I think even Marvel has forgotten at this point that the thing that made the early mcu movies so good was that they worked as stand-alone movies as well as contributing to the larger universe. Which, when you get down to it, was what the original goal of a sequel was before the concept of “cinematic universes” took over
Did they? Of the really early MCU there are only 4 MCU movies that can really work as stand-alone movies (Iron Man, Hulk, Thor and Captain America), after that we already get into cross-over or sequel ground and the only other movie that actually works as a stand alone movie later is Guardians of The Galaxy. And from those five films Hulk is pretty universally disliked and Thor is really meh, leaving us with just 3 movies from "early MCU that were so good" that actually worked as a standalone movie. Now if your condition for "works as a stand alone movie" is that you might miss a lot of character growth and motivations that happens in other movies but the movie still includes a coherent story that starts and ends with character development all inside of the same film, then there are lots of examples still coming out today Shang-Chi, Eternals, Black Widow, Spider-Man FFH, Captain Marvel, etc).
This is exactly the reason why Zack Snyder's movies failed. Both BvS and SnyderCut focus on world-building and setting up for the sequel while it fails so hard as a standalone movie
Yeahhhhh I’m not agreeing with the notion that Glass Onion isn’t a true sequel. Each of the Hercule movies had a defining part of their name to indicate to people that it is within the universe. “Murder on the Orient Express” & “Murder on the Nile.” Both indicate that it is a murder mystery & stars our fav detective. Adding “Knives Out Mystery” only indicates to people that this is also a detective movie with Benoit.
But those are the titles of the books. "Death on the River Nile" "Evil under the Sun" "Thirteen at Dinner" and "Dead Mans Folly" are pretty generic titles and you have to dig to get they are all Poirot-movies with Ustinov in the lead. All of Christies books have titles like that, so you have to take a second look to even find out out if its a Poirot or a Marple book or something totally unrelated like "And then there were none" Back then Studios would trust their audience, that they would watch "Nile" for the Sake of itself and not because they liked "Orient Express". You could even argue if the Originals even are first one and sequel Since they did'nt even Keep the Poirot-Actor. Sad Truth is, this development Shows that people lost trust and interest in the artists. They want more of the Charakters they love but not more of the Artistic Talent that made them Fall in love.
@@concienda People love Knives Out. To get more people to want to see the movie, they added A Knives Out Mystery. People who never watched the Murder Mystery movies of the past will not fully understand it. It might seem like it is people not coming for the artist, but it really is just making sure that people know it is within the same world. The movies aren’t interconnected. Glass Onion is a true sequel
@@omitn2011 I do not disagree that Glass Onion is a true sequel. Of course it is; Johnson created it this way. Still, in Adding that subtitle, Netflix Shows that they dont trust their own movie. The Beauty of Glass Onion, like with many of the classic Murder Mysterys is, that they stand on their own, you can start with any movie you like. You wont have any trouble if you start with glass onion and then discover knives out. By adding the subtitle netflix is denying glass onion that independent agency. Sure, it is just a small Symbolic gesture that doesnt really hurt or change the movie but it still feels like a little Stain: a bit like a great novel but published in a really shitty Edition with thin paper and an ugly, ill-fiting Cover.
Christie's titles indicate the genre, but not necessarily that it's a Poirot story. "The Hollow", "The seven dials mystery" and "And then there were none" are all equally mysterious titles, but only one of them is a Poirot story. I understand why Netflix did it, but adding "a Knives Out mystery" isn't really necessary in my opinion seeing as Daniel Craig's face is plastered on ever poster for the movie. *also, minor nitpick, but it's "Death on the Nile". Her titles are pretty varied.
Glass Onion is a perfect example of a traditional sequel. I don't know what this video means. The reason it says "a knives out mystery" is so they can just let people know that it's connected to the original. Like old sequels where the name was different
I think the extent of the argument is that having the subtitle makes it a universe instead of a sequel, which is just asinine. I'm surprised he didn't use The American Horror Story Expanded Universe as an example (/s). The huge irony here is that James Bond, the closest long-running parallel, was an anthology for ever and only recently became a series of sequels. This is maybe the biggest miss on a channel that usually gets it.
I think there’s a misunderstanding with the title. It says the death of the sequel, but the video seems to be saying moreso that cinematic universes and sequels and brand recognition WON’T die. Star Wars used to be able to have the titles not having to say “Star Wars: [title]”. In the same way, glass onion, while still a sequel in some regards, is pushed away from being a self contained romp with a returning character and into a building block for a FRANCHISE. and that kinda sucks
@@jaewon4316 honestly I get what your saying with brand recognition and universes. Glass onion is more like an Agatha Christie novel with poirot than anything else. Which if we went off the knowledge that while poirot as the detective connects the story's he's in it they are pretty self contained adventures which is pretty much rian Johnson's direction for the stories he's telling. With the detective In the stories being the only connecting factor kind makes it a sequel cause you don't have to watch the first one to get the second at all
I think you actually do need to see the first movie to really get glass onion. The first movie is showing us Blanc solving the kind of mystery he knows how to solve, and you need to see it to understand his perspective in the sequel. Glass onion then does what most sequels do by finding a flaw still left in the the protagonist, and coming up with a story that challenges that part of them. Blanc is bored and fried from lockdown, and needs something to challenge him. He is looking for a mystery like the one in knives out, and wants this mystery to be that. And because this mystery is so stupid, it’s perfect because he overlooks all the obvious clues looking for subversive ones. Just like the audience (and critics especially) who boiled down Rian’s whole identity as a director as being about “subverting expectation”. If we watch the movie being sure that it’s going to be the same as knives out, we end up thinking Miles is too obvious and miss it.
I’d argue that you don’t need to see Knives Out to establish all that. Just knowing Blanc is a world famous detective like Sherlock Holmes or Poirot in a whodunnit is enough. The viewers would go in expecting all the tropes of the genre - suspects trapped on an island, all with motives and opportunities, an intricate murder plan with alibi - all to be subverted in the movie.
@@mhawang8204 I think many people would assume that the writing is just bad if they don’t see the first one. Especially with someone as divisive as Rian. And because the movie baits you into thinking this way before it starts to reveal itself, I wouldn’t recommend anyone watch it on its own. I’m a big fan of all the guy’s work, and even I was lukewarm on this movie at first. But having confidence in Rian helped keep me engaged so I didn’t miss the point. I think the negative reviews I’ve seen have all suffered from the same mistake of judging the writing too early, and become too attached to there opinion to let it go when the pieces come together.
@@mhawang8204 You're right. But I think the first movie established concretely how good Blanc is, which is important because in Glass Onion we are told he is good, but we are just seeing struggling to solve the mystery that, in the end, is really easy. We can take at face value what Glass Onion tells us about Blanc. But seeing Blanc in action in Knives Out really allows us to get fooled by Glass Onion because, like Blanc, we're just overthinking this. I remember telling myself toward the end: the most logical explanation would be Miles... but that's too simple, it can't be it. And when the truth got told, I somehow shared Blanc's frustration: it was that simple.
If it was a " forced " Cinematic - Tie in , they would have found an excuse to put in Chris Evans or Anna de Armas as a Cameo. This stands as it own objectively GOOD movie.
Dune isn’t going to be a bad “sequel” since it’s a direct continuation of the same story and Denis Villeneuve always envisioned telling the first book as a two part films.
The sequel being good or bad is not the point or the problem, is that the reason for dune being invested and adapted in the first place its because is a franchise capable of multiple movies, shows and spin offs, just like star wars and the other examples.
I honestly think that film has evolved into giant TV shows because of the streaming wars. Of course, quality has gone down because content is needed faster to stay in the fight. The boon of this is that studios need content constantly, meaning more people are needed for the industry, which opens up jobs for aspiring cinephiles and writers.
@Alexander McCabe you're not wrong. Already people are using AI chat bots to structure stories for them, but I still hold that their will always be the steak house of filmmakers out there, ensuring quality is tantamount.
Ironically, TV has also evolved to be more like movies - so many streaming shows get described as being like '8 hour films' and are so serialized, they almost ignore episodic elements. So TV is now like film and film is like TV
@Patchwork Indeed. When you consider the binge factor of good TV (Better Call Saul quality), it's hard to argue that it doesn't work. I'll be the first to admit, I went through the final season within a day.
@@auroninja exactly! (Sorry for the long ramble. TL;DR: Even if Hollywood ends up being run by AI content with only a few people working at any studio, I feel that genuine human creativity will stay strong, and people will still be able to tell their stories, thanks to independent entertainment!) While the big chains may be more recognizable and more ingrained in our culture, there still are restaurants that provide genuinely handmade food with talent and care for the customer! As bleak as big entertainment is right now and with AI being used more and more to out perform human jobs, even if society says that they don’t care how, who or what is making their entertainment, I can’t really see a future where no humans are allowed to make creative projects of their own! Even in an extreme scenario where every single big company like Disney, Paramount, Warner, and Netflix all completely eliminate all of their workforce they deem unnecessary, and have AI take over everything with only a few hundred or so people doing the bare minimum to make content and maintain the AI and servers, I feel that, with the rise of independent entertainment, we will always have true, genuine human creativity to enjoy and support, even if 99% of Hollywood becomes like WALL-E, with a hint of 1984! Now, of course, I would rather not have that future where all the big name entertainment, and all the big studios become dependent on AI and overly recycled ideas and IPs to continue making them money, as even though I have a like/dislike relationship with Hollywood, I know a lot of people want to work there and bring their ideas, original or otherwise, to the masses, as well as talented creators who still work there that are still doing that, and I don’t want going to Hollywood in general to be even more of an uncontrollable tightrope walk than it already seems to be! But I can’t imagine a world where you’d only be able to share your ideas with the world, even on a small scale, only by going through big studios and praying that you can negotiate a contract that allows you to keep the rights of your work! That may have been the only option back in the 20th century, but the internet is here and while yes, it too has its own share of concerns for the future, it still allows creatives to make, share and self publish their own creations and stories! Hopefully we won’t enter a world where the entire internet is owned by the entertainment industry, or something like that! But what I’m saying is, even with a totally automated, IP franchise, AI driven Hollywood, we can still count on independent creatives to give us genuine heart and creativity!!!💖💖💖👍👍👍👍
I enjoyed both films alot. I've probably watched Knives Out 6 times at this stage. Even though I know each and every twist, it's still so entertaining and pulls me in every time. Glass Onion is great too, but for very different reasons. While the first one has a large mystery element, Glass Onion was less of a mystery and more of a drama with a sprinkle of mystery. But that's what they were going for. I've watched Glass Onion twice now. And it's rewatchabilty is also good even knowing the twists. I can understand why certain people would like the first one more, or why others prefer the second. They're very different. I personally love both!
