Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: J.F.K. on April 21, 2003, 05:15:19 am

Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: J.F.K. on April 21, 2003, 05:15:19 am
Maybe it's me, but it just struck me while I was at the cinema recently, that all the movies I want to see this year are sequels. LotR 3, Matrix 2 and 3, Shanghai Knights (I love Jackie Chan :D), and X-Men 2. Anyone else similar?
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Turnsky on April 21, 2003, 05:19:22 am
ditto:nod:
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: J.F.K. on April 21, 2003, 05:24:06 am
Oh, and I went and saw Cradle 2 The Grave too, Jet Li never ceases to amaze me. It's got a 2 in the title, it's almost a sequel. :D
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Razor on April 21, 2003, 05:57:35 am
Yeah well, this will have to be one of the best movie years I guess. There are so many cool movies to see. I also heard that there is Jackass the movie :shaking:, coming to cinemas here in a few weeks.
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Turnsky on April 21, 2003, 06:01:50 am
i dunno, watching people intentionally try to injure themselves on the screen isn't as funny as seeing it in RL... (particularly if you know they're already insane to begin with..;) )
Title: Re: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: kode on April 21, 2003, 06:53:26 am
Quote
Originally posted by J.F.K.
Maybe it's me, but it just struck me while I was at the cinema recently, that all the movies I want to see this year are sequels. LotR 3, Matrix 2 and 3, Shanghai Knights (I love Jackie Chan :D), and X-Men 2. Anyone else similar?


yes. I've noticed. But I think it's gonna be great.
Terminator 3, 2Fast 2Furious, ...

I'm gonna ruin myself by watching movies this year :(
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Turnsky on April 21, 2003, 06:55:07 am
*looks at all this year releases* Hommina, hommina, hommina :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Gortef on April 21, 2003, 07:04:23 am
Yep, looks like this year will be a good Movie year ;)
Title: Re: Re: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: J.F.K. on April 21, 2003, 07:19:51 am
Quote
Originally posted by kode
yes. I've noticed. But I think it's gonna be great.
Terminator 3, 2Fast 2Furious, ...

I'm gonna ruin myself by watching movies this year :(


Completely forgot about T3! :yes:

Me too, each one of those movies costs me $10, that's at least $60 blown on 18 hours worth of watching (then again, probably with the Matrix sequels and Return of the King, I'll watch them twice or three times). Actually, thinking of it that way, that's 'better value' than Freelancer, which I played for 16 hours and paid $90 for. :p
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: neo_hermes on April 21, 2003, 08:32:14 am
I can't wait till T3...just can't wait.
*Builds Time machine-sits in chair winks out of this spacetime*
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: karajorma on April 21, 2003, 09:07:57 am
Well LotR was always going to be three movies so I`m not really classifying that as a sequel (as far as I`m concerned a sequel is made after the first one to cash in on the first ones success).

By that logic the two extra matix movies aren`t really sequels either cause it was always planned as a trilogy too.

That said there are an awful lot of sequels coming out this year.
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: diamondgeezer on April 21, 2003, 10:03:05 am
Quote
Originally posted by J.F.K.
LotR 3

There is so much wrong with that, I don't even know where to begin...

Quote
Originally posted by karajorma
Well LotR was always going to be three movies so I`m not really classifying that as a sequel

This is also pushing it.

----------------
Diamond Geezer thought E:FC really went downhill after the first series
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Razor on April 21, 2003, 11:02:26 am
Quote
Originally posted by neo_hermes
*Builds Time machine-sits in chair winks out of this spacetime*


:rolleyes:
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: karajorma on April 21, 2003, 11:08:25 am
Quote
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
This is also pushing it


I don`t think so. RotK isn`t really anything except a continuation of the first two movies. In fact the first movie ended at a point where most people who hadn`t read the books expressed surprise that it was over.
It isn`t a sequel because the previous film didn`t end the story in any way, shape or form. It just simply ran out of time.

It's the same with the books. They even stop in weirder places. At least the first movie ends with Boromir dead and Pippin and Merry captured.

 In the book Boromir just runs off and only gets killed in the second book. :)

LotR is meant to be read in one sitting not read fellowship and then a couple of years later read The Two Towers. Too much of the storyline is left unresolved for me to feel that any of the movies are actual sequels.
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: diamondgeezer on April 21, 2003, 11:22:52 am
I meant that the word' sequel' shouldn't be used anywhere near the LOTR, in any of its guises. As I suspected, you know full well that Tolkien never set out to write a trilogy, he just published it in three helpings. Calling ROTK the sequel (or threequel, if you will) anoys the hell out of me since it reminds me that many people have never read the real thing and will probably assume that they're seeing cannon Tolkien.

