopped
after the first one IMO.

I never read the Lord of the Rings books, but I watched the movies and
they put me to sleep.

Howard Brazee

2007-07-21 19:48:04 UTC

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 11:28:10 -0500, Alric Knebel

Post by Alric Knebel
James Bond, except for the most recent entry, is overrated. It's simply
ridiculous, and I can't see anything good in it. To many long chases
and silly stunts. How it got that way from its humble beginnings is
amazing.

What humble beginnings are you referring to? The books? The movie
_Dr. No_? It seems that you are saying that its humble beginnings
are overrated.

Alric Knebel

2007-07-22 04:19:29 UTC

Post by Howard Brazee
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 11:28:10 -0500, Alric Knebel

What humble beginnings are you referring to? The books? The movie
_Dr. No_? It seems that you are saying that its humble beginnings
are overrated.

No. I'm saying that after what came after DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH
LOVE were entirely different animals from those humble efforts. As time
passed, they got more and more extravagant and downright corny. Before
long, our mores overtook Bond, leaving him and his double entendres
behind, and looking silly. And it took the filmmakers to CASINO ROYALE
before they got it really right again. Not counting the fluke that was
ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE.

--
_________________
Alric Knebel

http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com

Howard Brazee

2007-07-22 12:29:51 UTC

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:19:29 -0500, Alric Knebel

Post by Alric Knebel
No. I'm saying that after what came after DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH
LOVE were entirely different animals from those humble efforts. As time
passed, they got more and more extravagant and downright corny. Before
long, our mores overtook Bond, leaving him and his double entendres
behind, and looking silly. And it took the filmmakers to CASINO ROYALE
before they got it really right again. Not counting the fluke that was
ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE.

That makes more sense. I haven't gotten around to watching the last
half of the movies after they went too over-the-top for me to retain
my interest.

paysattention

2007-07-22 12:40:20 UTC

Post by Howard Brazee
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:19:29 -0500, Alric Knebel

That makes more sense. I haven't gotten around to watching the last
half of the movies after they went too over-the-top for me to retain
my interest.

Star Wars series
James Bond series

And who was the genius that thought we needed 2 ScoobyDoo movies?

I have enjoyed the Die Hards, except for Die Hard II.
Also liked The Thin Man series of movies, although I haven't seen them
in many years.

Jared

2007-07-23 03:54:42 UTC

They were starting to address his rather out-dated outlook in THE
WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH where it's suggested his need to sleep with every
single woman he meets might not actually be very healthy.

What I liked most about CASINO ROYALE was they dropped the humour, or
rather the attempts at humour. Always found it grating that a suave,
ice-cold double agent who can fly a space shuttle and talk fluently in
dozens of languages should have the wit of an eight year old schoolboy.

Steven L.

2007-07-21 23:37:55 UTC

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Dave
Compared to any other ones you also dislike, what 1 or 2 (live action
or animated)
film franchises do you regard as the most overrated one/s and please
say why, for each one mentioned.

Star Wars
Batman

James Bond, except for the most recent entry, is overrated. It's simply
ridiculous, and I can't see anything good in it. To many long chases
and silly stunts. How it got that way from its humble beginnings is
amazing.
STAR WARS, of course, is a big children's morality tale. It does try
hard, though, to be important with all sorts of psuedo-religious talk
and grand conspiracies. Spectacular snoozer.
Halloween. Cheesy attempts at frights, but there's never a really tense
moment for me. Mostly it's, like, whoever is the person having the most
fun is the next to get the knife.
Friday the 13th. For years, Halloween and Friday the 13th were so
interchangeable, I'd get them mixed up. In fact, I might have them
mixed up right now. They vary only slightly in theme. If at all.

I don't think these last two can be considered "overrated," which would
mean they're worse than most folks believe. I don't think anybody
regards Halloween or Friday the 13th as superior.

I do agree with you about Star Wars, though. A franchise needs more
than two good offerings to be considered a decent franchise.