I tried watching onion but can't figure it out and got bored. It seems there was no mystery and no thrill and just a comedy drama that wasn't even funny.
“Glass Onion: A Knives out Mystery*” *but it’s less of a mystery and more of a drama with a sprinkle of mystery Maybe don’t put mystery in the title then…
I think this video misses a point by overfocusing in the negatives: brand recognition is not just about having interconnected worlds or characters between multiple films. Brand recognition can help also to shape the expectations even for self contained stories. Is like an action movie featuring Bruce Willis or Will Smith, or a Jim Carrey commedy, you know what to expect. By calling back "Knives Out" they automatically attracted people who liked the first one and wanted a similar thing. Of course, they could have said "A new mystery film from the director of Knives Out", but it's too long and that doesn't address the fact that the 2 movies have a very similar aesthetic and rhythm. Still, it's worth mentioning how absurdly expensive was the brand; but it's not because people don't want self contained stories, it's more because there is a saturation of content and any recognizable lead can be important to attract audience
I love both Knives Out and Glass Onion, but I'll be honest and I'm ashamed of it, but I probably would have missed glass onion if it hadn't had the "A knives out mystery" or some other way of telling me it was a "sequal" considering it almost flew under my radar as is.
That is what trailers used to be for. When people still went to movie theaters and trailers were shown for movies coming out soon, not half a year or a year later.
Yeah, I don’t think I would have watched if I didn’t know it was a sequel to Knives Out. Same reason as to why, even though I liked Murder on the Orient Express, I didn’t know Death on the Nile was a sequel, and therefore didn’t see it. 😅
Well, books often have titles that involve that. Such as "Sherlock Holmes and the...", "Harry Potter and the...", "The Murder at the Vicarage: a Miss Marple Mystery", "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd: A Hercule Poirot Mystery"
Books in a series can also be printed at the same height and width, with the same art style and motif. 'Thursday Next Mysteries' all have a car in the centre of the cover, doing something that cars don't do.
The only one that was actually marketed like that from your examples is Harry Potter which completely misses the point since Harry Potter stories are an actual series that complete a story, not separate installments that can be read and enjoyed separately. Look up all of the rest examples, the books weren't marketed like that when they came out. It was just the title of the story (ie: "The Murder at the Vicarage").
Old Man Yells at Cloud. Popular Cinema changes. 70's auteur, 80's studio films, 90's independent, disaster movies, romcoms. They make what is popular until it isn't popular anymore then they do something new or revive something old. It's not better, it's not worse, it's just different
I actually think the subtitle is a positive. I was a huge fan of the first movie, and I would possibly have never realized glass onion was its sequel. The film itself isn’t affected by the name. Sometimes successful art needs successful marketing
I hope Rian knows that most people refer to Glass Onion as just that, Glass Onion, no Knives out attached. I'm excited for his next film project, and hopefully this time he won't have anyone pressuring him to increase the marketability.
You know, when you look at books starring Hercule Poirot, the words "A Hercule Poirot Mystery" or something to that effect are usually featured very prominently on the cover. And Goldfinger was not a stand-alone movie even though it wasn't called Goldfinger: a 007 Adventure.
@@jiggyprawn Yeah, no. The original 1st edition printings from the 1930s started having the Poirot branding on the cover starting with 'Lord Edgware Dies'. And of course the 3rd book was titled "Poirot Investigates".
It was a cliche copy/paste of the first, but with a worse story. First one was unique, simple, and exciting. Sequel wasn't abysmal, but it was far less believable
Umm, several reasons. Um, the surprise twist that "She was a twin all along" and every way that doesn't work. The fact that the writers thought "She was too cleaver to fear miles" when it's literally about how she died. Literally said, she's too cleaver to live. The fact that a bullet was stopped by a notebook. Bullets go through car doors. The artist choice to show us a scene that is essentially a lie, not by having the events recontextualized to mean something else, but by having the events in the scene be altered.
Plenty of Poirot novels mention the character on the cover. For example: Murder on the Orient Express is written as “Poirot solves a Murder on the Orient Express” and A Murder in Three Acts is subtitles “a Poirot Mystery Story”
One recent sequel that’s sorely underrated is Flanagan’s Doctor Sleep, the sequel to The Shining. It doesn’t get everything perfect, but the fact that it swings for the fences (usually hitting!) instead of playing it safe with a schlocky repeat of an untouchable movie like that is damn commendable.
Those iconic shots at 6:50, especially that Indiana Jones wind + heat haze in the setting sun just evokes a sense of ACTUALLY being there. Of actually feeling the wind and the heat and the adventure. I miss that.
Top Gun Maverick definitely was a great sequel. Enjoyed that movie a lot. It didnt degrade already existing characters, new characters were actually likeable, and it just had an overall great story.
Oh! Hugh Grant was Blanc's HUSBAND? Totally didn't catch that when I saw it, I assumed he was his butler or something. Totally went over my head. Good for him, tho
Same lol, when discussing the film with my mother she mentioned how Hugh Grant was obviously Blanc's husband and I'm like "No, he's the butler...ISN'T HE?" Had to look it up and she was right lol!
They probably kept it vage intentionally in the movie, in order not to piss off the conservative snowflakes. Because at the end of the day, Rian Johnson's balls are made of glass. And they're hollow.
As a huge fan of Marvel yet not a avid watcher of shows and movies, I am exhausted from trying to catch up with all of these universes and how they connect. It's interesting, yes, but feels impossible to get into it knowing that I should watch everything beforehand in order to understand. Knives Out and Glass Onion has been a lovely breath of fresh air.
I remember being excited as a kid when sequels and universes connected, it felt like you were in on the joke or you understood a reference which flew over many other peoples heads. Nowadays it's basically required to watch every piece of content to fully comprehend some stories and it's exhausting.
Pearl was such an amazing sequel to the movie X, they literally came out in the same year & both independently are amazing as they are connected together.
Techinally a prequel but absolutely true and a film I had in mind. MaXXXine is coming out this year too, now, which IS a ‘true’ sequel, as this video would describe, as ‘X’ is nowhere to be seen in the title
I think the biggest confusion that came from this was my friends asking if they would have had to have watched Knives Out to understand what was going on in Glass Onion. I had to tell them no, that it was perfectly fine to watch on its own, but there was still some hesitation. I can see where it helps with the "brand" image but hurts in this case for anyone who may have not seen the first one. I have no real issue with this formula. It would be nice to have more standalone beauties come along more frequently though. I can just imagine a studio trying to create a sequel to something like Everything Everywhere All At Once... If it works, cool, but there's always a danger in it.
Perhaps Netflix is betting on that, too. Having Knives Out on their platform keeps subscribers number and watch time high. There’s a reason Sony used Spider-Man: No Way Home to bring back the other two Peter Parkers. Rentals of the old trilogy and Amazing Spider-Man duology were through the roof leading up to the release.
IMO it dodesn't matter if it wants to set up a franchise/universe, as long as the quality is there. Top gun maverick is one of the best blockbusters made and can be watched standalone. This feels like the first nerdstalgic vid that doesn't really say too much.
I don't know how fair it is to say that Dune should be treated the same as these others. Dune, much like Harry Potter or Tolkien, has a narrative beginning, middle and end. This new one was so good, I am really looking forward to the follow up. Aside from that, everything else is spot on as always!
I don't know... Back in classic cinema the move was to always pair the same two actors (with already proven chemistry that the public already loved). Studios bought the stars for their brands. The strategy just changed but it was always a business.
It's far worse story wise. The characters aren't as believable, the "mystery" sucks, and it's all just a copy/paste format of the first. Original ideas will always be better than their cash-grab sequels
@@jackcarlos But you can’t solve either of them. There’s always a surprise twist every five minutes that undoes everything. Just watch the movie as a movie, not a mystery that must be solved before the characters solve it.
For a True Sequel in the past decade I’d like to bring up T2 Trainspotting. I love this film and the orignal movie from 96 and think it’s a fantastic way of carrying on a story and a complex examination of how to have do movie sequel. There was ample opportunity for studios to use those characters more, or make reference to other adaptations of Irvine Welsh’s work (or even other trainspotting adaptations), or just build a franchise out of Irvine Welsh books, but instead they made an excellent and long awaited sequel and don’t appear to be going back anytime soon.
Relate this to the 30-50s cinema. Monster flicks, the thin man, and so so many movies that were based only on the pair/group of actors in them. Got numbers because of the brand associated with them. This is a cycle of media marketing we are on.
