Print Page | Close Window

Duz the Number 2 Refer 2 Whatz in the Diaper??

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: DISCUSSIONS & POLLS on 2010 RELEASES
Forum Name: PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2
Forum Discription: The First One Was a Once-in-a-Generation Phenomenon...So Why Rip It Off by BOTHERING w/a Sequel???
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4620
Printed Date: April 18 2014 at 2:11am


Topic: Duz the Number 2 Refer 2 Whatz in the Diaper??
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: Duz the Number 2 Refer 2 Whatz in the Diaper??
Date Posted: October 12 2010 at 11:55am
THE ORIGINAL http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/paranormal_activity/ - WAS a PHENOMENON, http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=paranormalactivity.htm - on a REPUTED PRODUCTION BUDGET of JUST $15,000 -- MAKING IT PERHAPS the MOST PROFITABLE MOVIE in HOLLYWOOD HISTORY. ANY SANE PERSON WOULD REALIZE THAT YOU CAN'T MAKE SOMETHING LIKE THAT OCCUR TWICE... 

BUT, JUST LIKE with http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0229260/awards - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0229260/awards - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0229260/ - a DECADE AGO, PARAMOUNT COULDN'T RESIST the SIREN CALL of TRYING ONCE AGAIN to MAKE BUCKETS o' BUX with LITTLE OR NO UPFRONT COST. PROBLEM IS, JUST LIKE with BLAIR, TOO, ALMOST NO ONE from the FIRST FILM HAS RETURNED BEHIND the CAMERA for http://www.razzies.com/forum/paranormal-activity-2_forum464.html - : NEITHER THIS FILM's http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0931095/ -
ADD in THAT the PROMOs for IT SHOW ALMOST NOTHING (SEE STILL BELOW) and THAT CRITICS ARE NOT BEING SHOWN the FILM 'TILL AFTER ITS RELEASE, and IT's an ALMOST PERFECT REPLAY of BLAIR, TOO...RIGHT DOWN to ITS "WINNING" a WORST PREQUEL, REMAKE, RIP-OFF or SEQUEL RAZZIE®?? 

FEEL FREE to RANT 'n' RAVE BELOW... 

BONUS LINK/ADD'L FUN READING: HERE's a http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-word-20101021,0,4619719.story -

WE ASSUME THAT's a BOMB-SNIFFING DOG...and 
THAT SOMETHING ABOUT THIS MOVIE HAS CAUGHT 
HIS ATTENTION!  
 



-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 12 2010 at 3:27pm
I really don't know what to think of this...  



-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 12 2010 at 4:45pm
I do, moviewizguy, it's "Blair Witch Project 2" all over again, like HeadRazz explained above. I knew beyond a shadow of any doubt that when the first movie made as much money as it did, the studio would be drooling at the thought of making a sequel. Because that's what studios do best --accidentally have a good movie fall into their laps and then they follow it up with crappy knock-offs in which not a single person who worked on the first movie comes back! 

Damn it all to hell, I hate Hollywood! I hope they go the way of Las Vegas, which from what I hear, is dying a slow death from lack of jobs, tourists, and gamblers. 


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: October 12 2010 at 7:19pm
Say, for example, you took 10 Grand (all you could spare) to a roulette table and bet on 31 Black, then won. You'd receive over 360 Grand. Would you make the same bet again on 31 Black? If you could win 12 and a half Megadollars, but the odds of winning twice in a row were about 1,444 to 1, would you still make the bet? I don't see how it's any different with the Paranormal Activity subseries. With the cast and crew completely switched around (big mistake!) and having to hide it from critics, this could easily go the way of Caddyshack II and Basic Instinct 2. Ouch


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 12 2010 at 7:24pm
Great logic and example, GTAHater. I wish Miguel would think of such an example any time he runs to the aid of any and all sequels and remakes that I bash.  

Originally posted by GTAHater767

Say, for example, you took 10 Grand (all you could spare) to a roulette table and bet on 31 Black, then won. You'd receive over 360 Grand. Would you make the same bet again on 31 Black? If you could win 12 and a half Megadollars, but the odds of winning twice in a row were about 1,444 to 1, would you still make the bet?


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Film Reel Redemption
Date Posted: October 13 2010 at 8:23am
Whoops! He should remember NOT to put the flash (camera setting) on near a mirror (there's a glow coming from the bathroom in the picture)

-------------
You see in this filmmaking world there's two types of people my friend. Those with the knowledge of film and those who think they do but really don't.


Posted By: Berrynoia
Date Posted: October 13 2010 at 3:49pm
Did anyone watch the South Park episode where the Native Americans tried to demolish the town to build a highway?  They did the same thing betting a second time at the roulette table, only to lose the second time.  They still defended the town, though...maybe Hollywood needs to be torn down for a superhighway to an Indian casino?  

BTW, I have a feeling that people are going to expect this to be good on the basis that it is "Paranormal Activity" 2.  They might be in for a shock.  Better sound the alarm now and warn them about it.  

BTW again, I have a DVD of the first one, but I haven't watched it.  Maybe I should do that and see what is being insulted by Hollywood greed.


