Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Benjamin Olson" data-source="post: 9071933" data-attributes="member: 6988941">Completely disagree. The question was "best" not "most immaculate". But even if it is "most immaculate" you either have to allow cutting off your canon of what is the franchise somewhere, or else we might as well not have the discussion, because all great franchises will eventually meet their Waterloo. If nobody wants to dig them up someday to give them a terrible, embarrassing entry then they probably lack ongoing cultural relevance.But yes, thank goodness there are only two Alien movies that count, and two Terminator movies that count. Now in the case of Terminator I do think the other sequels are worth examining as evidence of overall franchise fundamentals to a degree, because they have effectively tried to make a Terminator 3 four times now and it has sucked every time, which seems like evidence that there just isn't more story worth telling in the Terminator-verse, but even there I'd say that doesn't really detract from my love of the franchise's two good movies.I understand it feels arbitrary, but surely we must draw lines somewhere. Surely Tolkien's works are no better or worse for the existence of this:[MEDIA=youtube]BC35cQKHwzg[/MEDIA]I feel like franchises are being rewarded or penalized based on whether their worst entries happen to be in the same medium as their best entries. If a great book series gets a terrible adaptation... well the books still stand. But a great film gets a terrible sequel and it is never again allowed to stand apart from it. It makes sense to an extent, but if we're going to compare all franchises in all mediums we should be aware of this bias.</blockquote>

Verification