Paddington 2, Incredibles 2, Toy Story 4, Frozen 2, all standard sequels without thoughts of larger world building or overt sequel/spinoff baiting. What’s interesting is that these are all but one from the same studio (Pixar is its own thing but part of the larger Disney brand), and these are few and far between. As the video states, it is mostly seeding larger spin-off universes, ‘an xxxx story’ (or similar), or the good old ‘:’ between the wider brand name and the title of the movie.
I have never heard about knives out before glass onion came out When i noticed the subtitle i learned that this was not just a stand alone . Thanks to the subtitle i could watch this Amazing movie
streaming killed comedy flicks also. u can tell you people was made with folks at home in mind. like these teams understand that dialogue and scenes will get missed due to ppl being at home multi tasking and just keeping up with what social media is chatting about
Cancel culture and woke culture killed comedies. Everyone is afraid of them because people have this ultra sensitivity/I'm serious all the time thing going on. It seems like people have forgotten how to be themselves. Not everything is an attack, hardly anything actually is . We can laugh at each other and ourselves, it's okay and no one will think you are evil. If something makes you uncomfortable it's not an attack and what kills me is all these "Sensitive people or victims" choose to go to the most savage parts of the internet or find themselves in a group/comments of people with ideas they disagree with/hate/are offended by or whatever. It's crazy. Hey I'm sorry I went full rant lol. Nothing I said was aimed at you by the way , I thought I was explaining the comedy decline and ended up ... Somewhere lol
to be fair I missed the original knives out and having enjoyed Glass Onion meant I immediately went back and watched the first, so having the subtitle did its job.
This reminds me of some other video. It talks about the fourth season of Mr.Robot, but one interesting thing that the channel owner pointed out is that 'movies today seem more serialized and "just something you watch", owned and created by studios and executives rather than creators, but TV the last decades has been adopting more narrative and character focus stories and are products from real authors'.
Good points I think. Personally, the reason why I kinda dislike the old way of doing sequels is because it was pretty hard to keep the same cast for the next one. For example, the Mila Jovovich Resident Evil movies were a guilty pleasure of mine in my younger years, however it lacked consistency because the cast keeps changing and in turn the story keeps changing, with little sense of continuity. Despite being an unfaithful adaption to the games, it could've been something had they been able to have a consistent cast and story. Which is why the MCU was a breath of fresh air when it first began with it's consistent story telling across the movies, and that's despite their early cast changes.
The Batman part II will be an amazing sequel. I’m 99% sure of it.
Год назад+2
Apart from this being something Rian didn't want, I don't think the "A Knives Out Mystery" subtitle really hurt anything at all. I completely understand why Netflix did this as I don't think most people know that Death on the Nile is the sequel to Murder on the Orient Express. I didn't until I started looking into the movie on a whim. Additionally, Netflix knows people love binging stuff, so implying you need to catch up on Knives Out before Glass Onion is only in line with what viewers want. But I do think the points in the video still stand in general, I would very much like to see more original movies that aren't just the auteur of the auteur.
I have to disagree. Giving Glass Onion a linking subtitle isn't the same as forcing the movie to be "in a cinematic universe." If that was true, the studio would've forced Rian Johnson to shoe-in characters or references to the first movie. You know, the kind of winking nods or slipped-in casual references that happens in every MCU movie. But they didn't, it completely stands on it's own and adding in a series-related subtitle doesn't change that. Heck, they didn't even make him add "a Knives Out mystery" to the actual film. The opening titles just say "Glass Onion." The extra subtitle is only in the marketing for the film. I can completely understand you wanting to talk about the death of the "traditional movie sequel," but I don't see why you'd use this movie as an example, when it is a "traditional movie sequel," except for a subtitle on a movie poster. Especially when there are tons of other, much better, examples of what you're talking about.
Idk the original Poirot books probably did have “a Hercule Poirot mystery” on the covers. I wouldn’t mind it so much if it was just “a Benoit Blanc mystery” in the title instead of “a Knives Out mystery” but that just shows you how much the studio probably did want Johnson to make a Knives Out follow-up narrative instead of new self-contained story even though that would be a terrible idea for a sequel and not how mysteries work at all 😂Hopefully with the 3rd and 4th Netflix movies the studio will start to have more faith in Blanc as a character that can carry a franchise on his own and they’ll just retroactively retitle them all to have the subtitle “a Benoit Blanc mystery” I could honestly live with that.
I love Knives Out but I've had a really hard time settling on a judgment for Glass Onion. It's a lot more clunky, the script is honestly quite poor at times compared to how razor-sharp the first movie was. I think Rian Johnson can be a great director and his story ideas can be good but with Glass Onion I found myself wishing that they had brought someone else in to help iron out some of the dialogue and such. Perhaps Glass Onion could've been a great film if it had a little more time in the oven.
Oh no. Long form story telling is coming to the big screen. What a nightmare. The same thing happened to books before tv and film, and it didn't kill the novel.
I assumed it was called “A Knives Out Mystery” because before “Glass Onion” was dropped as the title, it was being advertised as “Knives Out 2”. It makes more sense to advertise Glass Onion as a part of the Knives Out series then to have it out on its own, leading to the uninitiated questioning whatever came of that Knives Out sequel.
I see glass onion as a stand-alone mainly because they only link is Blanc, but even he isn't the main character. At the end of the day, tv and movies (thankfully) fluxes between good and bad and reinventing themselves, like fashion.
Dune is a bad example given that it's a book SERIES AND the first movie was only half of the first book. How the f would one make it without sequels in mind?
So good to see a well made video that delivers the points smoothly and remains interesting all in neatly tied in under 10minutes, thank you for this think piece
Your comparison to Agatha Christie’s Hercule Peroit is off the mark. You can’t complain that Knives Out was included in the title, because even though Hercule Peroit wasn’t in the title, his and Agatha Christie’s names were the basis of all the marketing. It’s no different than Glass Onion except they’re being more honest, instead of just including it in the marketing.
This is the 2nd video essay I've seen that uses Knives Out to talk ab a larger phenomenon that Knives Out is actually not negatively contributing to. Like...it is a stand-alone sequel and it's branding is following the same style that older mystery series' used. What's the actual grievance here with Knives Out/Glass Onion?
Brick was favorably reviewed, I haven't seen it. Looper was more mixed, but overall positive; I liked it. The last Jedi was split; I hated it. The Knives Out movies got positive reviews; I thought they were just OK. Do you really think RJ is a bad director, or do you just hate TLJ or him personally?
So Glass onion isn't a "true" sequel because of its title? The definition of a sequel is "a published, broadcast, or recorded work that continues or developes the theme of an earlier one." Which is....exactly what Glass onion is.
It’s also funny because studios don’t often use numbers in their titles anymore for sequels. They want to have their cake and eat it to by not making viewers know it’s a sequel (and have to watch the first one before seeing Film 2).
Springboarding off this topic, Death on the Nile was a sequel to Murder on the Orient Express but since these are old Agatha Christie books, maybe they made that exception to not include a subtitle to connect the two films. I don’t think death on the Nile did well financially, so… But yes, I wish it would’ve just been called glass onion.
I cannot disagree with this more. Without knowing it was related to knives out, I'd have had no idea they were even related. Usually these have "Hercule poirot" et al in the title so you'd know what the film's about, but instead of calling the first film "knives out: a Benoir Blanc mystery" they gave themselves nothing else to go on. Frankly the director is an idiot because I WANT to watch these films but unless I know from the title what this film is, I'm not going to watch it. Does he not want me to watch his film or something? Seems like a weird ass move from a director.
I agree. If they had said Glass Onion: A Benoit Blanc Mystery that would have been perfect. By saying Knives Out I thought it was a sequel and didn’t want to see it. I thought it would not have made any sense since the last movie was completely finished.
The question I want to know now then is what exactly is a true sequel because you never explained what categories a sequel as a true sequel. Was the Godfather 2 a true sequel, and how does that differ from Avatar or top gun maverick?
Those other movies do have all of the same title type though. “Murder On the . . .” and the fact that you called them “Agatha Christie mysteries” and used Sherlock Holmes as an example shows that brand awareness for sequels existed then too.
5:12 and 5:15, it took me a second to realize that these were two separate statements. For a moment, I thought you were saying that John Wick, Star Wars, Dune, and Fast & Furious were all a part of the Conjuring Universe.
While a lot of the arguments here are valid, the main example of "Glass Onion" really is just whining over the title. As a sequel it is pretty good, it is what sequels are supposed to be, self contained stories, it is a great counter example for the argument that "Sequels are Dying". Yes, the executives forced the "a Knives Out mystery" in the tile just to make people aware of the brand, but who gives a fuck? It's literally just a kind of dumb title, it doesn't negatively impact the quality of the movie at all.
6:52 the fact that Gunpowder Milkshake is included in this montage of bad movie tendencies is honestly a crime & the cinema police have a warrant for Nerdstalgic's arrest 😂
"Miss Marple" "Agatha Christie's" We've been attaching little reminders of connective tissue to the murder mystery franchise for years. We're just getting less subtle about it
Knifes out felt like a real movie on a believable scale. It was like a great meal that someone cooked for us with care and love. Glass Onion felt like the same dish but blown to a ridiculous proportion of size that we lost our interest to sit through it.