I would have suggested these two:

Superman. They had exactly two good movies and they should have stopped
there.

The Zucker comedies (only Airplane! was really good)--but I notice
someone else already mentioned those.

--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: ***@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Howard Brazee

2007-07-22 01:56:38 UTC

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:37:55 GMT, "Steven L."

Post by Steven L.
Superman. They had exactly two good movies and they should have stopped
there.
The Zucker comedies (only Airplane! was really good)--but I notice
someone else already mentioned those.

There's a variation of The Peter Principle at work here. If a movie
is good and makes money, people will try to duplicate its success -
until all good ideas have been used up.

b***@yahoo.com

2007-07-21 20:07:18 UTC

Post by Dave
Compared to any other ones you also dislike, what 1 or 2 (live action
or animated)
film franchises do you regard as the most overrated one/s and please
say why, for each one mentioned.

Star Wars
Batman

Batman Begins was good. Spiderman I, II, III were all overrated. I was
Hulk was live-action instead of animated. The one movie that should
have been live action, they made animated.

explorer

2007-07-21 16:42:39 UTC

x-no-archive: yes

Post by Dave
Compared to any other ones you also dislike, what 1 or 2 (live action
or animated)
film franchises do you regard as the most overrated one/s and please
say why, for each one mentioned.

All of them.

Very, very, very few movies should have a sequel. But if it makes money -
there's always talk of a sequel.

Alric Knebel

2007-07-21 16:50:11 UTC

Post by explorer
x-no-archive: yes

Post by Dave
Compared to any other ones you also dislike, what 1 or 2 (live action
or animated)
film franchises do you regard as the most overrated one/s and please
say why, for each one mentioned.

All of them.
Very, very, very few movies should have a sequel. But if it makes money -
there's always talk of a sequel.

I thought the Jack Ryan franchised worked. And it seems the Borne
series is maintaining a respectable level of quality.

--
_________________
Alric Knebel

http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com

Walter Traprock

2007-07-21 17:07:16 UTC

Post by explorer
x-no-archive: yes

Post by Dave
Compared to any other ones you also dislike, what 1 or 2 (live action
or animated)
film franchises do you regard as the most overrated one/s and please
say why, for each one mentioned.

All of them.
Very, very, very few movies should have a sequel. But if it makes money -
there's always talk of a sequel.

I don't think Gene Autry or Abbott and Costello ever had a sequel!

z***@yahoo.com

2007-07-21 20:47:45 UTC

Post by Walter Traprock

Post by explorer
x-no-archive: yes

Post by Dave
Compared to any other ones you also dislike, what 1 or 2 (live action
or animated)
film franchises do you regard as the most overrated one/s and please
say why, for each one mentioned.

All of them.
Very, very, very few movies should have a sequel. But if it makes money -
there's always talk of a sequel.

I don't think Gene Autry or Abbott and Costello ever had a sequel!

With regards to Abbott and Costello, it's hard to make a sequel when
you basically remake the same movie again and again. Don't get me
wrong, I love those guys. But seriously, their movies are very similar
to one another.

Regarding sequels, I don't like or dislike them. I like good movies,
and if a movie happens to be a sequel to an earlier one, fine, but
it's not like I'm going to like it more or less based on that.
Likewise, I don't look down my nose on sequels. For one thing, making
up followup stories using the same characters as earlier ones goes
way, way back, well before films (and probably even writing) were ever
invented.

Michael O'Connor

2007-07-21 17:30:37 UTC

Post by explorer
Very, very, very few movies should have a sequel. But if it makes money -
there's always talk of a sequel.

I am not a huge fan of sequels, and I can think of many movies over
the years (Animal House for one) which at the time I thought would
become a franchise, but the filmmakers were wise enough to quit while
they were ahead. I've often felt if Batman hadn't come along that Tim
Burton may have wound up doing a sequel to Beetlejuice. And there
were some movies where I felt that based on the film title the
filmmakers were trying to start a film franchise (Remo Williams: The
Adventure Begins is the one that first comes to mind) and the first
movie never caught on with fans and they were unable to make a sequel.

