isnt the directors cut the only one out there? I mean that usually defies logic, but I remember when this movie was released... only the directors cut was in stores n' shit...

Leave notes for us to discuss, I look forward to conversation.

I have to go with Jimmy on this one. If someone made a movie followed by a sequel that had virtually nothing in common at all with the first movie, the burden is not on me to watch the second movie first. The burden is on the second movie to make sense. It's not my fault it's in the same franchise, they could have named it Indiana Jones. (With similar results, but.)

Riddick is a weird mess, some people like weird messes. Even I like them occasionally. (Snow Crash, Sucker Punch.) The thing is, though, "weird mess" is a status, not a genre, and it's even more mileage-may-vary than a controversial genre would be.

But you yourself agree it's not really a sequel. Your mistake is thinking of it as one. Stop! 'tis an awesome hi-budget movie preceeded by an okay-ish small budget fair... which you can think of as a test-movie, or something that just happens to use the same actors and character names. FORGET ABOUT IT, Pitch Black isn't what's important, CHRONICLES is what's important!!!!

/Z

Ya'll be trippin'. Riddick is a classic example of a bad movie. The plot is totally overstuffed, and completely nonsensical.

On a similar note, when I told a friend of mine recently that I had the same complaint about At World's End, he told me that he actually liked it better than Dead Man's Chest (because there were less random story tangents and fewer running gags), and that he never understood how people found it confusing. Apparently, he always understood it perfectly. Is that what's going on with the Riddick fans in the room?

dork man got the war hammer 40k thing right on. made me really want to see a WH40k movie but not as a pitch black sequel.
If this had been a free standing concept and thus the story changes necessary to do that, could this have worked maybe?
the Necromongers as Sardaukar or Harkonnen would be great too.

Sorry, I will not apologize for loving Riddick. It's over the top, yes. But it thrusts me head first into this beautiful-to-the-point-of-absurdity world *without* going all tounge-in-cheek about it (fifth element, I'm looking at you), it's unapologetically operatically over the top, and doesn't flinch about it. I wish more movies were like that.

Heck, I even like the acting, and would NOT place dame Dench on such a pedestal as y'all do here. Sure, she does her job, but you guys seem to be of the impression she is the only one able to act here? The whole POINT of these operatic-to-the-max things is that it SHOULD be the battle-of-the-poseurs, FFS!

Yes, I saw Riddick before Pitch (notice how - at least in this part of the world, there is no "Chronicles of Riddick" labeling on Pitch Black?) and this colors my opinion. I understand you guys are confused and shell-shocked by that transition. I get that.

But come-on?

Isn't this FANTASTICALLY operatically over-the-topically glorious?

Also, the Necromongers aren't aiming for a "specific point in space"; but the underverse, which seems to be some kind of afterlife-ish thing/parallell dimension-ish/magical realm-ish, which completely explains why they need followers (perhaps you need a belief-quotient-density greatrer than 62 hail-mary's per cubic inch of space to warp space-death-time enough to pass over?)

You guys lack imagination

/Z (I still love you, tho)

What, you had something snarky and you deleted it - or - you thought what I said was snarky and unconstructive?

If the former, I'd love to read your snarky version >

/Z

Seriously, guys. It's fine to like bad movies. We all do.

But don't kid yourself about how good or bad it is. How much you enjoy a movie is a matter of subjective opinion. How well it tells its story is not.