Oh hell, I feel a book vs film rant comming on...

------------
Diamond Geezer needs a new hard disk
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Stunaep on April 21, 2003, 01:16:52 pm
To quote PJ on Two Towers:

"It's not a sequel. It's the second act of a three-act play"
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: diamondgeezer on April 21, 2003, 01:24:59 pm
This the same PJ who stuck all that rubbish about Aragorn falling off the cliff in the film?
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Stryke 9 on April 21, 2003, 01:25:38 pm
Bleh. Sequels. It's okay in things like cheesy horror movies, where all you're asking for is more camp, and hence it actually gets better with more sequels, but what's with the compulsion to rape a perfectly good movie? They pretty much never come out nearly so good as the first, and when they suck that 90% of the time, they're so bad that they ruin the first one.

Particularly with the current trend. Same thing's happening to movies that happened to Disney- they just plain ran out of ideas, and so decided to remarket 400 soulless formulaic corporate sequels and rake in some cash.
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Stunaep on April 21, 2003, 01:30:49 pm
Quote
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
This the same PJ who stuck all that rubbish about Aragorn falling off the cliff in the film?

would you prefer the animated version?
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: diamondgeezer on April 21, 2003, 01:38:30 pm
Never seen it. Perhaps I'll, I dunno, read the book again.

Quote
Originally posted by Stryke 9
They pretty much never come out nearly so good as the first, and when they suck that 90% of the time, they're so bad that they ruin the first one.


Terminator 2, Aliens, Empire Strikes Back, very probably Terminator 3 and quite possibly the Matrices
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Stryke 9 on April 21, 2003, 01:47:29 pm
Matrix I'm fervently hoping doesn't suck so bad as the trailers make out. If it does, it'll suck so much my entire town's gonna be destroyed by the smallish black hole of suckage that will be generated the first time it's played in the local theater.

Terminator 2? You kidding me? You don't think the Terminator series falls under the "cheesy action/horror movie" genre? Along with Aliens?

Star Wars was actually the exception I was thinking of when I wrote that. There are damn few others.
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Stunaep on April 21, 2003, 01:49:53 pm
Quote
Originally posted by diamondgeezer

Terminator 2,

The original had Arnold Spell-o-negger as the chief character. I think that classifies as camp/cheesy
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: diamondgeezer on April 21, 2003, 01:55:47 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Terminator 2? You kidding me? You don't think the Terminator series falls under the "cheesy action/horror movie" genre? Along with Aliens?

T2 and Aliens always get five stars when they're shown on TV. They're hailed as two of the very best action films ever. I've never heard them called 'cheesy' before.
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Stryke 9 on April 21, 2003, 02:06:16 pm
Uh-huh. They're veritable Schindler's Lists, all right. Plenty of plot and background in there.


Dude, it doesn't have to be a movie hated on by the critics to be a cheesy movie. Pretty much every action movie is one. It's not a ratings thing, it's a movie type- some of the best movies ever made were cheesy as hell. If not most of them- movies are pretty bad at having points.
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: diamondgeezer on April 21, 2003, 02:18:30 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Uh-huh. They're veritable Schindler's Lists, all right. Plenty of plot and background in there.

Look out folks, he's armed with sarcasm.

Sorry to dissapoint you, but I don't go to a film for its moving story or subtle plot. I like to see space ships and dudes with guns zapping alien beasties or robots, or robots zapping aliens, or any other combination thereof. I like sci-fi action films and not a lot else - I rarely watch a comedy or drama unless someone makes me. If I put a film on because I want to watch it, it'll be space ships and guns, believe me :nod:

Quote
If not most of them- movies are pretty bad at having points. [/B]

:wtf: I know those words, but that made no sense...
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Visionism on April 21, 2003, 02:23:16 pm
Its worth noting that Tolkien never wanted LotR published in three volumes. He felt it should be one book but he had to concede the point to get it published.

On a related note I wanna see The Ring 2. I just saw the first one yesterday and I wanna see more of that creepy ass kid. Muhahaha. Crap movie really although the end was better than I thought it was going to be. Everyone told me it was scary. Bollocks. In the scary stakes that kid aint fit to tie Damien Thorne's shoes.
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: diamondgeezer on April 21, 2003, 02:32:25 pm
Watch the japanese ones. In middle of the night.
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Stunaep on April 21, 2003, 02:49:10 pm
Quote
Originally posted by diamondgeezer

Look out folks, he's armed with sarcasm.

