[Video] Men in Black: International (the kinda reboot sequel thing) - General

Men in Black 2 was the weakest IMO. At least with the third one, there were things i could say that i liked.

I mean fuck man, this scene alone made MiB3 worth it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDPJG9FP3iM

Because K started respecting his father? Yeah, I guess you're right. Doesn't it feel cheap to you, that they had to make a retcon in order to have an emotional core to the movie? Kind of like they did with the second one?

Is it a "Retcon" if said history never existed in the series? Does adding history in a later sequel of something that doesn't actually "Rewrite" the canon of the character of J actually count as a "retcon"? And can you use a "retcon" to just simply call a films writing bad on it's own?

Wasn't it implied that, basically, "it's always been this way"? In the beginning of the film, when J and K are talking in the restaurant, K is already trying to change J's mind about his father . The change MIB3 does count as a retcon to J, in my opinion. He starts out as a great cop, who's excellent abilities get him in to the MIB. With MIB3 in mind, we know that J knew who K was from the beginning, and his insistence that J would be a good agent is based on memory of his father, and him personally having a connection with him as a kid in the 60s

I'm gonna put the feeling of 'feed my nostalgia or fuck off' at rest and give this thing a chance- I think it looks decent, actually. Sure it may not have the original pairing but I dig the actors, and this is something that may slip people but, both the directors both did the original Men In Blacks, and one even did the TV show- so it's the same people behind it, just different faces. I enjoyed 1, 2 and 3, so I'll probably enjoy this too. Calm y'selves.

Retcons don't have to contradict/rewrite anything to be retcons. The term is short for "retroactive continuity" and just means creating new history in a continuity, so yes MIB3's past events count as exactly that.

lol no? J jumps back in time, altering the timeline. Suddenly, an adult K knows that a adult J is one day his partner in the future. By the end of the story, the young adult K has not connected the dots that this young kid is the J he knows. J knows "oh that's me as a child" because of the watch they both share, but no memories of the events. This leads back to one of the big parts of MIB2 which was the problem J had getting an answer out of K about "You ever flashy thing me before?", in that movie it settled it as a "yes, in the events of this movie, maybe more". MIB3 takes that, and extends it into the past. The film ends with K and J at a diner, and J revealing his own secret, that the little boy K had saved so many years ago was him. It doesn't take away J's skill as a police officer when he was with the NYPD and chased down a alien on foot, none of that is retconned. The film just shows a connection between the two that occurs due to time travel, not due to retconning. Though I guess if you feel it's a retcon, then time travel stories in and of themselves must be considered "retcon" stories, no?

I liked the last MiB but this is looking like that Ghostbusters fire hazard all over again so i'm keeping my shades and moving on.

Good points. What's your take on the second film?

I didn't really like it a lot. It has a lot of problems and didn't know what kind of movie it wanted to be. It wanted the body horror/creepy aspects of the first film, but it also wanted to be more fun, and more silly. It just didn't really land right, and the overall story of the second film is a kind of tired love story that while okay in concept didn't work in the film. Having K love the first alien woman that Lara Flynn Boyles character was after, and having J love the daughter was a bit on the nose. MIB 3 kind of just embraced the sillyness that MIB2 tried to have, but it jettisoned the body horror aspects of the first film(still the best movie in the series by far) for the better of it's end film, in comparison to the second.

I never said retcons have to change or replace anything, I said that events don't have to be contradicted (meaning replaced) to be retcons. By definition filling out the past events of a story is a retcon, that's literally what retroactive continuity means.

I guess, and fair enough I just don't think being a "retcon" matters in the end, if the writing is there and it works, why does classifying it as such cheapen it? Just seems to be how people feel about retcons

Except that one was as good as the first. This is.... made by commitee for no other reason than gib monies pl0x