Sometimes here on "What's More Terrible" I plan to give you two things which are not terrible at all, and today is one such an occasion. However, since everything that has a winner, inevitably has a loser, if you pit two things against each other, one will most certainly be more terrible than the other, even if it is not terrible in its own right. In other words, if you think of a scale with 'fantastic' on one end and 'terrible' on the other and had to place the two things somewhere on the scale, inevitably one would be more terrible than the others. Matt gets credit for inspiring this week's "What's More Terrible" because he recently bought "Young Guns" on DVD, and has been talking about it quite a bit. So being far more familiar with that movie and its sequel than I have any right to be, I came up with this week's contest:
The cast of "Young Guns"
or
The cast of "Young Guns 2"
?
Now, obviously, there are actors who are in both movies playing the same characters: Emilio Estevez, Kiefer Sutherland and Lou Diamond Phillips, so you can pretty much throw them out and instead focus on all the other people. In both movies you've got a guy who was a main actor in an 80's comedy: Casey Siemaszko (who was Jerry Mitchell in "3 O'Clock High") in "Young Guns" and Alan Ruck (who was Cameron Frye in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off") in "Young Guns 2". In both movies you've got your old and respected actors: Terence Stamp & Jack Palance in "Young Guns" and James Coburn in "Young Guns 2". In both movies you've got guys who were relative unknowns at the time but who went on to big stardom later on: Dermot Mulroney in "Young Guns" and Viggo Mortensen & William Petersen in "Young Guns 2". In both movies you've got playboy womanizing former A List actors: Charlie Sheen in "Young Guns" and Christian Slater in "Young Guns 2". And finally, in both movies you've got uncredited, barely recognizable huge stars in an extra's role: Tom Cruise in "Young Guns" and Jon Bon Jovi in "Young Guns 2". So clearly there is something for everybody in these two movies. It's quite a showdown between these two casts, believe me I know. Now you tell me: which is more terrible!
Comments (9)
Well I thought Young Guns 2 was more enjoyable, but will have to say that the cast for Young Guns 2 was more terrible. Simply because Terrence Stamp and Jack Palance were in the first one. Nobody, I mean nobody, can beat Zod!
I think when making Young Guns 1 they were going for a more "accurate" depiction of Billy the Kid, and therefore they tried to have a more seasoned cast -- ie. Charlie Sheen. However when approaching YG2, I think they were looking for an E Ticket ride, punch it up with Christian Slater, and giving some candy to the kids. Hence, "Make ya' famous."
Posted by Ponnerbell | December 5, 2003 5:51 AM
Posted on December 5, 2003 05:51
I forgot to ask, does the Bon Jovi soundtrack count as part of the cast? "Blaze of Glory"??
Posted by Ponnerbell | December 5, 2003 11:28 AM
Posted on December 5, 2003 11:28
You know, I almost added that the soundtrack does NOT count as part of the cast, but figured that might be too obscure. However, since it has been brought up, then no, you can't include "Blaze of Glory" as a cast member. By the way, the response to this week's terrible thus far has been, well, terrible.
Posted by Yams | December 5, 2003 3:45 PM
Posted on December 5, 2003 15:45
i hate to say it, but this one's kind of a no-brainer. the second one was an okay sequel, but there was something much more interesting about the first cast, but that's probably because i think the first one is a much better movie.
the shadow horse riding by when chavez (#2) dies is so cheesy my butt clenches just thinking about it.
Posted by fhqwhgads | December 5, 2003 6:01 PM
Posted on December 5, 2003 18:01
Will, I haven't seen either one, so that's why I didn't respond.
Posted by Koganuts | December 5, 2003 9:02 PM
Posted on December 5, 2003 21:02
This terrible is so appalling... I won't even dignify it with an answer!
Posted by iendive | December 6, 2003 1:08 AM
Posted on December 6, 2003 01:08
The answer is that the cast of "Young Guns" (not the sequel) is more terrible. I pointed out in the entry how dead even the two casts are, but what puts the sequel's cast over the top is the fact that Balthazar Getty and Jenny Wright were in part 2. Balthazar has most notably been in "Lord of the Flies", "Judge Dredd" and "Lost Highway"; while Jenny has most notably been in "Pink Floyd: The Wall", "Lawnmower Man" and, of course, "Near Dark" (which she's probably most famous for). The first "Young Guns" had a lot of great actors, but other than the matchups I listed, didn't have anyone to compete with these two actors, so that's why the cast of the original was more terrible. Keep in mind this was not a question of which movie, but rather which cast was more terrible, otherwise I'd be inclined to agree with Matt that the sequel was not as good as the original.
Posted by Yams | December 7, 2003 1:55 AM
Posted on December 7, 2003 01:55
Cool, hehe! Sorry about my previous lazy answer, the matchup you had described kept swinging the vote back and forth.
I must say I agree with yours. Not very familiar with Jenny Wright, but I do know of JP's grandson.... he's great on "Charmed" ;p (forgot how to get to the smileys)
ok guess I'll mozy on to bed now since I am getting up at 7:30 am
Posted by iendive | December 7, 2003 3:12 AM
Posted on December 7, 2003 03:12
If you're not too familiar with Jenny Wright, I'd definitely recommend both "Young Guns 2" and "Near Dark", because she has major roles in both movies. In "The Wall" and "Lawnmower Man" she's not in those movies for quite as long. Anyway, here's a couple shots of Jenny for those unfamiliar with her:
Posted by Yams | December 7, 2003 1:36 PM
Posted on December 7, 2003 13:36