Jump to content

Hangover Part III


LongHairedFreakyGuy

Recommended Posts

LongHairedFreakyGuy

 

Zach Galifianakis has hinted at the plot of The Hangover Part III, and it won't involve a night on the booze and the guys losing someone.

 

According to what Galifianakis has been told, the plot will break from the franchise's lucrative formula, with the Wolf Pack attempting to break Alan out of a mental asylum.

 

Speaking to Rolling Stone, Galifiankis also revealed that the wheels have already been put in motion to make the movie - "They want to do a Hangover III," he says. "I'm getting fricking phone calls already."

 

What do you think of The Hangover abandoning the proven formula? Does the series need shaking up? Let us know what you think below.

 

Source: IGN

 

Yet to watch Part II so am not sure where this 'series' has headed, but will this really work with a different formula?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read about this on Part II's wiki.

To be honest, the sequel wasn't anything of a masterpiece. It followed basically the exact same template set up by the first. And you know what, I was kind of cool with that.

I knew that the originality and spark the first one bought was what made it a success and so I wasn't expecting such from the sequel. Some cheap laughs from a cast that I enjoy - namely Helms and Galafianakis - was okay for $12.

 

I'd be happy to see another original title spawn from this series, but it seems that every sequel will have to compete with the first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harwood Butch3r

 

I read about this on Part II's wiki.

To be honest, the sequel wasn't anything of a masterpiece. It followed basically the exact same template set up by the first. And you know what, I was kind of cool with that.

I knew that the originality and spark the first one bought was what made it a success and so I wasn't expecting such from the sequel. Some cheap laughs from a cast that I enjoy - namely Helms and Galafianakis - was okay for $12.

 

I'd be happy to see another original title spawn from this series, but it seems that every sequel will have to compete with the first.

Agreed. I really liked II, but The Hangover is like one of my favourite comedies of all time. Seriously I've lost count of the number of times I've watched it.

 

To be perfectly honest I don't think it should've been turned into a franchise. IMO the first one was almost perfect. It was so refreshing back in 2009 compared to most comedies.

 

II was good, but I don't see myself watching it over and over like the first one. The darker tone really isn't my thing and I prefer Vegas any day of the week. Still a great laugh though.

 

It'll be interesting to see how the third one turns out. Changing it a bit probably isn't a bad idea, but I have a feeling "Hangover" wont have much meaning in this one.

Edited by Miamivicecity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where exactly would the 'hangover' take place in part III if they're breaking someone out of a mental asylum? Did they get drunk and accidently commit him, then wake up and have to retrace their steps to find him? Hmm, sounds familiar already. Maybe the part of the baby/monkey can be a tall non-speaking native american?

 

They should change the formula, but they won't drift too far from it. If they take too much of a turn from the original formula they'll risk losing money (that's not good), but if they don't they'll get bad reviews and no one will want to see it (morons excluded). Threequels are a fine line

user posted image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finn 7 five 11
I read about this on Part II's wiki.

To be honest, the sequel wasn't anything of a masterpiece. It followed basically the exact same template set up by the first. And you know what, I was kind of cool with that.

I knew that the originality and spark the first one bought was what made it a success and so I wasn't expecting such from the sequel. Some cheap laughs from a cast that I enjoy - namely Helms and Galafianakis - was okay for $12.

 

I'd be happy to see another original title spawn from this series, but it seems that every sequel will have to compete with the first.

Agreed. I really liked II, but The Hangover is like one of my favourite comedies of all time. Seriously I've lost count of the number of times I've watched it.

 

To be perfectly honest I don't think it should've been turned into a franchise. IMO the first one was almost perfect. It was so refreshing back in 2009 compared to most comedies.

 

II was good, but I don't see myself watching it over and over like the first one. The darker tone really isn't my thing and I prefer Vegas any day of the week. Still a great laugh though.

 

It'll be interesting to see how the third one turns out. Changing it a bit probably isn't a bad idea, but I have a feeling "Hangover" wont have much meaning in this one.

I liked number 2 better than the first, but i doubt i will be watching it several times like the first one, maybe because there is more to the plot? I dunno what it is.

 

 

It'll be interesting to see how the third one turns out. Changing it a bit probably isn't a bad idea, but I have a feeling "Hangover" wont have much meaning in this one.

Hmm, i think it will tie in somehow, i am glad and sad that they are changing the movie a bit, i am sad because i love the movies, but i am glad because the third one would be pretty dang predictable otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't even watched the first, but I hate when things like this happen.

 

Leave it at II and that's it. Why do we need to ring things dry until they are no longer funny?

 

Maybe it could be the final movie or something.

 

I'm conflicted, really. On one hand, everyone loves it and wants more, why play keep-away when you can do another installment? On the other hand, why milk things dry? Whatever; someone will come up with a new idea soon enough and we'll all move onto that.

 

I guess it'll be like Rocky. 90 installment series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't even watched the first, but I hate when things like this happen.

 

Leave it at II and that's it. Why do we need to ring things dry until they are no longer funny?

 

Maybe it could be the final movie or something.

 

I'm conflicted, really. On one hand, everyone loves it and wants more, why play keep-away when you can do another installment? On the other hand, why milk things dry? Whatever; someone will come up with a new idea soon enough and we'll all move onto that.

 

I guess it'll be like Rocky. 90 installment series.

I think you need to shut the f*ck up and watch the movie. I'm sorry, but I can't abide dickhead opinions from children who can't be bothered to watch the f*cking films they're talking about.

 

you'll enjoy both of them, and no joke will be lost on you even though you're apparently a fiucking moron who can't even be bothered to entertain himself from fear from exposing imself to a world beyond his sphere of comfort.

 

 

Sad, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize for the brash nature of my above post but stand by my point. Both films are hilarious. I'm sure a third will have it's merits as well.