Wull

2007-07-21 18:43:32 UTC

I would say "Pulp Fiction" and the Blue something with Isabella Rossellini
and that wild man Dennis Hopper.

Wull

Post by explorer
Very, very, very few movies should have a sequel. But if it makes money -
there's always talk of a sequel.

Jason Lane

2007-07-21 18:55:06 UTC

Pirates of the Caribbean, especially the second and third movie. Way
too long and overdone. Take Johnny Depp out of the movie and it has
nothing.

Police Academy is another series I don't get, and there were 7 of
those movies. They were third-rate at best.

Post by Wull
I would say "Pulp Fiction" and the Blue something with Isabella Rossellini
and that wild man Dennis Hopper.
Wull

Post by explorer
Very, very, very few movies should have a sequel. But if it makes money -
there's always talk of a sequel.

Agent Smith

2007-07-21 18:58:24 UTC

Post by Jason Lane
Pirates of the Caribbean, especially the second and third movie. Way
too long and overdone. Take Johnny Depp out of the movie and it has
nothing.
Police Academy is another series I don't get, and there were 7 of
those movies. They were third-rate at best.

James Bond and National Lamb-Poon.

Post by Jason Lane

Post by Wull
I would say "Pulp Fiction" and the Blue something with Isabella
Rossellini and that wild man Dennis Hopper.
Wull

Post by explorer
Very, very, very few movies should have a sequel. But if it makes money -
there's always talk of a sequel.

I am not a huge fan of sequels, and I can think of many movies over
the years (Animal House for one) which at the time I thought would
become a franchise, but the filmmakers were wise enough to quit
while they were ahead. I've often felt if Batman hadn't come along
that Tim Burton may have wound up doing a sequel to Beetlejuice.
And there were some movies where I felt that based on the film title
The Adventure Begins is the one that first comes to mind) and the
first movie never caught on with fans and they were unable to make a
sequel.

explorer

2007-07-21 19:48:39 UTC

x-no-archive: yes

The fun of the Police Academy movies was that no one ever pretended they
were supposed to be anything but dumb fun. But I agree they made way too
many of them.

David Oberman

2007-07-21 20:27:28 UTC

Post by explorer
The fun of the Police Academy movies was that no one ever pretended they
were supposed to be anything but dumb fun. But I agree they made way too
many of them.

The earlier Zucker-Abrahams comedies were good, too, but they piled up
one on top of another over the years until you had a whole bunch of
them that are bombs in every way. I spent a few weeks watching dozens
of them last year because I thought I had missed some good, cheap
comedy, but I learned that this wasn't the case.

Howard Brazee

2007-07-21 20:46:13 UTC

Post by explorer
The fun of the Police Academy movies was that no one ever pretended they
were supposed to be anything but dumb fun. But I agree they made way too
many of them.

Fortunately in a series like this, there is only one too many that
matters - the last one *I* saw. There are way too many things to
take up my time than to continue such as series past where I enjoyed
myself without convincing evidence that things have changed.

RobertJM

2007-07-22 19:40:41 UTC

Post by explorer
Very, very, very few movies should have a sequel. But if it makes money -
there's always talk of a sequel.

Ah Remo : Unarmed and Dangerous (don't know if that was the UK/video title),
always expected that to become a TV series.

PS. Just noticed the cross-posting , what is the usual 'netiquette' for
this?
Should I have removed all bar this one? or is it OK they are linked.

--
RobertJM

Mac

2007-07-23 00:36:43 UTC

Post by RobertJM

Post by explorer
Very, very, very few movies should have a sequel. But if it makes money -
there's always talk of a sequel.