The thing that gets me about Glass Onion is that THREE Hercule Poirot movies have come out in the last 6 or so years and none of them are called “A Murder on the Orient Express Mystery” to make sure everyone knows that they are sequels. The James Bond franchise has lasted half a century, and we all figure out it is a new James Bond movie without it being called “A Dr No Mystery”. There is a Karate Kid television show that is not called Karate Kid. The Star Wars episode titles are new inventions to keep the chronological sequence straight when the prequels came out. They used to just be Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi
Wait another ten years or so and they won't even need screenwriters, directors or other professionals anymore to make a successful blockbuster; they will use AI with a powerful algorithm to make all the "standard" movies so as to minimize spending and maximize profit.
I definitely miss seeing movies that have a stand alone story of beginning, middle, and end all contained in just that one movie. I don't want to go see a movie and leave feeling unsatisfied by its incomplete state. I just want to go see a movie and leave feeling satisfied that I just watched a whole movie from start to finish in its hour and a half long run.
1:18 maybe the finger can be pointed more at streaming companies who just want to (preferably endlessly) milk the shows they've bought up. It seems like that's the case a lot of the time...
What's not being taken into account is availability. It's not that you're meant to binge everything in one sitting. It's that, in the past, if you missed something you may not have the option to view it. Home movie rentals didn't start until the mid 80's, so before that if you missed a movie it was difficult to go back and watch it later, so every movie had to be its own thing. The same thing has happened with TV. Sitcoms were king, because missed episodes where nearly impossible to find. In the age of streaming, everything is always available, somewhere. Every missed episode or movie can be acquired, meaning you can always watch things in order. You don't have to watch them all in one sitting, but you can still maintain the proper order to the story.
This was kind of a dumb video. Letting the audience know that it’s related to the first isn’t a bad thing. I mean, if they titled the movies “Agatha Christie’s Murder on the Orient Express” and “Agatha Christie’s Death on the Nile” so people know going in what to expect, are you gonna say they aren’t sequels? Edit: BUT SOME COPIES OF THE BOOK TELL IF ITS A HERCULE POIROT OR A DIFFERENT SUBSERIES! Literally I own copies of Poirot novels that say on the front they are Poirot novels Or, you know, apparently Shrek 2 isn’t a sequel to Shrek because it has the name of the first movie in the title.
I loved how your discussion fits perfectly within the gaming industry too. While AAAs are always looking for that familiarity to justify investing hundreds of millions in a single game, nowadays is much easier to get standalone stories from indie games, which are also the ones that are bringing innovation to the industry due not being restricted to "play safe" and get those hundred million dollars back.
Hence why I give props to something like _The Color of Money_ (1986). A very clear legacy sequel to _The Hustler_ (1961), but still very much its own thing.
I don’t understand your definition of a “true sequel”. Sequel implies sequential - a story taking place in continuity, with characters and narrative events flowing from one to the next. You seem to be talking about anthologized storytelling, where continuity may be inferred but isn’t explicit or necessary for understanding. (Like most of the early Bond films.) Glass Onion *is* more of the latter style, but I think the viewer benefits greatly from the first film’s presentation of Benoit before seeing the follow-up. This video’s premise seems mostly a quibble about the subtitle. In an extraordinarily oversaturated media landscape, anything that provides clarity to the consumer is generally helpful. Lots of quality programming gets lost on Netflix and elsewhere. If a platform is paying big dollars for a film in hopes of capturing its existing audience, it’s in their best interest to make the connection clear. Your video makes it sound like it’s a bad thing. It’s not, it’s just different from a previous age. Perhaps that doesn’t satisfy your nostalgia, but you can’t deny it’s utility.
It's really not. Go listen to people who actually know what they are talking about. Seriously, search "Glass Onion Review" the first few results should be what you need.
I actually had a conversation about this very recently. How a standalone movie can do very well, but what's the first thing a studio will do after that success? They will try to find any way to capitalize on that success by manufacturing a sequel. Why? They know that standalone movies, as successful as some may be, are just that - one-offs. They made bank on ONE movie. This is why they are interested in franchises because they know franchises are where the money is. Films based on a franchise setup are what they're after. Of course, your franchise has to have an enduring allure to it to attract people back to see the next and the next. This way the studio can hopefully make bank on several installments. Adapting book franchises is a good call for them if done right, because they have the material to work with and only need to make the books into movies. A safe bet for franchise potential, but again, they HAVE to be done right and this is where the mileage may vary as we have seen some receive decent returns but most receiving meh or failed returns (looking at you Divergent series that never was completed cinematically). The problem with franchises though is a big one, and that's the issue they face with diminishing returns over time. First installment was a success but not a blockbuster. Worthy of a follow up though financially speaking. The follow up made a bit more so they have hope. Third one does less but still ekes out SOME profit. Fourth one does same. And so on and so on. The franchises run out of steam, or lose what allure they had initially by changing too much of the world that was built and now people don't really recognize the world that was built. Some would argue that this is due to fatigue or that the genre that it was based around is now "done" so people are losing interest, similar to how styles of fashion come and go in waves. I disagree with that premise because simply put, people want to be entertained. As long as you continue to entertain them, even a genre that is "done" can maintain momentum and defy odds. You have to do it right. That's all. I concur to a point with Ruin Johnson in that tacking on "A Knives Out Mystery" seems a bit ham-handed, BUT it does tie the film to that world and the studio wants to retain that attention to that world. Calling it "Glass Onion" should be fine as long as we all know the protagonist and he's introduced as returning for his next adventure or some such. Adding the "A Knives Out Mystery" only serves to try and bring people in solely based on the brand that was established. Maybe people hadn't yet seen the first one, but have at least heard of it, so hearing that name in the title might spark them to watch the first one and then the follow up. Hard to say. I do agree with Ruin Johnson at least somewhat though. Studios are always on the hunt for something they can establish as a franchise. There's no secret there. Star Wars, only a trilogy at the time, made bank. Indiana Jones. The Godfather. Jaws (though really only the first 2 really made money). James Bond. Harry Potter. Every studio wants their own franchise. There was a time when Universal was even attempting to make their own "Dark Universe" and somehow found the best way to ensure that would never get off the ground. Which I still to this day find so frustrating. They have a catalog of the best known monsters to work with, and they ruined it TWICE. First with "Dracula: Untold" and then with the reboot "The Mummy". We never got to see Jekyll and Hyde, or The Creature/Gill-Man, or Frankenstein, or The Wolfman, or any of the other host of them because they tried too hard to make a franchise happen. Make a universe happen. Not organically though over time. Nope. They wanted to make this universe happen immediately. Put in too many ingredients and ruined the sauce. Shame too, because that "Dark Universe" would've been potentially as big as or bigger than the MCU. Damn shame.
Silky smooth southern accent?! As a southerner, it was GRATING and cringey to listen to that voice. 🥴I’m a huge fan of The Thin Man movies, Miss Marple and Hercule Poirot mysteries and Glass Onion left a lot to be desired.
I think it's just a branding, and yes, it's not a sequel. They are building a Knives Out movie franchise. It's like a detective mystery TV show, but movies.
I'm still blown away that people like his accent. I've lived in the South most of my life, and met many people from Louisiana, and never met anyone who actually talks like that.
I think even Marvel has forgotten at this point that the thing that made the early mcu movies so good was that they worked as stand-alone movies as well as contributing to the larger universe. Which, when you get down to it, was what the original goal of a sequel was before the concept of “cinematic universes” took over
Current MCU movies still work as stand-alone movies.
@@Carabas72 yeah but they go way overboard with the cameos and continuity references now imo
@@redgreen2453
And if you have never seen an MCU movie before, you don't even notice them.
Did they? Of the really early MCU there are only 4 MCU movies that can really work as stand-alone movies (Iron Man, Hulk, Thor and Captain America), after that we already get into cross-over or sequel ground and the only other movie that actually works as a stand alone movie later is Guardians of The Galaxy. And from those five films Hulk is pretty universally disliked and Thor is really meh, leaving us with just 3 movies from "early MCU that were so good" that actually worked as a standalone movie.
Now if your condition for "works as a stand alone movie" is that you might miss a lot of character growth and motivations that happens in other movies but the movie still includes a coherent story that starts and ends with character development all inside of the same film, then there are lots of examples still coming out today Shang-Chi, Eternals, Black Widow, Spider-Man FFH, Captain Marvel, etc).
This is exactly the reason why Zack Snyder's movies failed. Both BvS and SnyderCut focus on world-building and setting up for the sequel while it fails so hard as a standalone movie
Paddington 2 is definitely one of the best sequels ever
Mid
Almost as good as The Godfather Part 2, but not quite as funny
It's literally The Godfather of family movie sequels. Yes I went above the line in saying that, it was a masterpiece
Still need to watch it. Just recently watched the first one and finally understand why it's so, so cherished.
@@DendyJungle This says absolutely nothing coherent because there is zero context given. Why even comment?
Yeahhhhh I’m not agreeing with the notion that Glass Onion isn’t a true sequel.
Each of the Hercule movies had a defining part of their name to indicate to people that it is within the universe. “Murder on the Orient Express” & “Murder on the Nile.” Both indicate that it is a murder mystery & stars our fav detective.
Adding “Knives Out Mystery” only indicates to people that this is also a detective movie with Benoit.
But those are the titles of the books. "Death on the River Nile" "Evil under the Sun" "Thirteen at Dinner" and "Dead Mans Folly" are pretty generic titles and you have to dig to get they are all Poirot-movies with Ustinov in the lead. All of Christies books have titles like that, so you have to take a second look to even find out out if its a Poirot or a Marple book or something totally unrelated like "And then there were none"
Back then Studios would trust their audience, that they would watch "Nile" for the Sake of itself and not because they liked "Orient Express". You could even argue if the Originals even are first one and sequel Since they did'nt even Keep the Poirot-Actor.
Sad Truth is, this development Shows that people lost trust and interest in the artists. They want more of the Charakters they love but not more of the Artistic Talent that made them Fall in love.
