My Big Fat Greek Wedding 3 (2023) (1 Viewer)

[Tino]

7 episodes and that's it even though ratings weren't terrible? Doesn't make a ton of sense on the surface

The show was absolutely horrible. I remember it vividly. Perhaps that had something to do with it!

 

[Jake Lipson]

Interesting thing is that if Wiki is right, the TV show actually did pretty well right out of the gate but suffered a pretty severe drop after the premiere episode.

I think that had to do with the popularity of the film at that time and the speed with which it was turned around to television. The show hit at the right time to have a huge sampling on the back of the film's success, but people just didn't stick around.

The plot of the pilot episode involved the main character's parents buying them the house next door as a surprise, which already happened at the end of the film. So I thought it was weird for the show to repeat that plot point in the show. The lead character's name was changed from Toula in the movie to Nia in the show. Also, the husband character was played by Steven Eckholdt instead of John Corbett and had his name changed from Ian in the movie to Thomas in the show. I think John Corbett was unavailable because he was committed to another series at the time.

I'm not saying that the show would have suddenly turned into a long-running hit without these changes because I don't think that would have been the case. But it was definitely kind of weird to build the show out of the success of the film and yet change such significant elements of it. People wanted the characters they remembered from the movie, and the show kind of presented that but also kind of didn't. I assume this is why the second movie brought back Toula and Ian and basically seems to ignore the fact that the show ever happened.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

The show was absolutely horrible. I remember it vividly. Perhaps that had something to do with it!

Honestly can't imagine the TV show was worse than the first 2 movies.

Any movie that almost makes me hate Andrea Martin is a catastrophe!

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I think that had to do with the popularity of the film at that time and the speed with which it was turned around to television. The show hit at the right time to have a huge sampling on the back of the film's success, but people just didn't stick around.

The plot of the pilot episode involved the main character's parents buying them the house next door as a surprise, which already happened at the end of the film. So I thought it was weird for the show to repeat that plot point in the show. The lead character's name was changed from Toula in the movie to Nia in the show. Also, the husband character was played by Steven Eckholdt instead of John Corbett and had his name changed from Ian in the movie to Thomas in the show. I think John Corbett was unavailable because he was committed to another series at the time.

I'm not saying that the show would have suddenly turned into a long-running hit without these changes because I don't think that would have been the case. But it was definitely of weird to build the show out of the success of the film and yet change such significant elements of it. People wanted the characters they remembered from the movie, and the show kind of presented that but also kind of didn't. I assume this is why the second movie brought back Toula and Ian and basically seems to ignore the fact that the show ever happened.

All fair points, but I remain surprised at how quickly the axe fell on the series given that it didn't bomb.

It wasn't a hit but it held its own by the era's standards, and 7 episodes didn't give it much of a chance.

Maybe it was costly enough to produce that the network figured it needed to be a smash to be worth the $$$ - dunno.

Just feel 7 episodes is a quick exit for a show that did okay in the ratings!

 

[Tino]

Honestly can't imagine the TV show was worse than the first 2 movies.

Try.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Honestly can't imagine the TV show was worse than the first 2 movies.

I watched every episode of the TV show and both sequels. Absolutely nothing else in this franchise has even approached the quality level of the first movie.

I saw the new film this morning. I think the basic concept of taking the characters to Greece is a natural one, and there are some potentially interesting ideas raised in this film. But they aren't well-executed on a script level. I know this is meant to be a light comedy and that's fine, but there still needs to be a sense of conflict driving the story. In the first film, it was the conflict between Toula's desire to be with Ian and her family's desire for her to marry a Greek guy. Here, the conflicts that come up are so nominal and so easily resolved that there really isn't anything moving the story along. It feels like a series of incidents that the characters happen to be walking through rather than a story designed to grow and develop their characters.

Toula says in the opening scene that the family has been stretched since her father's death, but there is really no evidence of that because the characters are behaving just as close-knit and in each other's business as they always have been portrayed. The idea of the family becoming estranged and coming back together over the course of the movie would have been interesting if Nia Vardalos actually wanted to make that movie, but it doesn't seem like she really wanted to go there.

The movie is well shot and the scenery is really nice to look at. The cast has always been this series' strongest asset, and the chemistry between this ensemble is still palpable. They save it from being a complete waste. But they have nothing interesting to do here. I was shocked at how long the movie felt considering that it is actually only 91 minutes. The pace is glacial.