I am not a huge fan of sequels, and I can think of many movies over
the years (Animal House for one) which at the time I thought would
become a franchise, but the filmmakers were wise enough to quit while
they were ahead. I've often felt if Batman hadn't come along that
Tim Burton may have wound up doing a sequel to Beetlejuice. And
there were some movies where I felt that based on the film title the
filmmakers were trying to start a film franchise (Remo Williams: The
Adventure Begins is the one that first comes to mind) and the first
movie never caught on with fans and they were unable to make a sequel.

Ah Remo : Unarmed and Dangerous (don't know if that was the UK/video
title), always expected that to become a TV series.

They tried (with Roddy McDowall as Chuin), but it didn't work out.

--
--Mac

RobertJM

2007-07-23 21:06:55 UTC

Post by Mac

Post by RobertJM

Post by explorer
Very, very, very few movies should have a sequel. But if it makes money -
there's always talk of a sequel.

I am not a huge fan of sequels, and I can think of many movies over
the years (Animal House for one) which at the time I thought would
become a franchise, but the filmmakers were wise enough to quit while
they were ahead. I've often felt if Batman hadn't come along that
Tim Burton may have wound up doing a sequel to Beetlejuice. And
there were some movies where I felt that based on the film title the
filmmakers were trying to start a film franchise (Remo Williams: The
Adventure Begins is the one that first comes to mind) and the first
movie never caught on with fans and they were unable to make a sequel.

Ah Remo : Unarmed and Dangerous (don't know if that was the UK/video
title), always expected that to become a TV series.

They tried (with Roddy McDowall as Chuin), but it didn't work out.
--
--Mac

Must have missed that one, Roddy McDowall !? good grief.

--
RobertJM

Franklin Hummel

2007-07-24 15:12:42 UTC

Post by RobertJM
Must have missed that one, Roddy McDowall !? good grief.

Speaking of McDowall:

The Planet of the Apes series, though it is certainly NOT overrated. It doesn't
rate high-enough to be middle-rated.

First one was great, second one was good, three-five: crash and burn.

-- Franklin Hummel in Boston, Massachusetts

--
* Show Your Miskatonic University Gay Pride! *
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Buy T-Shirts, Sweatshirts, Buttons & Postcards at:
http://www.cafepress.com/gay_miskatonic

Anim8rFSK

2007-07-24 16:24:37 UTC

Post by Franklin Hummel

Post by RobertJM
Must have missed that one, Roddy McDowall !? good grief.

The Planet of the Apes series, though it is certainly NOT overrated. It doesn't
rate high-enough to be middle-rated.
First one was great, second one was good, three-five: crash and burn.
-- Franklin Hummel in Boston, Massachusetts

And of course Roddy's not in the second film, so it's a series of 'one
good film' for him. :)

--
"No man ever notices a woman's shoes, unless they have boobs on them."
-- Mark Nobles

Peter

2007-07-22 09:08:10 UTC

Post by explorer
Very, very, very few movies should have a sequel.

OK, generally, I think I'd agree with you. But let's suggest an
exception: Alien. The first was brilliant, the second was very good
indeed - but mainly because it didn't try to copy the first.

Peter.

Richard Schultz

2007-07-22 09:23:07 UTC

In rec.arts.movies.past-films Peter <***@spammersgotohell.allblue.f9.co.uk> wrote:

: OK, generally, I think I'd agree with you. But let's suggest an
: exception: Alien. The first was brilliant, the second was very good
: indeed - but mainly because it didn't try to copy the first.

Plus it gave Bill Paxton the greatest line in his career as an actor.

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
The gardener plants an evergreen whilst trampling on a flower. . .

Covenant

2007-07-22 22:20:11 UTC

Post by Richard Schultz
In rec.arts.movies.past-films Peter
: OK, generally, I think I'd agree with you. But let's suggest an
: exception: Alien. The first was brilliant, the second was very good
: indeed - but mainly because it didn't try to copy the first.
Plus it gave Bill Paxton the greatest line in his career as an actor.

which one???

"Oh you want some too!?"

"Yeah man, Bishop should go!"