@@concienda People love Knives Out. To get more people to want to see the movie, they added A Knives Out Mystery.
People who never watched the Murder Mystery movies of the past will not fully understand it. It might seem like it is people not coming for the artist, but it really is just making sure that people know it is within the same world. The movies aren’t interconnected. Glass Onion is a true sequel
@@omitn2011 I do not disagree that Glass Onion is a true sequel. Of course it is; Johnson created it this way.
Still, in Adding that subtitle, Netflix Shows that they dont trust their own movie. The Beauty of Glass Onion, like with many of the classic Murder Mysterys is, that they stand on their own, you can start with any movie you like.
You wont have any trouble if you start with glass onion and then discover knives out. By adding the subtitle netflix is denying glass onion that independent agency. Sure, it is just a small Symbolic gesture that doesnt really hurt or change the movie but it still feels like a little Stain: a bit like a great novel but published in a really shitty Edition with thin paper and an ugly, ill-fiting Cover.
@@concienda does that subtitle hurt books in a series?
Christie's titles indicate the genre, but not necessarily that it's a Poirot story. "The Hollow", "The seven dials mystery" and "And then there were none" are all equally mysterious titles, but only one of them is a Poirot story. I understand why Netflix did it, but adding "a Knives Out mystery" isn't really necessary in my opinion seeing as Daniel Craig's face is plastered on ever poster for the movie.
*also, minor nitpick, but it's "Death on the Nile". Her titles are pretty varied.
Glass Onion is a perfect example of a traditional sequel. I don't know what this video means. The reason it says "a knives out mystery" is so they can just let people know that it's connected to the original. Like old sequels where the name was different
Yeah this video is 8 minutes of searching for something to say.
Yes that was my understanding
I think the extent of the argument is that having the subtitle makes it a universe instead of a sequel, which is just asinine. I'm surprised he didn't use The American Horror Story Expanded Universe as an example (/s). The huge irony here is that James Bond, the closest long-running parallel, was an anthology for ever and only recently became a series of sequels.
This is maybe the biggest miss on a channel that usually gets it.
I think there’s a misunderstanding with the title. It says the death of the sequel, but the video seems to be saying moreso that cinematic universes and sequels and brand recognition WON’T die. Star Wars used to be able to have the titles not having to say “Star Wars: [title]”. In the same way, glass onion, while still a sequel in some regards, is pushed away from being a self contained romp with a returning character and into a building block for a FRANCHISE. and that kinda sucks
@@jaewon4316 honestly I get what your saying with brand recognition and universes. Glass onion is more like an Agatha Christie novel with poirot than anything else. Which if we went off the knowledge that while poirot as the detective connects the story's he's in it they are pretty self contained adventures which is pretty much rian Johnson's direction for the stories he's telling. With the detective In the stories being the only connecting factor kind makes it a sequel cause you don't have to watch the first one to get the second at all
I think you actually do need to see the first movie to really get glass onion. The first movie is showing us Blanc solving the kind of mystery he knows how to solve, and you need to see it to understand his perspective in the sequel. Glass onion then does what most sequels do by finding a flaw still left in the the protagonist, and coming up with a story that challenges that part of them. Blanc is bored and fried from lockdown, and needs something to challenge him. He is looking for a mystery like the one in knives out, and wants this mystery to be that. And because this mystery is so stupid, it’s perfect because he overlooks all the obvious clues looking for subversive ones. Just like the audience (and critics especially) who boiled down Rian’s whole identity as a director as being about “subverting expectation”. If we watch the movie being sure that it’s going to be the same as knives out, we end up thinking Miles is too obvious and miss it.
I’d argue that you don’t need to see Knives Out to establish all that. Just knowing Blanc is a world famous detective like Sherlock Holmes or Poirot in a whodunnit is enough. The viewers would go in expecting all the tropes of the genre - suspects trapped on an island, all with motives and opportunities, an intricate murder plan with alibi - all to be subverted in the movie.
@@mhawang8204 I think many people would assume that the writing is just bad if they don’t see the first one. Especially with someone as divisive as Rian. And because the movie baits you into thinking this way before it starts to reveal itself, I wouldn’t recommend anyone watch it on its own. I’m a big fan of all the guy’s work, and even I was lukewarm on this movie at first. But having confidence in Rian helped keep me engaged so I didn’t miss the point. I think the negative reviews I’ve seen have all suffered from the same mistake of judging the writing too early, and become too attached to there opinion to let it go when the pieces come together.
@@mhawang8204 You're right.
But I think the first movie established concretely how good Blanc is, which is important because in Glass Onion we are told he is good, but we are just seeing struggling to solve the mystery that, in the end, is really easy.
We can take at face value what Glass Onion tells us about Blanc. But seeing Blanc in action in Knives Out really allows us to get fooled by Glass Onion because, like Blanc, we're just overthinking this.
I remember telling myself toward the end: the most logical explanation would be Miles... but that's too simple, it can't be it. And when the truth got told, I somehow shared Blanc's frustration: it was that simple.
@@mhawang8204 All subverted into being a dumb movie isn't a good subversion.
@@Rajeenik Yeah. You don't need to watch Knives Out, but doing so makes the movie way better.
If it was a " forced " Cinematic - Tie in , they would have found an excuse to put in Chris Evans or Anna de Armas as a Cameo. This stands as it own objectively GOOD movie.
_Objectively_ good?
@@korbendallas5318 YES.
@@BFNH459 you didn't watch, you outsourced your opinion to idiots like the critical drinker
Indeed not, sir. I object to your abject adjective 'good,' and I am also averse to your adverse adverb 'objectively.'
Can't argue that.
Dune isn’t going to be a bad “sequel” since it’s a direct continuation of the same story and Denis Villeneuve always envisioned telling the first book as a two part films.
But Denis is in talks of making a third Dune film based on Dune Messiah, and there’s a spinoff series planned for HBO Max called “Dune: Sisterhood”.
@@Little1Cave and?
My friend, even when a film is split apart from one story into two; the second part is still considered a sequel to part one.
The sequel being good or bad is not the point or the problem, is that the reason for dune being invested and adapted in the first place its because is a franchise capable of multiple movies, shows and spin offs, just like star wars and the other examples.
@@WippetWzrd Even with LOTR?
I honestly think that film has evolved into giant TV shows because of the streaming wars. Of course, quality has gone down because content is needed faster to stay in the fight. The boon of this is that studios need content constantly, meaning more people are needed for the industry, which opens up jobs for aspiring cinephiles and writers.
it will be like fast food low skilled easy to train people and then robots
@Alexander McCabe you're not wrong. Already people are using AI chat bots to structure stories for them, but I still hold that their will always be the steak house of filmmakers out there, ensuring quality is tantamount.
Ironically, TV has also evolved to be more like movies - so many streaming shows get described as being like '8 hour films' and are so serialized, they almost ignore episodic elements. So TV is now like film and film is like TV
@Patchwork Indeed. When you consider the binge factor of good TV (Better Call Saul quality), it's hard to argue that it doesn't work. I'll be the first to admit, I went through the final season within a day.
@@auroninja exactly!
(Sorry for the long ramble. TL;DR: Even if Hollywood ends up being run by AI content with only a few people working at any studio, I feel that genuine human creativity will stay strong, and people will still be able to tell their stories, thanks to independent entertainment!)
While the big chains may be more recognizable and more ingrained in our culture, there still are restaurants that provide genuinely handmade food with talent and care for the customer! As bleak as big entertainment is right now and with AI being used more and more to out perform human jobs, even if society says that they don’t care how, who or what is making their entertainment, I can’t really see a future where no humans are allowed to make creative projects of their own! Even in an extreme scenario where every single big company like Disney, Paramount, Warner, and Netflix all completely eliminate all of their workforce they deem unnecessary, and have AI take over everything with only a few hundred or so people doing the bare minimum to make content and maintain the AI and servers, I feel that, with the rise of independent entertainment, we will always have true, genuine human creativity to enjoy and support, even if 99% of Hollywood becomes like WALL-E, with a hint of 1984!
Now, of course, I would rather not have that future where all the big name entertainment, and all the big studios become dependent on AI and overly recycled ideas and IPs to continue making them money, as even though I have a like/dislike relationship with Hollywood, I know a lot of people want to work there and bring their ideas, original or otherwise, to the masses, as well as talented creators who still work there that are still doing that, and I don’t want going to Hollywood in general to be even more of an uncontrollable tightrope walk than it already seems to be!
But I can’t imagine a world where you’d only be able to share your ideas with the world, even on a small scale, only by going through big studios and praying that you can negotiate a contract that allows you to keep the rights of your work!
That may have been the only option back in the 20th century, but the internet is here and while yes, it too has its own share of concerns for the future, it still allows creatives to make, share and self publish their own creations and stories! Hopefully we won’t enter a world where the entire internet is owned by the entertainment industry, or something like that! But what I’m saying is, even with a totally automated, IP franchise, AI driven Hollywood, we can still count on independent creatives to give us genuine heart and creativity!!!💖💖💖👍👍👍👍
I enjoyed both films alot. I've probably watched Knives Out 6 times at this stage. Even though I know each and every twist, it's still so entertaining and pulls me in every time. Glass Onion is great too, but for very different reasons. While the first one has a large mystery element, Glass Onion was less of a mystery and more of a drama with a sprinkle of mystery. But that's what they were going for. I've watched Glass Onion twice now. And it's rewatchabilty is also good even knowing the twists. I can understand why certain people would like the first one more, or why others prefer the second. They're very different. I personally love both!
