Monday, August 30, 2010

Ep. 3 - JAWS - August 2010

Featuring special guest Luke Hickman, film critic for The Reel and host of the Talking Pictures Podcast

Considering the Sequels is a monthly film podcast that examines the merits and weaknesses of specific movie franchises. Right-click the title of this post to download this episode free.

In Episode 3 we consider the “Jaws” movies. This episode also includes a concept discussion in which we talk about creative sequel titling. And, as always, we each give mini reviews of recent film releases — including a mandatory “Inception” discussion — and whatever else we’ve been watching lately.

Your hosts are Andy Howell, Jason Pyles and now, the newly appointed (and way above our pay grade) Karl Huddleston. We welcome Karl to the show; he’s going to make a great addition. (Bill Barnes is unfortunately no longer available to host our podcast; however, he’ll visit from time to time.) Download this episode to hear why Luke thinks “Jaws 2” is a better movie than the first “Jaws.”


I. Mini Reviews

Karl — Inception (04:14), The Other Guys (09:47)

Luke — “First Look” preview of 127 Hours (10:45), Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (12:42), Kick-Ass Blu-ray Special Features (13:39)

Jason — Stanley Kauffmann’s Movie Reviews (14:58), From Russia With Love (17:52)

Andy — The Wire: Season 5 (19:58), The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (20:12), Resident Evil franchise (21:55)

II. Concept Discussion: Creative Sequel Titling (22:58)

- Andy’s List (25:02)

- Karl’s List (25:47)

- Luke’s List (29:32)

- Karl’s List: Part II: Stepping It Up 2 the Streets 4 U (31:06)

- Jason's List (32:03)

— A Brief Interview With Our Sponsor, Kawika Heftel, of Heftel Studios (37:30)

III. Considering the Sequels: Jaws

- Jaws (40:13)

- Jaws 2 (50:42)

- Jaws 3-D (58:07)

- Jaws: The Revenge (1:05:09)

- Franchise Overview (1:12:32)

Wrap-Up / Credits (1:15:15)

End Time (1:18:40)

Luke, Andy, Karl and Jason give their collective verdict on this franchise, from 0 to 100:

Jaws = 75

Jaws 2 = 45 (cinematic dead horse beating)

Jaws 3-D = 30 (cinematic dead horse beating)

Jaws: The Revenge = 14 (cinematic dead horse beating)

Overall Franchise = 42 (cinematic dead horse beating)

Contact Us:

E-mail us with questions, comments, suggestions:, or catch up with us on Facebook by searching “Considering the Sequels.” Visit Andy and Jason’s Considering the Cinema discussion blog, where we write about unusual films. And if you’re really bored, follow Jason’s mostly film-related remarks on Twitter.


Thanks to our official sponsor, Kawika Heftel and Heftel Studios. Thanks to the Dave Eaton Element for the use of Dave’s music. Thanks to film critic Luke Hickman for appearing on our show. You can find more of Luke’s filmic commentary at The Reel and the Talking Pictures Podcast and The Stubbs Show on 101.5 The Eagle, Salt Lake City, KEGA.

Thanks to Bill Barnes and Kara Brewer for their artistic vision and graphic design. (Bill Barnes, we miss you already.) Thanks to The /Filmcast and the Creative Screenwriting Magazine podcast for their inspiration.

Notice: This episode has PG- to PG-13 profanity and humor. No horses were harmed in the making of this podcast.

Episode 3 was recorded on August 15, 2010.


  1. Dudes, that was a great episode!! Thank you for doing a mini-review on Inception!!! I LOVED the movie and I loved the little details you guys noticed that I didn't (I won't mention them for the sake of not spoiling it for those who haven't seen it...)

    Also, the discussion on sequel-naming conventions was informative and interesting. Let's say I followed that better than some of the more esoteric discussions on earlier episodes.

  2. Thanks, Kawika. Esoteric, indeed. (We usually try to include material for hard-core film geeks in each episode, but we wanted to lighten it up a bit.)

    Yes, Bill Barnes and other fault-finders, I used the word "synonym" incorrectly. I know.

    For other big fans of "Inception" like Kawika, check out its plot illustrated graphically. Spoiler alert:


  3. I talked about Stanley Kauffmann in my mini reviews. If you're intrigued, Newsweek just did a nice tribute article on him. Check it out:


  4. andy and luke are wrong... jaws is a classic. jaws 2 is worse. i have nostalgia love for 3. 4 is unwatchable. too bad i quit when i did, cuz they would've had an earlful from me... karl is my new favorite host ;)

    thanks for the "scenes" shout out!

