- Joined
- Feb 12, 2010
- Messages
- 13,470
- Reaction score
- 3
This isn't meant to be simply...tell us which one you like better. I think pretty much everyone agrees that the first was the better film.
I do too, but I'm trying to figure out the mindset of people that liked the first, but hated the second. I hear that a LOT.
I mean, everybody LOVED the first Hangover movie. It was a comedy masterpiece. And it seems to me that everybody HATES the second.
To me, it was basically the SAME EXACT movie. Now, maybe this is why people don't like it - not very original. But I get the sense that people somehow flat out think it's inferior comedy. That's what I don't really understand, I think the comedy writing and general hilariousness is the same.
There's two reasons I think the first played better
- It was the first time being introduced to these characters and that's always more fun than knowing what you're getting into. It was more shocking.
- It was set in Vegas...everybody's been to a bachelor party in Vegas, so it was familiar ground. Not everybody's been to Thailand.
But neither of those really have anything to do with the comedy itself. From a pure laughs standpoint, I don't see how part two was any worse than part one.
So, if you are someone that likes part one but thinks part two sucks...why do you think that way? Is it just because nothing was very original due to it being a sequel, or do you think it really was just not a funny movie?
I do too, but I'm trying to figure out the mindset of people that liked the first, but hated the second. I hear that a LOT.
I mean, everybody LOVED the first Hangover movie. It was a comedy masterpiece. And it seems to me that everybody HATES the second.
To me, it was basically the SAME EXACT movie. Now, maybe this is why people don't like it - not very original. But I get the sense that people somehow flat out think it's inferior comedy. That's what I don't really understand, I think the comedy writing and general hilariousness is the same.
There's two reasons I think the first played better
- It was the first time being introduced to these characters and that's always more fun than knowing what you're getting into. It was more shocking.
- It was set in Vegas...everybody's been to a bachelor party in Vegas, so it was familiar ground. Not everybody's been to Thailand.
But neither of those really have anything to do with the comedy itself. From a pure laughs standpoint, I don't see how part two was any worse than part one.
So, if you are someone that likes part one but thinks part two sucks...why do you think that way? Is it just because nothing was very original due to it being a sequel, or do you think it really was just not a funny movie?