"I'm ON it!"

"Well why don't you put HER in charge?"

"How do I get out of this chickens**t outfit?"

"You're dogmeat pal!"

"I'm readng it right man... what the hell!?"

(certainly NOT... "Check it out..... Don;t worry Ripley, we'll protect you!"
an AWFUL scene that....)

fake-name

2007-07-22 22:29:42 UTC

Post by Covenant

which one???

surely:

"GAME OVER, MAN ! GAME OVER !"

Covenant

2007-07-23 20:52:24 UTC

Post by fake-name

Post by Covenant

which one???

"GAME OVER, MAN ! GAME OVER !"

;' )

'xactly !!!

Didntcha think it was conspicuous by it's absence??

Cheers!

--
Covenant
A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands

AnthonyM1975

2007-07-21 16:46:48 UTC

Post by Dave
Compared to any other ones you also dislike, what 1 or 2 (live action
or animated)
film franchises do you regard as the most overrated one/s and please
say why, for each one mentioned.

The Ocean movies. Horrible excuses to overact and act smug
Final Destination the first one was interesting the last one was lame.
Freaking out about a rollercoaster? Lame.

Terry Lomax

2007-07-22 02:14:39 UTC

Post by Dave
Compared to any other ones you also dislike, what 1 or 2 (live action
or animated)
film franchises do you regard as the most overrated one/s and please
say why, for each one mentioned.

Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, both because they're geeky "magic"
stories based on books, using tons of CGI. The media devotion to
Potter is way too much.

Angus Manwaring

2007-07-22 13:02:34 UTC

On 21-Jul-07 03:37:12, Dave said

Post by Dave
Compared to any other ones you also dislike, what 1 or 2 (live action
or animated)
film franchises do you regard as the most overrated one/s and please
say why, for each one mentioned.

Highlander - There should be only One!

Or at least better efforts are required for the sequels. I don't think
even the plot made sense.

But I liked most of the Alien movies particuarly Aliens. Maybe I didn't
rate the later ones so much, but they seemed to have some integrity with a
real story to tell.

I have to admit I liked the Back to the Future trilogy, just well made,
feel good fun.

My least favourite - Armageddon. I know there's just the one movie, but
that was so awful, I'm taking no chances. :)

All the best,
Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)

I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga
Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html

Anim8rFSK

2007-07-23 04:09:17 UTC

Post by Angus Manwaring
My least favourite - Armageddon. I know there's just the one movie, but
that was so awful, I'm taking no chances. :)

LOL

Well, there are different versions of the DVD, and the rip off movies
like Earthstorm, so it's sort of a living undead franchise.

--
"No man ever notices a woman's shoes, unless they have boobs on them."
-- Mark Nobles

Sir Benjamin Nunn

2007-07-23 15:28:21 UTC

Post by Dave
Compared to any other ones you also dislike, what 1 or 2 (live action
or animated)
film franchises do you regard as the most overrated one/s and please
say why, for each one mentioned.

Lord of the Rings, because the characterisation is weak, at the expense of
highlighting expensive FX, and it's full of fan-wank and loads of stupid
battles and way too many rules to be obeyed, given that it's set in a place
where magic is real.

Harry Potter, for similar reasons.

The Godfather. Well, I just found the whole subject deeply boring.

James Bond ditto.

The new Star Wars films are also hugely overrated, but I do like the
originals, although that could be as much to do with being in the right
place at the right age to form an emotional attachment as anything else.

That's more than two, but then I think all of these are overrated and could
probably think of others. Rocky, Die Hard, Rambo, Childs Play / Chucky,
don't like any of that shite.

BTN

Magnus, Robot Fighter

2007-07-23 17:14:17 UTC

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:28:21 +0100, "Sir Benjamin Nunn"

Post by Sir Benjamin Nunn

Post by Dave
Compared to any other ones you also dislike, what 1 or 2 (live action
or animated)
film franchises do you regard as the most overrated one/s and please
say why, for each one mentioned.