  5. Another creative sequel title that we missed:

    "Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties" (2006).

    Come on, it's not too bad.

  6. Bill - you and Karl are old, that's why it holds so much nostalgia for you. I never said it wasn't a classic - it clearly is, I just said it wasn't that good... Your affinity for the movie dates you two quite a bit! Get your act together and come back. I can't stand the new guy.

  7. Listened to this episode while exercising this morning.

    I enjoyed the creative titling discussion, except that no one mentioned two of the titling conventions I enjoy most. What about the "I am completely confident that the first movie was so awesome that you all are still talking about it, so I'm not even going to refer to it in the title of my new film because I know you WILL ALL KNOW that the new film is a sequel to my previous awesome film" rule of thumb? George Lucas invented the rule with "Star Wars," "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi," and precious few (if any) filmmakers have been bold enough to follow it. Of course, Evil George Lucas ruined everything and emasculated a once-proud nomenclature when he began to devise crap like "Star Wars — Episode I: The Phantom Menace."

    The Good George rule has been highly successful in print media for years although publishers often wimp out and include explanatory crap on book covers like "Book One of the [Awesome Sounding Word Here] Series." My favorite example from print is Scott Card's four-book series about Ender Wiggin, "Ender's Game," "Speaker for the Dead," "Xenocide" and "Children of the Mind." Again, if you create something awesome enough, there's no need to constantly remind people it's a sequel to something else they loved — they know that already.

    Titles are powerful. Which of course is one reason why so many filmmakers stick with the original, a la the "Godfather" movies: You're evoking something that has a deep, almost hypnotic resonance. The obvious danger lies in cheapening the value of the original. The "Jaws" films are an excellent example: Among other reasons that people might find to downgrade the awesome original film is the weight of all the negative baggage associated with its terrible sequels ... all of which have shared and sullied its title.

    The other creative titling convention I enjoy/respect is one that's also widely used in the publishing world. The sequels to "Raiders of the Lost Ark" use the first film's towering main character as a hook: "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom," "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" and "Indiana Jones and the Dammit, George, What the Hell Went Wrong Here?" (The obvious example from publishing is the Harry Potter series.) It's sort of a best-of-both-worlds approach. The name of your main character is a powerful reminder of the franchise, and describing his latest adventure lets you work in a cool new phrase that eventually functions almost as a separate title. People often refer to the sequels by the partial titles "Temple of Doom," "Last Crusade" and "See, I Sort of Saw the Tarzan Thing Coming Because of 'Return of the Jedi' and the Space Aliens Angle was the Worst Kept Secret of the Century and Nuking the Fridge was Even Semi Fun in a 'Plausibility Be Damned' Sort of Way but Just Stop It With the Driving Over the Waterfall Thing and The Face Painted Kinda Zombie Guys Guarding the Graveyard."

  8. Hey Cody - I don't know why you need to be so cryptic about your feelings for "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." Just be honest and tell us how you really feel...

    I agree with you that books seems to have better titling than movies. I thought about Stephen King's "The Dark Tower" series, which started with "The Gunslinger," then "Three Doors," and "Wizard and Glass," and so on. I'm not sure when they began to be referred to as "The Dark Tower" series, but I don't think that was an original name. It does seem that most franchises need some tying title though to help the audience identify the works. And it seems too that books have a little more latitude because we also identify books by author, which is something we don't necessarily do with films.

  9. cody is forgetting "dirty harry" and it's sequels' titles (none of which include a reference to the first film). the first film was released in 71...

  10. Actually, I have a funny relationship with "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." I saw it, loved it, wrote a glowing review of it and have never seen it again. Since then, my memories of it have lost a lot of their luster, mainly because almost everyone else I know thought it was so dumb. I've been peer pressured into retroactively semi-despising it. I need to watch it again and see which of my perspectives, old or new, I agree with more.

    I bow to Bill's superior recall: The "Dirty Harry" movies did beat Good George Lucas to the punch by several years. There are probably other pre- and post-"Star Wars" examples, although I'm still drawing a blank ...

  11. @Karl Huddleston:

    I am glad you joined the Podcast team. You are the only reviewer who I feel did Jaws any justice. Jaws is a near-flawless classic! I didn't have to see it in theaters to know that. It is a rare monster/horror film that's best scenes aren't the killings. My favorite scenes: Quint's retelling of the USS Indianapolis and Chief Brody's intimate moment with his son. Classic stuff.

    That guy who said Jaws 2 was better than the original...I have never heard something so crazy.

  12. Appreciate the kind words Vance - thank you! As the resident older guy (47) it's nice to be noticed. :)