DVD & Blu-Ray Purchases Thread - (DVD's! Do you buy them New or Used?...)

[bassman]

But what were the writer’s sequel intentions??

[JDP]

Why are you trying so hard to make an argument out of this? It's ridiculous. There is, literally, no argument to be had here. It has nothing to do with the script. Once a script is bought, that's it. The script writer gets paid and gets a credit. The film maker can then do, pretty much, what they want with it. The script means nothing in this case. There's no "communication" problem and there's no "whoops, we didn't mean it" going on. There were no good faith accidents happening. These movies were DIRECTLY produced and financed as "sequels", because the film companies wanted to cash in on a box office hit. It really is that simple. Italian cinema was notorious for it. There are loads of "sequels" to famous films that came out in Italy, none of which had much to do with the original film. I am not sure if you are reading what is being written or what. What you are describing fits one of the possible scenarios: the producers took a script that had nothing to do with another given movie, and then plastered a fake "sequel" promotion on it. In this case the scriptwriter is not at fault. He wrote something else entirely different and it was never his intention to be misleading. Scenario Number 1: fulfilled. But unless you are a mind-reader and know everything that was going on in everyone's minds back then, there might have been cases of Scenario Number 2: some of these pretended "sequels" were intentionally commissioned to be these totally disconnected stories and yet misleadingly promoted as "sequels" nonetheless. In this case, the scriptwriters would purposefully come up with some story having barely any connection at all with the movie it was supposed to be a follow up to, so they are fully complicit in the deceptive tactic. Or Scenario Number 3: the producers want a movie with at least some kind of real connection with the plot of the movie they are intending to follow up, but the scriptwriters don't quite get what the producers want and write something that barely has some kind of connection; the final product is not exactly what the producers originally wanted, but due to time and/or money constrains they green-light the project anyway and still pretend is a "sequel" nonetheless. Just considering what the several possibilities could be, that's all. - - - Updated - - - So wait....are YOU telling ME that Titanic II is NOT an official sequel?!? LOL! What a lousy example of intended "sarcasm". Maybe you should actually read the plot of the movie to understand the "why" of the title. Talking about "reading & comprehension" problems and general "douche-baggery"....

[bassman]

The “why” of the title has nothing to do with the fact that the film was given the title “Titanic 2” for one simple reason, which is to trick unknowing consumers, thus moving more units/DVD’s. Just like what shoot has been saying about “Zombi 2”, it was done only for name recognition and revenue.

[JDP]

The “why” of the title has nothing to do with the fact that the film was given the title “Titanic 2” for one simple reason, which is to trick unknowing consumers, thus moving more units/DVD’s. Just like what shoot has been saying about “Zombi 2”, it was done only for name recognition and revenue. Hint: the title is actually in reference to the ship's name, which is literally "Titanic II". What else do you want the filmmakers to call the film? Apollo 13???? Obviously that they will chose a fitting title that has to do with the main "character" (if we allow a ship to be referred to as such) in the movie. The producers are not pretending that it is an actual follow up to the original Titanic story set in the early 20th century.

[shootemindehead]

I am not sure if you are reading what is being written or what. What you are describing fits one of the possible scenarios: the producers took a script that had nothing to do with another given movie, and then plastered a fake "sequel" promotion on it. In this case the scriptwriter is not at fault. He wrote something else entirely different and it was never his intention to be misleading. Scenario Number 1: fulfilled. But unless you are a mind-reader and know everything that was going on in everyone's minds back then, there might have been cases of Scenario Number 2: some of these pretended "sequels" were intentionally commissioned to be these totally disconnected stories and yet misleadingly promoted as "sequels" nonetheless. In this case, the scriptwriters would purposefully come up with some story having barely any connection at all with the movie it was supposed to be a follow up to, so they are fully complicit in the deceptive tactic. Or Scenario Number 3: the producers want a movie with at least some kind of real connection with the plot of the movie they are intending to follow up, but the scriptwriters don't quite get what the producers want and write something that barely has some kind of connection; the final product is not exactly what the producers originally wanted, but due to time and/or money constrains they green-light the project anyway and still pretend is a "sequel" nonetheless. Just considering what the several possibilities could be, that's all. You're just trying to make up shit to argue about. Not one person on this thread has said anything about a scriptwriter's "fault". We're done here. This is fucking stupid.