-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 15 2010 at 8:36pm
That sounds like a good idea. It would probably supply more jobs and bring more money into the economy than any Hollywood studio could!  

Originally posted by Berrynoia

Maybe Hollywood needs to be torn down for a superhighway to an Indian casino?


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: October 16 2010 at 7:12pm
This one's gonna crash.  I can see it.
 
And Berrynoia, are you seriously considering tearing down Hollywood to build a superhighway?  Without Hollywood, there would be no movies (in this country at least); and without movies, there would be no Academy Awards or Razzie Awards.  What would we do then?


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 16 2010 at 7:39pm
Well, all the mega companies of America shipped their jobs overseas, so naturally, we can just have movies from other countries shipped over here!  

Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

 
And Berrynoia, are you seriously considering tearing down Hollywood to build a superhighway?  Without Hollywood, there would be no movies (in this country at least); and without movies, there would be no Academy Awards or Razzie Awards.  What would we do then?



-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: October 16 2010 at 8:11pm

This film better crash if we hope to have plenty of options for the 2010 RAZZIES!

And I've always thought the RAZZIES had a good flavor of comedy. But we couldn't make a better presentation with only foreign films, could we?


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 16 2010 at 8:23pm
Well, this is a horror movie being released close to Halloween, so it will make some money...but I doubt it will be anywhere near the $190 million that the first one made!  



-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: October 21 2010 at 12:02pm

I found this article called "5 Lessons P.A. 2 should learn from BLAIR WITCH 2":  

http://www.ifc.com/news/2010/10/five-lessons-we-hope-paranorma.php -


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 21 2010 at 1:49pm
Good article from Vits. Yes, the #1 and #2 lessons should be that this movie needs to be about a normal family and they should know NOTHING about the events of the first movie, not a bunch of social outcasts searching for Katie's body or what have you. Now rumor has it, Katie from the first movie is haunting their house or what not, so there's a minor clue what the story is about. But I don't know, I have that sinking feeling they are going to reach into a bag of gimmicks like more demon magic being used or shock value like the dog or baby being hurt, etc. That doesn't make for a good movie, just cheap and empty scares.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 21 2010 at 1:59pm
The reviews have pointed out this actually takes place ALONGSIDE the first film, and that it explains a lot of mysteries.  



-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 21 2010 at 2:11pm
Oh, so it's "mid-quel"? Well, in the first PA, there were those long gaps when Katie was just wandering around outside the house, so this might explain where she went and she did...  



-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: October 22 2010 at 3:33pm
It appears this movie may be good. You know what that means, right? It will become a franchise(BHB cries)!  




-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 22 2010 at 3:53pm
No, I'm quite dry eyed. There's no doubt in my mind that there will be more movies to come. They had to find something to replace "Saw" with now that that franchise has come to an end.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: October 22 2010 at 3:54pm
The reviews happened to be good at Rotten Tomatoes, but it was merely average at Metacritic. Definitely not one of ours, but don't count on it getting any Golden Globe nominations either.

-------------
My deadlines for Member-Started Forums, given 35% approval rating or less: Apl. 29; The Other Woman. May 6; Walk of Shame. May 20; Godzilla '014. May 27; Blended. Jne. 3; A Million Ways...


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: October 22 2010 at 4:03pm
Of course not. Despite the reviews the Oscars and Golden Globes focus on other aspects. That's why sometimes the "Best Picture" Oscar nominees include a movie with 60-70% approval at RT, even though there were others with 90-100%. The Golden Globes could easily nominate an Apatow movie or something for "Best Picture-Comedy/Musical," but instead their priorities are the musicals, even if they're bad, like NINE.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: October 22 2010 at 5:23pm
Not all of them are good, but I've liked about half the "Globes but not OSCARS" nominated movies. Besides, those two, the BAFTAs, and even some Box Office Mojo best sellers come up with about 35 good movies a year, but the other 5 come from other award shows and sources to make my Best of lists. I see all the movies on my Best of lists, I avoid those on the Worsts, and movies turn out better for me than most people.

-------------
My deadlines for Member-Started Forums, given 35% approval rating or less: Apl. 29; The Other Woman. May 6; Walk of Shame. May 20; Godzilla '014. May 27; Blended. Jne. 3; A Million Ways...


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 9:40am
MY REVIEW:  

After experiencing what they think are a series of "break-ins," a family sets up security cameras around their home, only to realize that the events unfolding before them are more sinister than they seem.

When Paramount announced that they were going to do a sequel to PA, I was skeptical. Let's be honest, it felt like they were trying to cash in on the surprising success of PA. Then the trailers were released, which weren't really special, and the film wasn't screened to the critics. Either Paramount was trying to keep a tight lid on it or it must be a really, really bad sequel. I mean, the only person in the casting list is Katie Featherston, who plays Katie, which is still pretty vague. Fortunately, PA2 is actually a worthwhile sequel that retains everything that made the original scary.