I tried watching onion but can't figure it out and got bored. It seems there was no mystery and no thrill and just a comedy drama that wasn't even funny.
“Glass Onion: A Knives out Mystery*”
*but it’s less of a mystery and more of a drama with a sprinkle of mystery
Maybe don’t put mystery in the title then…
*a lot*
@Jon Freeman that’s why you need to do this thing called finishing the movie. Only then can you see the bigger picture.
For me the cinematography was just so much worse
I think this video misses a point by overfocusing in the negatives: brand recognition is not just about having interconnected worlds or characters between multiple films. Brand recognition can help also to shape the expectations even for self contained stories.
Is like an action movie featuring Bruce Willis or Will Smith, or a Jim Carrey commedy, you know what to expect.
By calling back "Knives Out" they automatically attracted people who liked the first one and wanted a similar thing.
Of course, they could have said "A new mystery film from the director of Knives Out", but it's too long and that doesn't address the fact that the 2 movies have a very similar aesthetic and rhythm.
Still, it's worth mentioning how absurdly expensive was the brand; but it's not because people don't want self contained stories, it's more because there is a saturation of content and any recognizable lead can be important to attract audience
I love both Knives Out and Glass Onion, but I'll be honest and I'm ashamed of it, but I probably would have missed glass onion if it hadn't had the "A knives out mystery" or some other way of telling me it was a "sequal" considering it almost flew under my radar as is.
That is what trailers used to be for. When people still went to movie theaters and trailers were shown for movies coming out soon, not half a year or a year later.
Yeah, I don’t think I would have watched if I didn’t know it was a sequel to Knives Out.
Same reason as to why, even though I liked Murder on the Orient Express, I didn’t know Death on the Nile was a sequel, and therefore didn’t see it. 😅
Well, books often have titles that involve that. Such as "Sherlock Holmes and the...", "Harry Potter and the...", "The Murder at the Vicarage: a Miss Marple Mystery", "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd: A Hercule Poirot Mystery"
Yes. However, they don't have colons (":") anymore, they just change the font size between lines.
Books in a series can also be printed at the same height and width, with the same art style and motif. 'Thursday Next Mysteries' all have a car in the centre of the cover, doing something that cars don't do.
The only one that was actually marketed like that from your examples is Harry Potter which completely misses the point since Harry Potter stories are an actual series that complete a story, not separate installments that can be read and enjoyed separately.
Look up all of the rest examples, the books weren't marketed like that when they came out. It was just the title of the story (ie: "The Murder at the Vicarage").
Doesn’t Harry Potter have one big interconnected mystery though?
@@Mecharnie_Dobbs lol, yeah, but I had no way of recreating that in a RUclips comment
Old Man Yells at Cloud. Popular Cinema changes. 70's auteur, 80's studio films, 90's independent, disaster movies, romcoms. They make what is popular until it isn't popular anymore then they do something new or revive something old. It's not better, it's not worse, it's just different
I actually think the subtitle is a positive. I was a huge fan of the first movie, and I would possibly have never realized glass onion was its sequel. The film itself isn’t affected by the name. Sometimes successful art needs successful marketing
You never saw any of the trailers? Thumbnails?
Nor movie posters or covers?
I hope Rian knows that most people refer to Glass Onion as just that, Glass Onion, no Knives out attached. I'm excited for his next film project, and hopefully this time he won't have anyone pressuring him to increase the marketability.
Even he didn't like having A Knives Out Mystery on it, he would have preferred to have a Benoit Blanc Mystery instead
I like at Benoit Blanc as like an evolution to sherlock holmes, I honestly just want to see that character in a lot of different scenarios
You know, when you look at books starring Hercule Poirot, the words "A Hercule Poirot Mystery" or something to that effect are usually featured very prominently on the cover.
And Goldfinger was not a stand-alone movie even though it wasn't called Goldfinger: a 007 Adventure.
That's the more modern editions because of their legacy. The original ones didn't have that. (re: Poirot novels)
@@jiggyprawn
Yeah, no. The original 1st edition printings from the 1930s started having the Poirot branding on the cover starting with 'Lord Edgware Dies'. And of course the 3rd book was titled "Poirot Investigates".
Why do critics hate this film so much? I thought it was really well done
It was a cliche copy/paste of the first, but with a worse story.
First one was unique, simple, and exciting. Sequel wasn't abysmal, but it was far less believable
the character seems more fake and made solely for a movie then the first one
Umm, several reasons. Um, the surprise twist that "She was a twin all along" and every way that doesn't work. The fact that the writers thought "She was too cleaver to fear miles" when it's literally about how she died. Literally said, she's too cleaver to live. The fact that a bullet was stopped by a notebook. Bullets go through car doors. The artist choice to show us a scene that is essentially a lie, not by having the events recontextualized to mean something else, but by having the events in the scene be altered.
I liked it too
It has 92% on Rotten Tomatoes and a score of 81 on Metacritic. So critics clearly didn't hate it. Quite the opposite actually.
Plenty of Poirot novels mention the character on the cover. For example: Murder on the Orient Express is written as “Poirot solves a Murder on the Orient Express” and A Murder in Three Acts is subtitles “a Poirot Mystery Story”
One recent sequel that’s sorely underrated is Flanagan’s Doctor Sleep, the sequel to The Shining. It doesn’t get everything perfect, but the fact that it swings for the fences (usually hitting!) instead of playing it safe with a schlocky repeat of an untouchable movie like that is damn commendable.
Those iconic shots at 6:50, especially that Indiana Jones wind + heat haze in the setting sun just evokes a sense of ACTUALLY being there. Of actually feeling the wind and the heat and the adventure. I miss that.
It's an anthology sequel mind you
Split and to some extent Glass are some unique sequels in recent memory
There's a reason Glass Onion was always referred to as "KNIVES OUT 2" online when actors and info were revealed pre-release
Top Gun Maverick definitely was a great sequel. Enjoyed that movie a lot. It didnt degrade already existing characters, new characters were actually likeable, and it just had an overall great story.
Oh! Hugh Grant was Blanc's HUSBAND? Totally didn't catch that when I saw it, I assumed he was his butler or something. Totally went over my head. Good for him, tho
Same lol, when discussing the film with my mother she mentioned how Hugh Grant was obviously Blanc's husband and I'm like "No, he's the butler...ISN'T HE?"
Had to look it up and she was right lol!
They probably kept it vage intentionally in the movie, in order not to piss off the conservative snowflakes. Because at the end of the day, Rian Johnson's balls are made of glass. And they're hollow.
As a huge fan of Marvel yet not a avid watcher of shows and movies, I am exhausted from trying to catch up with all of these universes and how they connect. It's interesting, yes, but feels impossible to get into it knowing that I should watch everything beforehand in order to understand. Knives Out and Glass Onion has been a lovely breath of fresh air.
I remember being excited as a kid when sequels and universes connected, it felt like you were in on the joke or you understood a reference which flew over many other peoples heads.
Nowadays it's basically required to watch every piece of content to fully comprehend some stories and it's exhausting.
I'm talking about big budget movies of course, there are still some great self-contained stories to be found in smaller films!
Pearl was such an amazing sequel to the movie X, they literally came out in the same year & both independently are amazing as they are connected together.
Techinally a prequel but absolutely true and a film I had in mind. MaXXXine is coming out this year too, now, which IS a ‘true’ sequel, as this video would describe, as ‘X’ is nowhere to be seen in the title
So you're saying pearl is good? X was just ok but still a good one time watch.
@Harvey You're saying MaXXXine, the third movie in the X series, doesn't have "X" in the title?
I think the biggest confusion that came from this was my friends asking if they would have had to have watched Knives Out to understand what was going on in Glass Onion. I had to tell them no, that it was perfectly fine to watch on its own, but there was still some hesitation. I can see where it helps with the "brand" image but hurts in this case for anyone who may have not seen the first one. I have no real issue with this formula. It would be nice to have more standalone beauties come along more frequently though. I can just imagine a studio trying to create a sequel to something like Everything Everywhere All At Once... If it works, cool, but there's always a danger in it.
Perhaps Netflix is betting on that, too. Having Knives Out on their platform keeps subscribers number and watch time high. There’s a reason Sony used Spider-Man: No Way Home to bring back the other two Peter Parkers. Rentals of the old trilogy and Amazing Spider-Man duology were through the roof leading up to the release.
IMO it dodesn't matter if it wants to set up a franchise/universe, as long as the quality is there. Top gun maverick is one of the best blockbusters made and can be watched standalone. This feels like the first nerdstalgic vid that doesn't really say too much.
I don't know how fair it is to say that Dune should be treated the same as these others. Dune, much like Harry Potter or Tolkien, has a narrative beginning, middle and end. This new one was so good, I am really looking forward to the follow up.
Aside from that, everything else is spot on as always!
I don't know... Back in classic cinema the move was to always pair the same two actors (with already proven chemistry that the public already loved). Studios bought the stars for their brands. The strategy just changed but it was always a business.
Idk why people don’t like this movie. I love this movie! Even more than the first one. It’s way better in my opinion
It's far worse story wise. The characters aren't as believable, the "mystery" sucks, and it's all just a copy/paste format of the first.
Original ideas will always be better than their cash-grab sequels
@@jackcarlos I don’t think there was mystery in the first one, at least not like this. Idk why, I just like this one more
I agree I thought it was really enjoyable and well made film, just as good as the first one.
@@jackcarlos But you can’t solve either of them. There’s always a surprise twist every five minutes that undoes everything. Just watch the movie as a movie, not a mystery that must be solved before the characters solve it.