 

In short, post with some integrity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sad, really.

My thoughts exactly

 

Did Kevin steal your account or something? I'm not even talking smack about the comedy itself, what I'm saying is that I hate it when someone strikes Gold with a new idea and doesn't bother continuing to innovate until people hate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LongHairedFreakyGuy
Sad, really.

My thoughts exactly

 

Did Kevin steal your account or something? I'm not even talking smack about the comedy itself, what I'm saying is that I hate it when someone strikes Gold with a new idea and doesn't bother continuing to innovate until people hate it.

Think he has a valid point here, Otter. confused.gif The plot of Hangover was a fresh and original idea, and when this rare ocassion happens, the producers milk it to death, until the 3rd one comes alond and completely ruins it by trying to be different from the others. One example pops into my mind, American Pie. Whether you loved it or hated it, that's not my point, the point is that 1 & 2 were great, so they milked it too far and we ended up with all the sh*t that followed.

 

Until we hear more of the plot idea, we can't say whether or not it's a definite hit/fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I've got some synopses of the three films for you guys.

 

Film 1:

 

People wake up and they've lost a friend, they need to find him. They retrace their steps. Stuff happens, the mob get involved, everything ends happily.

 

Film 2:

 

People wake up and they've lost a friend, they need to find him. They retrace their steps. Stuff happens, the mob get involved, everything ends happily.

 

But wait: This time they are in Thailand! A foreign country! Breaking new ground guys! I love it! Yeah! Great! Woo! Money well spent! etc.

 

Film 3:

 

People wake up and they've lost a friend, they need to find him. They retrace their steps. Stuff happens, the mob get involved, everything ends happily.

 

But wait: This time they are on the moon! A foreign country! Breaking new ground guys! I love it! Yeah! Great! Woo! Money well spent! etc.

 

amidoinitrite? catspider.gif

 

Don't get me wrong, the first film was a triumph and one of the funniest movies I've ever seen but my expectations were lower coming into the second because I guess I already knew about what was going to happen before it did. With any movie concept there is only so far that you should go with a gimmick before it jumps the shark. Meet the Parents was an average film, they really didn't need to make it a trilogy. The 7% rating on RottenTomatoes.com says it all with regards to the third film. It f*cking sucked and I watched it on Christmas Eve, when in the past I'd watched some great movies. It left me feeling like I'd been cheated out of my ticket money.

 

The Hangover II didn't leave me feeling like that, because it did have laughs. And there was always more substance in the plot and comedy than just the humour behind the words Focker and F*cker sounding alike. However maybe the reason why I was left satisfied afterwards was because of the fact that I wasn't engaging in the film, it was being played out in front of my eyes like a Super Bowl replay whereby you know what's going to happen even before you see it. And this could be down to the fact that I've seen so many films become cheapened by endless sequels like American Pie, Pirates of the Caribbean and Dumb and Dumber. I can't help but feel that a third film will be a bridge too far, so I'd plead with the directors to stop making the next Hangover film if I could, because I loved the first film so much that I would hate to see it cheapened in that way.

 

I think that comedy is a difficult genre to make a guaranteed money-earner franchise. It could possibly be the most difficult. And this is because there is no fixed demographic which a comedy film can definitely appeal to. Action films, on the other hand, will always appeal to people who want to watch heroes and get a little bang for their buck. And that is one of the key reasons behind the commercial success of films like Die Hard and Rambo and Rocky. Even though you know the punchline, so to speak, you want to watch it happen anyway. But that is because an action sequence is not a joke, when you know the punchline of a joke you sigh and possibly die a little inside but even though you know that Bruce Willis is going to knock out all the bad guys you are still glued to the edge of your seat. You want to know how he is going to do it. But because a joke can only really be delivered in one way, the delivery is less important than the punchline. Whereas with action sequences the opposite could be said to be true.

 

Lets face it, when you repeat a movie you invariably go over all of the same ground that you have done previously but just in a different way. And if your audience knows your jokes or storyline in advance, and you are in the comedy business, you are sh*t out of luck.

 

The most worrying thing about this compulsion to make sequel after sequel is that it mainly comes down to simple risk aversion strategies. If you have a film which can potentially make into a franchise you feel like you have to continue to churn out more films until you either run out of ideas or until the audience says: "That film was a massive sh*t-heap. Why do I keep paying to watch these films anyway? I already know what's going to happen and when!" And if your first film was a huge success like the first Hangover film you are obviously going to have to make more films before your series jumps the shark because of the fact that more people came to see the first one than other films of the same time, if you know what I mean; therefore your second film could still be just as successful commercially as the first despite largely being exactly the same in every way possible. Then you make a third, then a fourth, then a fifth. When will it end?

 

But why do these people take such non-risks? I guess it's down to how big the budgets are for both films and games nowadays. People are afraid of failure within production companies and therefore are less prepared to take the risk of allocating a big budget to a film made by an unproven director which goes over ground which has never been covered before. But wasn't the Hangover just a more slick version of "Dude, Where's My Car?"

 

Only when companies realise that by reproducing the same films over and over again you are cheapening the end product will we finally see that day that a successful movie will be just that, a successful movie. If a movie doesn't need a sequel then it doesn't need a sequel. And when that day comes the world will be a better place. It will be like curing AIDS.

 

Except this disease is of the sub-conscious and of the brain, the part of the brain which tells you to keep buying the rehashes of remakes of redoings of sequels on DVD and blu-ray. If a person owns a Jaws 4 T-shirt or a HALO 4 beer hat then they have this disease. But sadly they are too far gone to be of any use to anybody, and should be sterilised or simply put down at the earliest convenience to stop them from contaminating others and causing this disease to spread further and to tighten it's grip over the world and the movies that are produced for the consumption of those who reside on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.