So another sequel to "The Fast and the Furious" is apparently coming out soon, and it's called "Fast and Furious." No subtitle, no number -- all the did was take out the "the"s. Amazing.
This is unprecedented in the field of "sequel names that sound too much like the original." The previous champion in this category was "Aliens," the sequel to "Alien." That one was plenty annoying, because you always had to add extra explanation whenever you referred to it, as in "I liked 'Alien,' but didn't care for 'AlienSSSS,' you know, the second one."
"Fast and Furious" easily beats that. Not only will no one understand which movie you're talking about (there will be a lot of "oh, you mean the ones that's in theaters now, gotcha"), but also no one will be able to say "you know, the fourth one" because no one will actually care enough about this crappy franchise to recall whether this is the fourth one or the third or the twentieth. I only know it's the fourth one because I just looked it up on IMDB. The second one was "2 Fast 2 Furious" (dumb name, but accomplishes the basic task of connecting it to the original while communicating that it is a sequel) and the third one was "The Fast and the Furious: Cars Go Vroom!" (No, not really, and in fact, I just gave away the whole plot. Sorry.) The third one was "The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift," which I think was about driving sideways or something?
Of course, I've never seen any of these movies, and I'm sure I never will. I'm pretty sure the basic idea is this:
Vin Diesel: My penis is very large.
Some Other Guy: My penis is larger.
Hot Chick: I will have sex with whoever's penis is larger.
Vin Diesel: I will demonstrate my superior penis size by driving very fast.
Some Other Guy: I will also.
(Cars go vroom.)
So I'm using brain space on this whole thing only because of my singular passion for movie sequel names. I wish that were my job, just making up movie sequel names all day, every day. Here are some other suggestions for the fourth "The Fast and the Furious" film:
"The Fast and the Furious: Faster and Furiouser"
"The Fast 4 the Furious 4: Fastin' 4 Furiosity"
"The Fast and the Furious: Zoom! Bang! Boobies! More Zoom!"
"Fasty McFurious: Dublin Drift"
"Grandmaster Fast and the Furious Four" (That one's for the old-school rap fans in the house)
"Fast. Furious. The. And. The."
"Excessively Fast and Gratutitously Furious"
"'I'm Furious at How Fast Those Cars Are!' That's What Lame Dudes Say"
Any of those would have been superior to just "Fast and Furious." It ain't that hard, folks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I also was confused, in part because this sequel has the original cast (which the middle two didn't) making it look like exactly the same movie as the first one. I was kind of hoping it would just be a remake of the first one. I might watch that.
That would be awesome, to make a shot for shot remake of a movie released five years ago with the same actors and director and everything. Or, even better, just re-release the original under a new title and see if anyone notices the difference.
i still don't understand what is the appeal of Vin Diesel -- it's gotta be either his gravelly voice or his cool name
I got no beef with Vin Diesel -- he can't act, but that's beside the point. He is bald and a dork (he has publicly admitted to being a big Dungeons and Dragons fan, no joke), and personally I think more bald dorks should be cast as sexy leading men in action films.
Hold on a sec - didn't the end of this post used to be different? I thought it was Ed saying something like, "These were my sequel ideas. Do I get the job?" What was wrong with that ending, Ed?
Also, just as I typed this comment, I have a question for you folks. Should I have said "didn't (it) use to be different", or is "didn't (it) used to be different" correct? I went over both choices in my head, and they both seem wrong.
Because normally when you have a past tense verb with "did", the main part of the verb is in the present tense form: "He didn't see", vs. "He saw". Which would seem to make "didn't (it) use to be different" the right answer, because "use" is in the present tense form.
But in this case, "use" isn't a standalone verb - it's part of the verb phrase "used to be", which just means "was" or "were". And there is no present tense form of that phrase. Is there? I'm confused. And I didn't use to be.
Yes, the ending did had been used to be use to have been different, but I didn't like it so I changed it. And I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be "used to be," because that's the phrase. But it doesn't sound good, does it? I mean, it doesn't sound well. I mean, it had not have seemed well in the used-to-be time of has-beens. I have no idea what I mean.
I looked this up and a British guy has this to say:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv285.shtml
I think he said that both are fine but I'm not positive since I never learned grammar, and terms like modal auxiliary verb and negative form confuse me.
Thanks, Emily. That's basically what my research wound up saying. It's an informal usage to begin with, and so there's no standard way of writing it.
Post a Comment