Sorry to dissapoint you, but I don't go to a film for its moving story or subtle plot. I like to see space ships and dudes with guns zapping alien beasties or robots, or robots zapping aliens, or any other combination thereof. I like sci-fi action films and not a lot else - I rarely watch a comedy or drama unless someone makes me. If I put a film on because I want to watch it, it'll be space ships and guns, believe me :nod:

If that extends to books, then I'm not surprised why you haven't read "All quiet on the western front" :doubt:
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: kode on April 21, 2003, 03:10:39 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Stunaep

would you prefer the animated version?


of course. All hail Ralph Bakshi.
anyone seen his "Wizards" by the way? It makes the animated LotR seem sane.
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: diamondgeezer on April 21, 2003, 03:14:38 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Stunaep
If that extends to books, then I'm not surprised why you haven't read "All quiet on the western front" :doubt:

Nah, books I'm more an S&F kind of guy. Tolkien and Pratchett mainly, though these days I don't read as much as I'd like to.

Thing was, at school we got 'classics' like Lord of the Flies and Mice and Men forced on us. Drove me nuts, especially since I'd always read the bloody thing four times by the time the rest of the class had gotten thorugh 'em. So now I tend to stick with the fantasy and sci-fi stuff. Now Fade-Out, there's a good read :nod:

And, to be honest, there was no need to drag your argument out of one thread in to another, was there?
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Stryke 9 on April 21, 2003, 03:15:05 pm
Stu: Spaceships and robots in "All Quiet"? Maybe I read the wrong version...:D
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: diamondgeezer on April 21, 2003, 03:17:33 pm
Er... he was suggesting I hadn't read it
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Stryke 9 on April 21, 2003, 03:21:37 pm
I'm aware of that.

Not everything is about you, grasshopper.
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: diamondgeezer on April 21, 2003, 03:25:56 pm
Granted, but it looks to me like you made a mistake... or just a point to subtle for me to grasp.
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: J.F.K. on April 22, 2003, 05:05:16 am
Quote
Originally posted by Visionism
Its worth noting that Tolkien never wanted LotR published in three volumes. He felt it should be one book but he had to concede the point to get it published.


Actually, that's half true. The publisher's pre-teen son, who Tolkien asked to be his critic, suggested they split it into 3. Tolkien took the suggestion.
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Visionism on April 22, 2003, 09:00:22 am
Behold the power of Stanley Unwin. The point remains though that they chose to split the first two books at a rather odd point. The place they split the movies makes more sense.
Title: Re: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: TheCelestialOne on April 22, 2003, 09:49:14 am
Quote
Originally posted by J.F.K.
Shanghai Knights (I love Jackie Chan :D)


Yeah, but Owen Wilson (http://www.emuparadise.org/vbulletin/smilies/puke.gif)
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Nico on April 22, 2003, 10:06:42 am
Quote
Originally posted by karajorma
By that logic the two extra matix movies aren`t really sequels either cause it was always planned as a trilogy too.


that's bollocks :doubt:
They didn't even expect the first one to be that successfull.
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Stealth on April 22, 2003, 10:35:01 am
Quote
Originally posted by Razor
I also heard that there is Jackass the movie :shaking:, coming to cinemas here in a few weeks.


really?  Jackass left theaters months ago.  came out on DVD a few weeks ago
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: karajorma on April 22, 2003, 12:07:36 pm
Quote
Originally posted by venom2506


that's bollocks :doubt:
They didn't even expect the first one to be that successfull.


They didn`t expect it to be as successful as it turned out to be but apparently the stuff in Zion that will be in the second movie was supposed to be in the first but would have made the movie too long.
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Nico on April 22, 2003, 01:01:19 pm
Quote
Originally posted by karajorma


They didn`t expect it to be as successful as it turned out to be but apparently the stuff in Zion that will be in the second movie was supposed to be in the first but would have made the movie too long.


that doesn't make a second and third movie. at most, that'd make a direct's cut :p
funny there's never been any words about any sequel until they found out it would be such a hit.
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Stryke 9 on April 22, 2003, 01:22:06 pm
Of course. It'd be pretty hard to get a sequel outta the Matrix, unless corporate greed was the motive- that can move mountains. I mean, okay, let's look at the end. We've got Keanu Reeves, who's basically God now. He can't die, he can do whatever he wants within the Matrix, he has stupid lines. He flies. Outside, you've got somewhere between a hundred and a billion big black tentacly killer robots, who can kill him pretty much right off and there's damn little he can do about it. And he's trying to wipe out humanity, and we're rooting for him.