@@thegreenthunder5416 I liked it more too. It was overall more fast paced which I tend to favor over a slower paced movie
For a True Sequel in the past decade I’d like to bring up T2 Trainspotting. I love this film and the orignal movie from 96 and think it’s a fantastic way of carrying on a story and a complex examination of how to have do movie sequel.
There was ample opportunity for studios to use those characters more, or make reference to other adaptations of Irvine Welsh’s work (or even other trainspotting adaptations), or just build a franchise out of Irvine Welsh books, but instead they made an excellent and long awaited sequel and don’t appear to be going back anytime soon.
Relate this to the 30-50s cinema. Monster flicks, the thin man, and so so many movies that were based only on the pair/group of actors in them. Got numbers because of the brand associated with them. This is a cycle of media marketing we are on.
Paddington 2, Incredibles 2, Toy Story 4, Frozen 2, all standard sequels without thoughts of larger world building or overt sequel/spinoff baiting. What’s interesting is that these are all but one from the same studio (Pixar is its own thing but part of the larger Disney brand), and these are few and far between. As the video states, it is mostly seeding larger spin-off universes, ‘an xxxx story’ (or similar), or the good old ‘:’ between the wider brand name and the title of the movie.
i know what you mean but this film was good and yeah it wasn’t necessary but it still add’s to the knives out story especially with blanc’s character!
That's understandable, but it would have been cool to see Blanc going against someone that truly tested his limits or morality.
I have never heard about knives out before glass onion came out
When i noticed the subtitle i learned that this was not just a stand alone .
Thanks to the subtitle i could watch this Amazing movie
streaming killed comedy flicks also. u can tell you people was made with folks at home in mind. like these teams understand that dialogue and scenes will get missed due to ppl being at home multi tasking and just keeping up with what social media is chatting about
Cancel culture and woke culture killed comedies. Everyone is afraid of them because people have this ultra sensitivity/I'm serious all the time thing going on. It seems like people have forgotten how to be themselves. Not everything is an attack, hardly anything actually is . We can laugh at each other and ourselves, it's okay and no one will think you are evil. If something makes you uncomfortable it's not an attack and what kills me is all these "Sensitive people or victims" choose to go to the most savage parts of the internet or find themselves in a group/comments of people with ideas they disagree with/hate/are offended by or whatever. It's crazy. Hey I'm sorry I went full rant lol. Nothing I said was aimed at you by the way , I thought I was explaining the comedy decline and ended up ... Somewhere lol
I think Split subverted the sequel industry by keeping it's identity as a continuation of the Unbreakable universe hidden until the very end
Subtitling it "A Knives Out Story" was a great move. I knew right away what was being offered, and it did not disappoint.
to be fair I missed the original knives out and having enjoyed Glass Onion meant I immediately went back and watched the first, so having the subtitle did its job.
This reminds me of some other video. It talks about the fourth season of Mr.Robot, but one interesting thing that the channel owner pointed out is that 'movies today seem more serialized and "just something you watch", owned and created by studios and executives rather than creators, but TV the last decades has been adopting more narrative and character focus stories and are products from real authors'.
Good points I think. Personally, the reason why I kinda dislike the old way of doing sequels is because it was pretty hard to keep the same cast for the next one. For example, the Mila Jovovich Resident Evil movies were a guilty pleasure of mine in my younger years, however it lacked consistency because the cast keeps changing and in turn the story keeps changing, with little sense of continuity. Despite being an unfaithful adaption to the games, it could've been something had they been able to have a consistent cast and story. Which is why the MCU was a breath of fresh air when it first began with it's consistent story telling across the movies, and that's despite their early cast changes.
The Batman part II will be an amazing sequel. I’m 99% sure of it.
Apart from this being something Rian didn't want, I don't think the "A Knives Out Mystery" subtitle really hurt anything at all. I completely understand why Netflix did this as I don't think most people know that Death on the Nile is the sequel to Murder on the Orient Express. I didn't until I started looking into the movie on a whim. Additionally, Netflix knows people love binging stuff, so implying you need to catch up on Knives Out before Glass Onion is only in line with what viewers want. But I do think the points in the video still stand in general, I would very much like to see more original movies that aren't just the auteur of the auteur.
Hercule Poirot has his own series with "Murder on the Orient Express" and "Death on the Nile"... glorious
Love this! Although I do have a question. Isn't 'Murder On...' a brand/franchise itself?
Honestly miss the era in film making where you could make smaller budget films without the studio micromanaging them until they are safe and boring.
I have to disagree. Giving Glass Onion a linking subtitle isn't the same as forcing the movie to be "in a cinematic universe." If that was true, the studio would've forced Rian Johnson to shoe-in characters or references to the first movie. You know, the kind of winking nods or slipped-in casual references that happens in every MCU movie. But they didn't, it completely stands on it's own and adding in a series-related subtitle doesn't change that.
Heck, they didn't even make him add "a Knives Out mystery" to the actual film. The opening titles just say "Glass Onion." The extra subtitle is only in the marketing for the film.
I can completely understand you wanting to talk about the death of the "traditional movie sequel," but I don't see why you'd use this movie as an example, when it is a "traditional movie sequel," except for a subtitle on a movie poster. Especially when there are tons of other, much better, examples of what you're talking about.
Idk the original Poirot books probably did have “a Hercule Poirot mystery” on the covers. I wouldn’t mind it so much if it was just “a Benoit Blanc mystery” in the title instead of “a Knives Out mystery” but that just shows you how much the studio probably did want Johnson to make a Knives Out follow-up narrative instead of new self-contained story even though that would be a terrible idea for a sequel and not how mysteries work at all 😂Hopefully with the 3rd and 4th Netflix movies the studio will start to have more faith in Blanc as a character that can carry a franchise on his own and they’ll just retroactively retitle them all to have the subtitle “a Benoit Blanc mystery” I could honestly live with that.
I love Knives Out but I've had a really hard time settling on a judgment for Glass Onion. It's a lot more clunky, the script is honestly quite poor at times compared to how razor-sharp the first movie was. I think Rian Johnson can be a great director and his story ideas can be good but with Glass Onion I found myself wishing that they had brought someone else in to help iron out some of the dialogue and such. Perhaps Glass Onion could've been a great film if it had a little more time in the oven.
Completely agree
I can't believe I couldn't rewatch Knives Out on Netflix before watching Glass Onion
This "universe" building is getting exhausting.
Oh no. Long form story telling is coming to the big screen. What a nightmare. The same thing happened to books before tv and film, and it didn't kill the novel.
Misleading title
I assumed it was called “A Knives Out Mystery” because before “Glass Onion” was dropped as the title, it was being advertised as “Knives Out 2”. It makes more sense to advertise Glass Onion as a part of the Knives Out series then to have it out on its own, leading to the uninitiated questioning whatever came of that Knives Out sequel.
I see glass onion as a stand-alone mainly because they only link is Blanc, but even he isn't the main character. At the end of the day, tv and movies (thankfully) fluxes between good and bad and reinventing themselves, like fashion.
i want a knives out movie where ana de armas is a reluctant detective either teaming up with benoit or going on her own solo adventure.
Dune is a bad example given that it's a book SERIES AND the first movie was only half of the first book. How the f would one make it without sequels in mind?
So good to see a well made video that delivers the points smoothly and remains interesting all in neatly tied in under 10minutes, thank you for this think piece
Your comparison to Agatha Christie’s Hercule Peroit is off the mark. You can’t complain that Knives Out was included in the title, because even though Hercule Peroit wasn’t in the title, his and Agatha Christie’s names were the basis of all the marketing. It’s no different than Glass Onion except they’re being more honest, instead of just including it in the marketing.
This is the 2nd video essay I've seen that uses Knives Out to talk ab a larger phenomenon that Knives Out is actually not negatively contributing to. Like...it is a stand-alone sequel and it's branding is following the same style that older mystery series' used. What's the actual grievance here with Knives Out/Glass Onion?
I gagged when I heard him say these films were well constructed and that the director was competent
Brick was favorably reviewed, I haven't seen it. Looper was more mixed, but overall positive; I liked it. The last Jedi was split; I hated it. The Knives Out movies got positive reviews; I thought they were just OK. Do you really think RJ is a bad director, or do you just hate TLJ or him personally?
So Glass onion isn't a "true" sequel because of its title? The definition of a sequel is "a published, broadcast, or recorded work that continues or developes the theme of an earlier one." Which is....exactly what Glass onion is.
It’s also funny because studios don’t often use numbers in their titles anymore for sequels. They want to have their cake and eat it to by not making viewers know it’s a sequel (and have to watch the first one before seeing Film 2).
Good point
Blade Runner 2049 is one of the best sequels ever made
Springboarding off this topic, Death on the Nile was a sequel to Murder on the Orient Express but since these are old Agatha Christie books, maybe they made that exception to not include a subtitle to connect the two films. I don’t think death on the Nile did well financially, so…
But yes, I wish it would’ve just been called glass onion.
I cannot disagree with this more. Without knowing it was related to knives out, I'd have had no idea they were even related. Usually these have "Hercule poirot" et al in the title so you'd know what the film's about, but instead of calling the first film "knives out: a Benoir Blanc mystery" they gave themselves nothing else to go on. Frankly the director is an idiot because I WANT to watch these films but unless I know from the title what this film is, I'm not going to watch it. Does he not want me to watch his film or something? Seems like a weird ass move from a director.
Such a good point! They should've established a run-on title with the first one!
I agree. If they had said Glass Onion: A Benoit Blanc Mystery that would have been perfect. By saying Knives Out I thought it was a sequel and didn’t want to see it. I thought it would not have made any sense since the last movie was completely finished.
