A Comparison of Sequels: MIB I & II vs. Terminator I & II

I just finished watching MIB and MIB II this past week. Afterwards, I tried to figure out why the first was so engaging and entertaining, and why the latter left me flat. Both feature Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith, doing the usual things they do with deadpan wit. Both had innovative aliens and SFX. Both have given our heroes a task to accomplish or else life on earth as we know it will end. In other words, there is something at stake.

And yet, only the first seemed to really grab me. Why was this? 

It honestly seemed like the actors were bored with their roles in the second story, and if they're not into it why should I be? Could that possibly be?

I'm curious what the producers thought as they screened this when it first came out of the can. Many of the imdb.com reviewers were not kind at all. One called it, "The most forced, joyless comedy ever." Another called it, "Recycled garbage." A third wrote, "At Best, it's just a Lame Sequel to an Awesome Summer Movie."

This review perhaps does the best job of capturing what may have been the film's weakness:

`Originality,' is, almost by definition, a one-time thing. In 1997, the original `Men in Black' struck a nerve with movie audiences by showing that even a big budget blockbuster, heavily loaded down with state-of-the-art, computer-generated special effects, could still manage to seem light on its feet. The makers of that film pulled off this feat of gravitational legerdemain by coming up with a concept and a script overflowing with creativity, wit, imagination and a cachet of `hipness' to go along with its tone of anarchic playfulness.

Well, five years have passed and we now have `Men in Black II' to confirm what most of us suspected all along: that works that rely on `uniqueness' as their prime selling point are rarely ever able to duplicate their success a second time around. 

Nevertheless, with that last thought in mind, what was it that made Terminator 2: Judgment Day so successful then? MIB II got a 6.6 audience rating, whereas Terminator 2, directed by James Cameron (Titanic) received accolades and an 8.5 rating, even higher than the first. 

The Terminator films feature cyborgs who come from the future to kill John Connor, who will be a leader of the resistance in that future era. Arnold Schwarzenegger is the "star power" here in these films, much like Jones and Smith. But this sequel shuffles the deck and deals a different hand. 

First, whereas Schwarzenegger is a deadly, terrifying adversary in the first--and a truly original concept--he comes back in the second with the mission of being John Connor's bodyguard against a new, even more resilient and terrifying cyborg adversary. It's the psychological confusion (for Connor and his mother) that adds a level of intrigue in this story, and the fact that the new enemy is also so seemingly invincible and unique.

It you go back to the beginning of this Terminator series, though, you can't help but notice that The Terminator, also directed by James Cameron, was actually a very low budget film, barely over six million bucks. (Roughly the same as Iron Will, the Disney film shot here in Duluth that many here were extras in.) Worldwide gross for that first Terminator flick was 78 million. Clearly, by the time the sequel was produced, Cameron had established his cred and could be trusted with the 100 million dollar budget to turn this inventive sequel into something even more substantial. Worldwide gross: over a half billion. 

* * *

The Point Is This: The word "Sequel" has unfortunately become a byword meaning "Inferior" when it comes to Hollywood pictures. James Cameron did not succeed here simply by having a bigger budget. MIB II had an ample budget as well. Rather, it was the manner in which he took the original story to a new level, something the MIB team failed to do. 

What do you think?

Report from Germany

We hear all the time how good life is in this country, but many Americans have nothing to benchmark it against. It is usually our only experience.

Frequently, we hear about the low cost of health care in Sweden of France and the damage being done to our uninsured and underinsured here. Some people get incensed as if it's un-American to say some things might be better elsewhere. Naturally, we don't always know whose reports are reliable or what things are being reported with an agenda.

For this reason I thought my friend's observations below were insightful and worth sharing. He had lived in Germany for a number of years. Came to the States in 2007 and was surprised how bad our roads were as well as our houses. I asked him in an email to elaborate on some of the differences between life in these United States and life in Germany. I share this exchange below.

Dear S.
Thanks again for visiting Friday eve. I found your comments on the inferior quality of American roads and run-down-ness here to be interesting. I was wondering if you could go into more detail on that sometime. What was it like in Germany? Susie asked me a few questions that I failed to ask and didn't know re: the politics, the education system etc.
The very best to you and yours,
ed

Hi Ed and Susie,

This is a long-delayed response to your email, and I’ll try to answer some of the questions.

I think Germany has three things going for it. First, it is basically a homogenous culture, where most of the people think and act pretty much the same. So they can pass laws that actually represent the will of the people, and they are all willing to obey them. Second, they are Germans, and that means that their culture values things like quality, longevity, and promptness. So things tend to get done right the first time, and they are not afraid to pay a bit extra to get the best. Third, they are letting the U.S. spend its resources to be the leader of the developed world. They give a token amount to various good causes, but mostly they use their economic growth to benefit themselves. We spend an inordinate amount outside of our own country, particularly at this time.

If we had these three things going for us, we would be the leader of the world in deed, not just in word. However, our culture is hardly homogenous, and therefore we can hardly pass any laws that the majority of the people respect. We value what is inexpensive and transitory, and most everything around us shows it – houses, cars, clothing, body fitness, entertainment. And of course, we are spending billions in foreign countries that other countries are not.

The German school system separates children into two tracks at about 4th grade – one track into the trades and one track into the professions. I am not sure I like that, but one benefit of it is that the universities are not cluttered with people who have no business being there. And the blue collar workers are paid enough and given enough respect that they are happy with their lot and not always jealous of the "rich."

The politics of Germany is basically all the planks of the Democratic party platform taken for granted. There are no arguments about things like abortion, the environment, gay rights, etc. The society accepts all these "hot button" issues as already settled and not worth discussing. Our culture is still wrestling with these ethical issues, and there are many more Bible-believing people here than there.

Even the Bible-believing Christians in Germany are more liberal socially than we are here though. I might see that as a sign of maturity that comes from having a culture with ancient roots, or it might be a sign of a post-Christian society that is only going downhill morally. Both might be right.

Take care and God bless you and yours.

S.

P.S. I looked at your blog and it is very interesting. I added it to my "favorites" list and will explore it further!