[JDP]

You're just trying to make up shit to argue about. Not one person on this thread has said anything about a scriptwriter's "fault". We're done here. This is fucking stupid. Read post #74 and then your response in #75. I clearly said that the scriptwriter didn't seem to be at fault here, but the producers. Yet you had to respond to something that, bizarrely enough, you are now agreeing with! Then why try to argue about it in the first place??? Just agree and move on or don't say anything.

[bassman]

Hint: the title is actually in reference to the ship's name, which is literally "Titanic II". What else do you want the filmmakers to call the film? Apollo 13???? Obviously that they will chose a fitting title that has to do with the main "character" (if we allow a ship to be referred to as such) in the movie. The producers are not pretending that it is an actual follow up to the original Titanic story set in the early 20th century. Dude.....you honestly think the titles for these “sequels” discussed here were given for artistic reasons, or reasons having to do with anything other than name recognition and profit? I could write “Citizen Kane 2” and have the world’s best explanation in the film as to why it’s titled that, but that makes zero difference and changes nothing about the fact that it was very intentionally given that title for recognition purposes and so that unknowing consumers would see it and say “Oh! I loved the original (insert title here), so I have to see this!”. It’s the very same reason that these smaller studios like Asylum rush out films with similar plot and titles to upcoming theatrical releases that are guaranteed to make money. Transmorphers, Atlantic Rim, Snakes on a Train, etc. Very intentionally creating cash grabs with name recognition.

[JDP]

Dude.....you honestly think the titles for these “sequels” discussed here were given for artistic reasons, or reasons having to do with anything other than name recognition and profit? I could write “Citizen Kane 2” and have the world’s best explanation in the film as to why it’s titled that, but that makes zero difference and changes nothing about the fact that it was very intentionally given that title for recognition purposes and so that unknowing consumers would see it and say “Oh! I loved the original (insert title here), so I have to see this!”. It’s the very same reason that these smaller studios like Asylum rush out films with similar plot and titles to upcoming popular releases that are guaranteed to make money. Transmorphers, Atlantic Rim, Snakes on a Train, etc. Very intentionally creating cash grabs with name recognition. Besides the fact that this is a direct-to-TV movie (not really going to fool many people into spending money on it even if that was your intention), the movies you are referring to are not really going to fool many people either. I mean "Transmorphers"... LOL! Come on. These silly title-twists are not really that difficult to spot as being different from the more famous titles. In the case of Titanic II it might give the "sequel" impression that you are referring to to someone who doesn't know anything about the movie, due to the "II" in the title, but merely reading the plot summary it will quickly be clear that this is not intended as a sequel to the original story.

[bassman]

Indeed, it’s all down to each individual consumer/viewer whether or not they’re going to be duped by these tricks, but there have to be plenty of people out there doing so, because they’ve been churning out these cash grabs for a great length of time without any sign of slowing down....

[JDP]

Indeed, it’s all down to each individual consumer/viewer whether or not they’re going to be duped by these tricks, but there have to be plenty of people out there doing so, because they’ve been churning out these cash grabs for a great length of time without any sign of slowing down.... Been watching movies at home since Beta and VHS video shops were around... I can't remember even one person who even rented -let alone bought- a movie without reading the back of the box first. The only movies that can conceivably fool someone into thinking that they are actual "sequels" to other movies are the ones where the plots, as described in the plot summaries, are also misleadingly presented to the public, or written in a very vague manner that doesn't give a clearer idea of what the movies are actually about. If they are written with at least a minimum of accuracy, though, these shams are not really fooling anyone. People who buy/rent such movies most of the time do so fully knowing they are not really any such "sequels" and just want to see them anyway (mostly out of pure curiosity.)

[bassman]

Speaking of false advertising with films......when I was watching the Terminator franchise recently, I had a good chuckle with this: Where was this movie??