With a much higher budget, PA2 boasts a bigger cast and has more elaborate scares and security cameras to capture the events. But, as you all know, bigger sometimes isn't better, and, in this case, it's true. What made PA so great was its amazing simplicity. The scares were limited to doors creaking, lights flickering, and footsteps thumping. In this film, I'm not going to even mention what they do. However, saying that, the film does have some very scary scenes, even more so than the simple scares in the original. It's apparent while watching the film that PA2 relies more on jump scares than on maintaining an atmosphere like PA, which may be good or bad news depending on which you prefer more. However, the film still retains the slow buildup of scares in PA as the film reaches to the end, where all hell breaks loose. It's also agonizing to see things move on their own that our characters don't notice. Don't you just hate that feeling of dread?

Most of the cast do a great job because they are more innocent than the victims in the first film, including a baby and a dog. Please, just spare the baby and the dog! I'm also glad to say that the climax is much better than the one in the first film, if you could even call it a climax in that film. However, the sequel does have the same main problem of PA: The ending. It's just as anti-climatic and disappointing coming off from a huge buildup.

If you didn't like the first film, just skip this sequel. It's more of the same in terms of structure and style. However, if you liked the first film, you'll definitely enjoy this. I thought the storyline was rather clever in that it ties in with PA. Overall, even though this isn't as scary as PA, PA2 should be an example of how to make a proper sequel to a great first film which stays true to the original's overall tone. And considering the fact that we are familiar of the set up before, PA2 still has its own share of effective scares. Now that's an accomplishment. 7/10


-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 10:10am
For once, I'm not going to pop the Wolverine claws on a MWG review. I will give "PA2" credit where credit is due, they did try to keep a tight story that fitted into the story of the original movie. So, as a "mid-quel", it does it's job properly. But like MWG said, the movie didn't create the atomsphere of dread that the first movie had. It's mostly jump scares instead of building up tension for one big, final scare. And it falls prey to what most sequels do, overusing what was successful in the first movie, in this case, people and objects being pulled off-screen by some unseen force. As a companion piece to the original "PA", "PA2" works well, but as a horror movie, it's nothing to write home about. I gave the original "PA" a good 4 out of 5, "PA2" gets a solid 3 out of 5. Now we'll see how "PA3" will ruin the whole series.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 11:51am
Let's hope PA3 is not in 3D!


-------------


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 12:55pm
BHB: What did you think of that certain kitchen scene? I swear to you, that scared the hell out of everyone. I was surprised that my friend sitting next to me didn't spill his popcorn all over the place!


Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 1:05pm
If we're talking about the same kitchen scene then yeah I'll have to second Gee-Wiz, i was in a packed theater and just about everybody. including me jumped out of our seats! Overall i liked it, thought it avoided being Blair Witch 2. It even had some really creepy moments -- but it still felt unnecessary, though. and the idea that there is room for a third one gives me pause. 

But if you liked the first one, you should go see this, cause it's a rare sequel that doesn't tarnish the first movie -- and it's actually a fairly good movie in its own right.


-------------
I don't have pet peeves, I have major psychotic f**king hatreds! George Carlin


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 1:45pm
In reply to the kitchen scene, I would say that was a "jump scare" for sure. Yes, it's a good scare, but it pales in comparison to the final scare and payoff in the last 5 minutes of "PA 1." But maybe that's just my opinion.  
 
Oh, and yes, I still dread the thought of a third PA movie, and said third movie being in 3-D. I think the reason why this movie did so well is because the writer/director of the first movie had a small role as producer. But if he doesn't produce the third movie, oh boy! 


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 3:33pm
Wow, $20 million opening day! Say what you will about the film's quality, but I guess we were wrong about lightning not striking twice in terms of box office results.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 4:03pm
The quality? A big number of people say this one is better than the 1st one!  



-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 4:28pm
Don't dance around just yet. Have you noticed the trend at the box office these days? Big take on Friday, mid-sized take on Saturday, small take on Sunday. This is nothing new, and I never doubted PA2 would make money --  it was the quality I was concerned about.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: ziesha
Date Posted: November 08 2010 at 4:42am
l consider Paranormal Activity 2  to be the best horror movie of the year...

-------------


Posted By: qazjun
Date Posted: November 28 2010 at 11:12pm
I hope they go the way of Las Vegas, which from what I hear, is dying a slow death from lack of jobs, tourists, and gamblers...  


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 22 2010 at 11:52am
This has been nominated for the 2010 Vits Awards.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/user/812172/blogs/?id=682474

Can you guess in which category?


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: oiram
Date Posted: December 23 2010 at 4:42am
Well, this ain't getting anything.

-------------
Elizabeth Hartman and Judith Barsi are more talented and beautiful than Scarlett Johansson and Chloe Grace Moretz. Fact.

Worst Supporting Actor: Brendan Fraser/Gimme Shelter and The Nut Job




Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: October 21 2011 at 7:09pm
I just saw it.

I give it 7/10.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 16 2013 at 10:50am
Originally posted by Vits

I just saw it.

I give it 7/10.
This episode includes all five (yes, five) movies (skip to 04:34):

[TUBE]6pYd8uGOoOo[/TUBE]

Any thoughts?


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile



Print Page | Close Window