making a sequel nobody really wanted 23 years after the fact with a different voice cast is really weird to begin with. its not surprising it ended up mediocre.
>really expecting a sequel to a cult classic to be good 23 years after it was made
Sequels only have the shot to be good if they're in the time frame of a couple years after the original (like 2-4 years) because it means they still had ideas they were excited to see and were still working hard, anything past that is like "oh the studio got involved or NOSTALGIA TIME!!!!" levels of movie/show making
One of these days studios will realize that making direct sequels to 20+ year old movies, and secondary lesser liked movies on top of that, is not the winning formula they think it is.
Yes! They realized it's better to make more "revival season" of old shows instead. New Revival seasons for all! Samurai Jack, Futurama, Phineas and Ferb, Totally Spies. There's no need to worry we got ideas for years!
I'm sure the film will still be fine (even the worst Aardman is still leagues more enjoyable than most) but I'm honestly surprised anyone expected it to be as good as the original. The first film was a perfect storm that really only could've been produced in the time it was made, back when films like Schindler's List, Shawshank Redemption, and Saving Private Ryan were pop-culture staples, and when animation was still allowed to slow down and get grim.
This film looks brighter, cartoonier, faster and softer than the first film- all not inherently bad things, but those are all things the first film wasn't. It's bound to disappoint if you have high expectations.
I'm not gonna defend the movie because let's be honest, no expected, cared or wanted a sequel of chicken run, but boy o boy no one who's intelligent enough would care about what ign has to say about anything at all.
For real IGN is the worst of the worst on game journalism in the whole history.
>Listening to IGN
making a sequel nobody really wanted 23 years after the fact with a different voice cast is really weird to begin with. its not surprising it ended up mediocre.
It had new voices?
afaik yes. its been 23 years, i doubt any of the old actors give a shit and the new voices were probably cheaper and more convenient.
Mel Gibson is countersemitic.
>really expecting a sequel to a cult classic to be good 23 years after it was made
Sequels only have the shot to be good if they're in the time frame of a couple years after the original (like 2-4 years) because it means they still had ideas they were excited to see and were still working hard, anything past that is like "oh the studio got involved or NOSTALGIA TIME!!!!" levels of movie/show making
One of these days studios will realize that making direct sequels to 20+ year old movies, and secondary lesser liked movies on top of that, is not the winning formula they think it is.
Yes! They realized it's better to make more "revival season" of old shows instead. New Revival seasons for all! Samurai Jack, Futurama, Phineas and Ferb, Totally Spies. There's no need to worry we got ideas for years!
I'm sure the film will still be fine (even the worst Aardman is still leagues more enjoyable than most) but I'm honestly surprised anyone expected it to be as good as the original. The first film was a perfect storm that really only could've been produced in the time it was made, back when films like Schindler's List, Shawshank Redemption, and Saving Private Ryan were pop-culture staples, and when animation was still allowed to slow down and get grim.
This film looks brighter, cartoonier, faster and softer than the first film- all not inherently bad things, but those are all things the first film wasn't. It's bound to disappoint if you have high expectations.
>(even the worst Aardman is still leagues more enjoyable than most)
lol no
Kubo and the sasquatch movie are garbage
That's Laika
Those aren't Aardman those were Laika and Laika really only stuck the landing with Paranorman as far as original non-adaptations go.
I'm not gonna defend the movie because let's be honest, no expected, cared or wanted a sequel of chicken run, but boy o boy no one who's intelligent enough would care about what ign has to say about anything at all.
For real IGN is the worst of the worst on game journalism in the whole history.
>IGN
What hype?
Are you guys even shocked? One guy from Aardman even said the movie is "Black Panther for chickens".