So... how DO you top that? Make a thousand magic fairies come down and join the fight? Introduce Kryptonite into the act?
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Nico on April 22, 2003, 01:26:15 pm
alien ( Giger's Alien I mean ) invasion plus a few predators for the fun.
how's that? :D
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: YodaSean on April 22, 2003, 01:59:12 pm
aliens can make sequels for anything :yes:
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Stryke 9 on April 22, 2003, 02:02:00 pm
Yes. Aliens make everything better.
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Visionism on April 22, 2003, 11:01:17 pm
You wouldn't say that if you'd been at my last dinner party.
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Turnsky on April 22, 2003, 11:06:14 pm
yes, aliens tend to have the worst table manners:p
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Sheepy on April 22, 2003, 11:14:52 pm
Im sure i read it somewhere that they had planned the matrix sequals, but it kinda hinged on the sucsess of the origonal as to wether they would go into production or not ... IIRC
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Nico on April 23, 2003, 02:09:23 am
Quote
Originally posted by Sheepy
Im sure i read it somewhere that they had planned the matrix sequals, but it kinda hinged on the sucsess of the origonal as to wether they would go into production or not ... IIRC


of course it could, same goes for, say, starwars. there's stories where they've written enough for a few sequels, and I guess many movies which never had sequels because they didn't do so well have the synopsys of a "2" in the storywriter's desk.
The thing is, Matrix doesn't sound like this to me. It works great as it is, there's nothing to add. SWep4 ( which first had no "episode" **** whatsoever, then when shown in europe had "episode1" attached to it :doubt: ) worked well alone too ( yeah, even the happy end ), but there was a lot of stuff to explain/deal with. you never felt like SW is mor like a stand-alone movie plus a two-parts sequel?
Now take a movie you loved, one with things you don't understand " what the hell happened to the bad guy at the end?". probably had a sequel planed, but didn't work well enough for it to be produced.
So, and the deal about Matrix:
well, compare this:
-"fans, everybody in the world, by witnessing the success of our movie, we feel like it would please everybody if we were to work our ass off to make a sequel and expand the universe we've created"
-"fans, now that you've seen what's went in the first chapter, are you ready for chapter 2 of the huge trilogy story that is The Matrix?"
which one makes you want to see it more? the "cool, people, we've made a sequel to make more money, come, come!" or the " yeah, we have a fully elaborated three chapters movies series that have been all worked together and will complete each other to form a seamless completly story".
The choice of which to say is pretty obvious to me, and to the producers.
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: diamondgeezer on April 23, 2003, 02:32:05 am
I was just going to say something similiar - SW is much like the Matrix in that Episode 4 could have stood alone if it had flopped. It was uber sucessful, so they made two more. Same deal with the Matrix.
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: J.F.K. on April 24, 2003, 06:01:44 am
Quote
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
I was just going to say something similiar - SW is much like the Matrix in that Episode 4 could have stood alone if it had flopped. It was uber sucessful, so they made two more. Same deal with the Matrix.


That's right. The designer's intentions are only half the story. It all has to be commercially successful for any of it to take off.
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Ryx on April 24, 2003, 06:14:58 am
While not a sequel, I'm surprised no one's mentioned The Hulk (http://www.superherohype.com/hulk/). link goes to a fansite

Check the International trailer. :yes: :nod:
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Turnsky on April 24, 2003, 07:03:16 am
me too, but with a lot of well-established film franchises releasing sequels to top movies this year i'm not surprised that the hulk has been obscured by the shadows of the other releases this year, either that, or it hasn't been hyped as much...
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: TrashMan on April 24, 2003, 11:07:56 am
Do you belive everything you read?
For LOTR I know it's ment to be a 3act book.
As for Matrix, I'm not sure. They probably made a quicky story after they saw it was sucessfull, and now say that it as a trilogy from the beginning!
Crappy Hollywood....greedy producers...:mad:
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 24, 2003, 02:50:48 pm
with all the work the work put in the Matrix it moght very well be likley that it was ment as a trilogy from the start. It's just extremely difficult to get a studio to actually fund some new kids on the block and three movies they want to make. In fact it' extremely difficult to get studios to actually do that for 1 movie.

I'm not sure but I think that Lord of the Rings is actually the first time that a studio payed for three full feature movies to be filmed in one go and then to be released over the course of 3 years. That's taking a very big risk. Not even Star Wars managed to get a studio to do that.