Yes....I don't know what they were thinking including those stupid
battles from the book. My Dinner With Gandalf would have been
infinitely more interesting.

Post by Sir Benjamin Nunn
Harry Potter, for similar reasons.
The Godfather. Well, I just found the whole subject deeply boring.
James Bond ditto.
The new Star Wars films are also hugely overrated, but I do like the
originals, although that could be as much to do with being in the right
place at the right age to form an emotional attachment as anything else.
That's more than two, but then I think all of these are overrated and could
probably think of others. Rocky, Die Hard, Rambo, Childs Play / Chucky,
don't like any of that shite.
BTN

I'm still waiting to be pointed to the people who highly rate thw SW
series, not to mention Rocky, Ranbo and Child's Play.

Anim8rFSK

2007-07-23 20:00:25 UTC

Post by Magnus, Robot Fighter
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:28:21 +0100, "Sir Benjamin Nunn"

Post by Sir Benjamin Nunn

Post by Dave
Compared to any other ones you also dislike, what 1 or 2 (live action
or animated)
film franchises do you regard as the most overrated one/s and please
say why, for each one mentioned.

Yes....I don't know what they were thinking including those stupid
battles from the book. My Dinner With Gandalf would have been
infinitely more interesting.

I'm still waiting to be pointed to the people who highly rate thw SW
series, not to mention Rocky, Ranbo and Child's Play.

I know lots of people that highly rate SW, at least the originals,
although most of them are in the fx industry. I dunno anybody that
rates the other 3 you mention highly, if at all.

--
"No man ever notices a woman's shoes, unless they have boobs on them."
-- Mark Nobles

l***@my-deja.com

2007-07-24 15:33:13 UTC

Post by Dave
Compared to any other ones you also dislike, what 1 or 2 (live action
or animated)
film franchises do you regard as the most overrated one/s and please
say why, for each one mentioned.

That's easy:

STAR WARS

LORD OF THE RINGS

Why, you ask?
Well, with Star Wars, it's because four of the six movies are such
utter garbage that it makes me want to never see the first two (which
were kind of entertaining--in a mindless sort of way) ever again.
With LOTR, they were just way too overhyped as some kind of millennial
event for cinema. The films weren't as bad as the Star Wars films (or
the Harry Potter films), but they weren't good enough to deserve all
the hype and attention they got. Part 2, in particular, seemed totally
superfluous. They don't do anything in it that couldn't have been
handled in a few scenes at the end of Part 1 or the beginning of Part
3 or handled with some onscreen text or a narrator's description or
something. And the Best Picture Oscar for the third film was just a
blatant reward for an astounding commercial achievement.

Lord Turkey Cough

2007-08-06 23:59:10 UTC

Post by Dave
Compared to any other ones you also dislike, what 1 or 2 (live action
or animated)
film franchises do you regard as the most overrated one/s and please
say why, for each one mentioned.

Widesceen and widescreen.

POD {Ò¿Ó}

2007-08-07 00:41:57 UTC

"Lord Turkey Cough" <***@invalid.com> once tried to test me. I ate
their liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti

Post by Lord Turkey Cough
Widesceen and widescreen.

Yeah, damn them for not pan and scanning all those DVDs....
--
Thank you kindly

POD {Ò¿Ó}
ž.·Ž¯`·.ž.·Ž¯`·.ž.·Ž¯`·.ž.·Ž¯`·.ž.·Ž¯`·.ž.·Ž¯`·.žž.·Ž¯`·.ž
Oh people, know that you have committed great sins.
If you ask me what proof I have for these words,
I say it is because I am the punishment of God.
If you had not committed great sins,
God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.
ž.·Ž¯`·.ž.·Ž¯`·.ž.·Ž¯`·.ž.·Ž¯`·.ž.·Ž¯`·.ž.·Ž¯`·.žž.·Ž¯`·.ž

Invid Fan

2007-08-07 02:04:21 UTC