Knives Out's script is not brilliant, it's actually pretty dumb and nonsensical when you think about it. Glass Onion's even more so.
r/iamverysmart
The question I want to know now then is what exactly is a true sequel because you never explained what categories a sequel as a true sequel. Was the Godfather 2 a true sequel, and how does that differ from Avatar or top gun maverick?
You cannot simply make recognizable movies connected by a main character played by Daniel Craig but with different titles. Oh wait...
Those other movies do have all of the same title type though. “Murder On the . . .” and the fact that you called them “Agatha Christie mysteries” and used Sherlock Holmes as an example shows that brand awareness for sequels existed then too.
5:12 and 5:15, it took me a second to realize that these were two separate statements. For a moment, I thought you were saying that John Wick, Star Wars, Dune, and Fast & Furious were all a part of the Conjuring Universe.
While a lot of the arguments here are valid, the main example of "Glass Onion" really is just whining over the title. As a sequel it is pretty good, it is what sequels are supposed to be, self contained stories, it is a great counter example for the argument that "Sequels are Dying". Yes, the executives forced the "a Knives Out mystery" in the tile just to make people aware of the brand, but who gives a fuck? It's literally just a kind of dumb title, it doesn't negatively impact the quality of the movie at all.
6:52 the fact that Gunpowder Milkshake is included in this montage of bad movie tendencies is honestly a crime & the cinema police have a warrant for Nerdstalgic's arrest 😂
Sayin this first film didn’t seem or couldn’t go as a stand alone is just moronic
"Miss Marple" "Agatha Christie's" We've been attaching little reminders of connective tissue to the murder mystery franchise for years. We're just getting less subtle about it
Split, Alien Covenant, Logan, Doctor Sleep, 10 Cloverfield Lane,
Haven't sequels like these always been there - lethal weapon, bad boys, men in black, Rocky, terminator, ranmbo, aliens v predators, etc
Knifes out felt like a real movie on a believable scale. It was like a great meal that someone cooked for us with care and love. Glass Onion felt like the same dish but blown to a ridiculous proportion of size that we lost our interest to sit through it.
The thing that gets me about Glass Onion is that THREE Hercule Poirot movies have come out in the last 6 or so years and none of them are called “A Murder on the Orient Express Mystery” to make sure everyone knows that they are sequels. The James Bond franchise has lasted half a century, and we all figure out it is a new James Bond movie without it being called “A Dr No Mystery”. There is a Karate Kid television show that is not called Karate Kid. The Star Wars episode titles are new inventions to keep the chronological sequence straight when the prequels came out. They used to just be Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi
Wait another ten years or so and they won't even need screenwriters, directors or other professionals anymore to make a successful blockbuster; they will use AI with a powerful algorithm to make all the "standard" movies so as to minimize spending and maximize profit.
I definitely miss seeing movies that have a stand alone story of beginning, middle, and end all contained in just that one movie. I don't want to go see a movie and leave feeling unsatisfied by its incomplete state. I just want to go see a movie and leave feeling satisfied that I just watched a whole movie from start to finish in its hour and a half long run.
1:18 maybe the finger can be pointed more at streaming companies who just want to (preferably endlessly) milk the shows they've bought up. It seems like that's the case a lot of the time...
What's not being taken into account is availability. It's not that you're meant to binge everything in one sitting. It's that, in the past, if you missed something you may not have the option to view it. Home movie rentals didn't start until the mid 80's, so before that if you missed a movie it was difficult to go back and watch it later, so every movie had to be its own thing. The same thing has happened with TV. Sitcoms were king, because missed episodes where nearly impossible to find.
In the age of streaming, everything is always available, somewhere. Every missed episode or movie can be acquired, meaning you can always watch things in order. You don't have to watch them all in one sitting, but you can still maintain the proper order to the story.
This was kind of a dumb video. Letting the audience know that it’s related to the first isn’t a bad thing. I mean, if they titled the movies “Agatha Christie’s Murder on the Orient Express” and “Agatha Christie’s Death on the Nile” so people know going in what to expect, are you gonna say they aren’t sequels?
Edit: BUT SOME COPIES OF THE BOOK TELL IF ITS A HERCULE POIROT OR A DIFFERENT SUBSERIES! Literally I own copies of Poirot novels that say on the front they are Poirot novels
Or, you know, apparently Shrek 2 isn’t a sequel to Shrek because it has the name of the first movie in the title.
I loved how your discussion fits perfectly within the gaming industry too. While AAAs are always looking for that familiarity to justify investing hundreds of millions in a single game, nowadays is much easier to get standalone stories from indie games, which are also the ones that are bringing innovation to the industry due not being restricted to "play safe" and get those hundred million dollars back.
Hence why I give props to something like _The Color of Money_ (1986). A very clear legacy sequel to _The Hustler_ (1961), but still very much its own thing.
I don’t understand your definition of a “true sequel”. Sequel implies sequential - a story taking place in continuity, with characters and narrative events flowing from one to the next. You seem to be talking about anthologized storytelling, where continuity may be inferred but isn’t explicit or necessary for understanding. (Like most of the early Bond films.) Glass Onion *is* more of the latter style, but I think the viewer benefits greatly from the first film’s presentation of Benoit before seeing the follow-up.
This video’s premise seems mostly a quibble about the subtitle. In an extraordinarily oversaturated media landscape, anything that provides clarity to the consumer is generally helpful. Lots of quality programming gets lost on Netflix and elsewhere. If a platform is paying big dollars for a film in hopes of capturing its existing audience, it’s in their best interest to make the connection clear. Your video makes it sound like it’s a bad thing. It’s not, it’s just different from a previous age. Perhaps that doesn’t satisfy your nostalgia, but you can’t deny it’s utility.
You would think this guy knows how to pronounce homage
Glass Onion was a master class on plot holes, 🤣
Literally how?
It's really not. Go listen to people who actually know what they are talking about.
Seriously, search "Glass Onion Review" the first few results should be what you need.
Aside from Critical Drinker of course, but that's a given.
This is why I personally think that a24 is doing god's work of new innovative films that aren't all necessarily connected to each other.
Glass Onion would be considered an anthology film not a sequel.
I actually had a conversation about this very recently. How a standalone movie can do very well, but what's the first thing a studio will do after that success? They will try to find any way to capitalize on that success by manufacturing a sequel. Why? They know that standalone movies, as successful as some may be, are just that - one-offs. They made bank on ONE movie. This is why they are interested in franchises because they know franchises are where the money is. Films based on a franchise setup are what they're after. Of course, your franchise has to have an enduring allure to it to attract people back to see the next and the next. This way the studio can hopefully make bank on several installments.
Adapting book franchises is a good call for them if done right, because they have the material to work with and only need to make the books into movies. A safe bet for franchise potential, but again, they HAVE to be done right and this is where the mileage may vary as we have seen some receive decent returns but most receiving meh or failed returns (looking at you Divergent series that never was completed cinematically).
The problem with franchises though is a big one, and that's the issue they face with diminishing returns over time. First installment was a success but not a blockbuster. Worthy of a follow up though financially speaking. The follow up made a bit more so they have hope. Third one does less but still ekes out SOME profit. Fourth one does same. And so on and so on. The franchises run out of steam, or lose what allure they had initially by changing too much of the world that was built and now people don't really recognize the world that was built. Some would argue that this is due to fatigue or that the genre that it was based around is now "done" so people are losing interest, similar to how styles of fashion come and go in waves. I disagree with that premise because simply put, people want to be entertained. As long as you continue to entertain them, even a genre that is "done" can maintain momentum and defy odds. You have to do it right. That's all.
I concur to a point with Ruin Johnson in that tacking on "A Knives Out Mystery" seems a bit ham-handed, BUT it does tie the film to that world and the studio wants to retain that attention to that world. Calling it "Glass Onion" should be fine as long as we all know the protagonist and he's introduced as returning for his next adventure or some such. Adding the "A Knives Out Mystery" only serves to try and bring people in solely based on the brand that was established. Maybe people hadn't yet seen the first one, but have at least heard of it, so hearing that name in the title might spark them to watch the first one and then the follow up. Hard to say. I do agree with Ruin Johnson at least somewhat though.
Studios are always on the hunt for something they can establish as a franchise. There's no secret there. Star Wars, only a trilogy at the time, made bank. Indiana Jones. The Godfather. Jaws (though really only the first 2 really made money). James Bond. Harry Potter. Every studio wants their own franchise. There was a time when Universal was even attempting to make their own "Dark Universe" and somehow found the best way to ensure that would never get off the ground. Which I still to this day find so frustrating. They have a catalog of the best known monsters to work with, and they ruined it TWICE. First with "Dracula: Untold" and then with the reboot "The Mummy". We never got to see Jekyll and Hyde, or The Creature/Gill-Man, or Frankenstein, or The Wolfman, or any of the other host of them because they tried too hard to make a franchise happen. Make a universe happen. Not organically though over time. Nope. They wanted to make this universe happen immediately. Put in too many ingredients and ruined the sauce. Shame too, because that "Dark Universe" would've been potentially as big as or bigger than the MCU. Damn shame.
Silky smooth southern accent?! As a southerner, it was GRATING and cringey to listen to that voice. 🥴I’m a huge fan of The Thin Man movies, Miss Marple and Hercule Poirot mysteries and Glass Onion left a lot to be desired.
I think it's just a branding, and yes, it's not a sequel. They are building a Knives Out movie franchise. It's like a detective mystery TV show, but movies.
I'm still blown away that people like his accent. I've lived in the South most of my life, and met many people from Louisiana, and never met anyone who actually talks like that.