Anyhow, the end of the first Matrix movie does leave things open for a sequel, far more than SW. EP.IV. (death star destroyed, Darth Vader gone, the emperor wasn't known by the public yet)
IMHO, the Matrix ends with almost the explicit promise that there's more to come.

that's just my .02€
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Razor on April 25, 2003, 05:44:42 am
Quote
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Watch the japanese ones. In middle of the night.


Been there done that. :shaking:

I don't know. I think Amer version is much scarrier.
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Falcon X on April 25, 2003, 12:44:53 pm
Didn't the matrix cast sign on for three movies from the beginning?

Also there is no way to copy word for word what Tolkien wanted onto the screen.  He's incorporated the love story, because there was one... but it was added in the similliaron or in the end of some of RotK.  He wants to convey everything Tolkien conveyed... he also has the luxary of artistic license.
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: J.F.K. on April 26, 2003, 02:34:47 am
Depends; I don't know if the cast could have signed on for that kind of agreement... if Matrix 1 flopped, they wouldn't have gone and made the other Matrices. :)
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Turnsky on April 26, 2003, 02:37:33 am
speaking of 'other movies' went to see 'dreamcatcher' the other night, personally just to see that animatrix short, but i found the movie itself to be quite good, the pace itself was great.. and is typical of stephen king's works...
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Stryke 9 on April 26, 2003, 02:38:16 am
Isn't that the one where the people **** the giant worms? Pass.
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Stunaep on April 26, 2003, 02:39:32 am
oh they show the Animatrix before Final Destination 2 here. I'm going to see it in an hour
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: J.F.K. on April 26, 2003, 02:40:12 am
Quote
Originally posted by Turnsky
speaking of 'other movies' went to see 'dreamcatcher' the other night, personally just to see that animatrix short, but i found the movie itself to be quite good, the pace itself was great.. and is typical of stephen king's works...


...

How was the Final Flight of the Osiris? :)
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Turnsky on April 26, 2003, 02:42:29 am
good... think better than 'final fantasy' grade CG
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: J.F.K. on April 26, 2003, 02:45:19 am
Quote
Originally posted by Turnsky
good... think better than 'final fantasy' grade CG


Oh, hello... that's got some of my attention. :) I thought it was like a cartoon, anime like Evangelion... :nervous:
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Turnsky on April 26, 2003, 02:47:06 am
no that was 'program', i have it on my PCPP DVD... it's cool tho, bullet-time with swords and spears...:D
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: J.F.K. on April 26, 2003, 02:50:11 am
:confused: Now I'm genuinely confused... Answer me this, what's the relation between Animatrix, the Matrix, and what you're talking about now?
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Turnsky on April 26, 2003, 02:52:25 am
the 'animatrix' are a bunch of animated shorts related to the movies... the matrix are the movies.. you with me on this?..
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: J.F.K. on April 26, 2003, 02:56:00 am
Following... so, what's 'program'?

I guess I always just associated Animatrix with anime. Whoops :)
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Turnsky on April 26, 2003, 02:57:13 am
one of the shorts...
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Ryx on April 26, 2003, 03:22:41 am
As I understand it, the Animatrix are telling you stuff about what happened before the Matrix (1st. movie).
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Stryke 9 on April 26, 2003, 03:29:32 am
Pretty much, though there might be some "during" bits, dunno.


Basically, it's fan fiction, but without the putridity that's generally associated with fanfic. Some of the shorts are online somewhere on the Matrix site, go take a look. One anime one in particular has some sweeeet camerawork ("camera"work, most likely, though I suspect the aid of CG).
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: J.F.K. on April 26, 2003, 04:10:20 am
Right, I'm following. I'm downloading three of the four free Animatrix movies now (got 'em off FilePlanet, I was lucky enough to catch em when there was no queue).
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Turnsky on April 26, 2003, 04:12:41 am
*curses his 56k modem*
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: J.F.K. on April 26, 2003, 04:25:25 am
*curses exorbitant prices of broadband in Australia*

*kisses his unlimited dialup plan* ;)
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Turnsky on April 26, 2003, 04:27:53 am
* Throws hail of abuse at bigpond prepaid*
Title: 2003, year of movie sequels?
Post by: Stunaep on April 26, 2003, 07:50:40 am
whell, the FFOTO certainly wasn't an anime fan prequel. The way I understood it was a prelude or prologue to the Matrix Reloaded. And it was directed by the Wachowsky brothers.

AND it had boobies.