u/WySLatestWit

Over the years I've seen a lot of criticisms of the grand tour, some I've agreed with some I didn't, and a lot of it comparing Grand tour to Top Gear which of course fans often perceived to be "much better." With that in mind, after watching interviews with Andy Wilman, and reading his book, I really got the impression that they were close to winding things down on Top Gear anyway. It sounds like Grand Tour actually extended their life as television motoring presenters for another several years beyond what they might have done had they stayed at the BBC. That really got me thinking, what if Grand Tour had instead just been how they concluded Top Gear?

Obviously little things would have changed. they would probably have kept celebrity interviews and obviously The Stig instead of The American. Those two things alone represent some of the most frequent criticisms of the first series on Amazon. But beyond that, imagining that everything stays largely the same in spite of those changes, how would it have been received as the end of Top Gear?

I feel like the "Funeral for a Friend" which served as the final in-studio episode of Grand Tour would have been a much more major happening had that been the end of "traditional" Top Gear.

We all know that horror as a genre is full of sequels. From seemingly endless 80s slasher series like Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street, to the Universal Monster Movie franchise of the 1930s sequels have been a massive part of the genre since almost as long as the genre itself has existed. Some of them are highly praised classics in their own right, such as James Cameron's Aliens, and still others are painfully and infamously awful. Jaws 4 The Revenge comes to mind. Regardless they're all still remembered and talked about all the time.

Pretty much everybody knows all the great sequels, like Evil Dead II, and they get a lot of attention all the time. But what are the sequels that were genuinely solid movies in their own right but for one reason or another don't seem to get the praise or attention that they deserve? What are those underrated sequels that you think really deserve more focus from genre fans?

For me one of the best examples of this is Tremors 2: Aftershock. The first film from 1990 is often held up as a nearly perfect creature feature, everybody seems to love it. For my money the sequel is nearly as good a film. It's not quite a "horror movie" in the same way that the original is, it's more of an action adventure with monsters, but it's cast is great with incredible chemistry, the writing is strong, and for a film that released straight to video it feels like an A-level production...at least as A-level as B-Movies got in the mid 90s.

I'm curious what other sequels are out there that people think are worth highlighting.

I think now is the time to talk about how many more episodes of Dynamite there's been than there was episodes of WCW Nitro. DAE Tony Khan way more important to wrestling than Ted Turner? Tony is just built different than that old dead loser.

and at the end of the night everyone will just go home and brag about how they spent four-five figures to go to a WWE show. This is absolutely totally a reasonable and very logical opinion to express, and not at all a statement of unhinged levels of hyperbole. Fed really is truly this bad.

Recently, I started work on a fanedit of Rob Zombie's Halloween 2007. The idea being that I want to tone down the "angry, aggressive" dialogue and performances throughout. This means I've been giving the movie a watch about a million times as I figure out what I want to do to achieve that goal. This caused a lot of reflection on what works in that 2007 film for me versus what *doesn't* work in David Gordon Green's films.

For me, Rob Zombie's films, warts and all, present a Michael that's genuinely frightening. He's a very real, very believable monster, and I root for Laurie and his other victims to survive his attacks, and I experience actual dread and fear when Michael ia stalking them on screen. This is never the case in David Gordon Green's films, and I started thinking about why.

For me, it comes down to David Gordon Green and the writers present Michael like a "badass." Sure, he's a motiveless murderer, but the execution of that characterization is Jason-esque in that the movies seem to want the audience to view him as a cool. He's given no end of borderline "heroic" poses, he squashes heads with one stomp, he can take out whole squadrons of people like a samurai warrior, he pulls his mask on in the kind of languid slow motion shot usually reserved for cool guy's not looking at explosions. Everything about David Gordon Green's Michael at least in H'18 and Kills is in service of making Michael look awesome.

For me, that's the biggest failure of DGG's films. They're way too enamored with Michael being a badass, and as a result, they completely fail to make him genuinely scary. Something that RZH excels at by comparison, in my opinion.

​

Recently, I started work on a fanedit of Rob Zombie's Halloween 2007. The idea being that I want to tone down the "angry, aggressive" dialogue and performances throughout. This means I've been giving the movie a watch about a million times as I figure out what I want to do to achieve that goal. This caused a lot of reflection on what works in that 2007 film for me versus what \*doesn't\* work in David Gordon Green's films.

For me, Rob Zombie's films, warts and all, present a Michael that's genuinely frightening. He's a very real, very believable monster, and I root for Laurie and his other victims to survive his attacks, and I experience actual dread and fear when Michael ia stalking them on screen. This is never the case in David Gordon Green's films, and I started thinking about why.

For me, it comes down to David Gordon Green and the writers present Michael like a "badass." Sure, he's a motiveless murderer, but the execution of that characterization is Jason-esque in that the movies seem to want the audience to view him as a cool. He's given no end of borderline "heroic" poses, he squashes heads with one stomp, he can take out whole squadrons of people like a samurai warrior, he pulls his mask on in the kind of languid slow motion shot usually reserved for cool guy's not looking at explosions. Everything about David Gordon Green's Michael at least in H'18 and Kills is in service of making Michael look awesome.

For me, that's the biggest failure of DGG's films. They're way too enamored with Michael being a badass, and as a result, they completely fail to make him genuinely scary. Something that RZH excels at by comparison, in my opinion.

Recently, I started work on a fanedit of Rob Zombie's Halloween 2007. The idea being that I want to tone down the "angry, aggressive" dialogue and performances throughout. This means I've been giving the movie a watch about a million times as I figure out what I want to do to achieve that goal. This caused a lot of reflection on what works in that 2007 film for me versus what *doesn't* work in David Gordon Green's films.

For me, Rob Zombie's films, warts and all, present a Michael that's genuinely frightening. He's a very real, very believable monster, and I root for Laurie and his other victims to survive his attacks, and I experience actual dread and fear when Michael ia stalking them on screen. This is never the case in David Gordon Green's films, and I started thinking about why.

For me, it comes down to David Gordon Green and the writers present Michael like a "badass." Sure, he's a motiveless murderer, but the execution of that characterization is Jason-esque in that the movies seem to want the audience to view him as a cool. He's given no end of borderline "heroic" poses, he squashes heads with one stomp, he can take out whole squadrons of people like a samurai warrior, he pulls his mask on in the kind of languid slow motion shot usually reserved for cool guy's not looking at explosions. Everything about David Gordon Green's Michael at least in H'18 and Kills is in service of making Michael look awesome.

For me, that's the biggest failure of DGG's films. They're way too enamored with Michael being a badass, and as a result, they completely fail to make him genuinely scary. Something that RZH excels at by comparison, in my opinion.