[EvilNed]

Been watching movies at home since Beta and VHS video shops were around... I can't remember even one person who even rented -let alone bought- a movie without reading the back of the box first. The only movies that can conceivably fool someone into thinking that they are actual "sequels" to other movies are the ones where the plots, as described in the plot summaries, are also misleadingly presented to the public, or written in a very vague manner that doesn't give a clearer idea of what the movies are actually about. If they are written with at least a minimum of accuracy, though, these shams are not really fooling anyone. People who buy/rent such movies most of the time do so fully knowing they are not really any such "sequels" and just want to see them anyway (mostly out of pure curiosity.) Hypothesis: There exists a trend among low budget filmmakers to market their films as sequels, or knock offs, to famous blockbusters in an attempt to garner extra interest in the film. Evidence for such a trend: Companies such as Asylum systematically give their film titles and box office art that are remarkeable similar to trending blockbusters. There are italian produced sequels named Zombi 2, Alien 2, Terminator 2, House on the edge of the park 2 etc. Evidence against such a trend: JDP has never once rented a film without reading the back of the cover. Nor has anyone he knows.

[JDP]

Hypothesis: There exists a trend among low budget filmmakers to market their films as sequels, or knock offs, to famous blockbusters in an attempt to garner extra interest in the film. Evidence for such a trend: Companies such as Asylum systematically give their film titles and box office art that are remarkeable similar to trending blockbusters. There are italian produced sequels named Zombi 2, Alien 2, Terminator 2, House on the edge of the park 2 etc. Evidence against such a trend: JDP has never once rented a film without reading the back of the cover. Nor has anyone he knows. Let's see, when I first saw "Zombi 3" I wasn't really fooled at all that it had anything to do with "Zombi" or "Zombi 2". Why? All I had to do is read the plot summary in less than 1 minute. Kind of self-defeating for the "geniuses" behind the title thingy, don't you think? They did not really pull a fast one on anyone, except maybe the retarded or the illiterate (but then again these last ones won't even be able to read the movie's title in the first place, so the tactic falls flat on them too.) So: Evidence that such a trend does not really work #2: The above referred plot summaries... they are there for a purpose. #3: People aren't that stupid or blind. Something like "Transmorphers", for example, isn't really fooling anyone into thinking it's the same as "Transformers", except maybe the retarded, who are a marginal segment of the population, or the illiterate (who can't read movie titles to begin with, so it's like "barking up the wrong tree".) #4: Nowadays there is the Internet. You can very easily have access to more info about any movie ever made than ever before. Conclusion: most people watch these movies because they fully want to (mostly out of curiosity), not because they are really being misled into watching them by some silly title-twist or some number arbitrarily slapped onto a generic title.

[EvilNed]

Let's see, when I first saw "Zombi 3" I wasn't really fooled at all that it had anything to do with "Zombi" or "Zombi 2". Why? All I had to do is read the plot summary in less than 1 minute. Kind of self-defeating for the "geniuses" behind the title thingy, don't you think? They did not really pull a fast one on anyone, except maybe the retarded or the illiterate (but then again these last ones won't even be able to read the movie's title in the first place, so the tactic falls flat on them too.) So: Evidence that such a trend does not really work #2: The above referred plot summaries... they are there for a purpose. #3: People aren't that stupid or blind. Something like "Transmorphers", for example, isn't really fooling anyone into thinking it's the same as "Transformers", except maybe the retarded, who are a marginal segment of the population, or the illiterate (who can't read movie titles to begin with, so it's like "barking up the wrong tree".) #4: Nowadays there is the Internet. You can very easily have access to more info about any movie ever made than ever before. Conclusion: most people watch these movies because they fully want to (mostly out of curiosity), not because they are really being misled into watching them by some silly title-twist or some number arbitrarily slapped onto a generic title. Thank you for elaborating with more anecdotal evidence.

[JDP]

Thank you for elaborating with more anecdotal evidence. Thank you for elaborating nothing... oh, and purposefully ignoring those inconvenient plot summaries that accompany all movies.