I think there could have been a good movie here, but this is not that movie. I don't know how long Vardalos spent writing this or how many drafts she did. But it feels as though this is the first draft and everybody just agreed to go with that.

I do not recommend this.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Try.

Can't - especially "Wedding 2".

I thought the first movie was as bad as it could get. "Wedding 2" made it look like "Citizen Kane" by comparison!

Kinda tempted to see "3" to find out if it's even worse!

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I watched every episode of the TV show and both sequels. Absolutely nothing else in this franchise has even approached the quality level of the first movie.

I guess you liked the first movie.

And more power to ya. I don't get its appeal, however!

 

[Jake Lipson]

I guess you liked the first movie.

I did.

But even if I didn't, I would still rank it higher than anything subsequent to it in the franchise. The other ones are just worse.

 

[Tino]

I guess you liked the first movie.

And more power to ya. I don't get its appeal, however!

I thought the first movie was great. Tons of fun and winning performances. Especially Vardolos. No problem with Martin either.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Something else to note: our screening started with Nia Vardalos introducing the movie and providing an honest-to-goodness recap of the first two movies. This was my first real clue the third entry was not interested in doing any of the "heavy" storytelling lifting it needed to do. Most movies would try to find a way to catch the audience up in the first few minutes, but not this one.

That's interesting because my screening had nothing of the kind. It was just the movie. I wonder who decides which screenings get the recap and which don't. I agree it is lazy storytelling to literally tack such a thing onto a screening of the movie itself. It would make more sense to put up a recap as an online ad or something -- which they did.

Is this what you saw, or was it something else?

 

[Jake Lipson]

Here are some spoiler though. I hesitate to use the term spoiler in reference to this movie because there's so little going on that deserves that distinction. But my comments below do talk about how the threadbare plot, such as it is, resolves itself. So I'll put it under the spoiler tags.

Spoiler

The movie has so many side storylines going on and it seems Mohave a problem identifying who the protagonist is. Obviously, the protagonist SHOULD be Toula (Vardalos) because she was the protagonist of the first film and the audience will reasonably expect her to be at the center.

Her stated goal throughout this film is to find her dad's friends so she can give them his journal as she promised that she would. Fine.

Except...she doesn't really do very much. She wanders around and can't find them until Ian gets a piece of paper from a monk he happens to go see that happens to have a list of them and where they moved to on it. This is a coincidence. Then, Toula calls Nikki, who stayed behind in America. Nikki goes to a different part of Greece and she is responsible for finding them and bringing them to the "reunion"/wedding at the end of the movie where most of the characters have been hanging out for the whole time. Toula hands her dad's friends the journal, but she isn't an active participant in her own goal.

Then there's the scene between Toula and Nick about which of them should be the "head of the family" with Gus gone. But throughout this movie, Toula actually has very little of any consequence to do. This is especially strange because Vardalos is also the writer and the director in addition to playing Toula. So Vardalos is actually shortchanging her own character and giving herself less to do (at least in front of the camera) than she should be doing. Ian is also much more of a supporting character even though he was the male lead in the first film

I watch Grey's Anatomy, and a few of their regular cast members are also directors on the show who do a few episodes every year. Sometimes, if one of the actors is directing an episode, the writers might write them slightly lighter in the episode as an actor so that they can focus more primarily on the directing side of things. However, the difference is that Grey's Anatomy is a serialized TV show with a new episode every week which usually features a double-digit number of series regulars. It is entirely normal for the focus on each character to ebb and flow every week depending on the story and episode needs.

My Big Fat Greek Wedding 3 is not a weekly show with a large rotating ensemble; it's a 90 minute movie and the focus should be on the main character. But it doesn't seem like Toula is the main character in this movie. She should be, but as written, I'm not sure that there is one. She certainly doesn't have a significant arc to speak of. The movie just meanders around, and Vardalos is the one responsible for it meandering. I don't know if Vardalos wrote it this way because she would be busy directing or if this is what she wanted irrespective of her additional duties. But it seems like a very strange choice to sideline yourself from a movie where you are literally the writer, director and first billed in the credits star. I think the pushing of Toula and Ian to the margins is part of why this isn't satisfying. Their relationship is the reason that people fell in love with the original movie in the first place. This movie doesn't really seem to know what to do with them, and that is a big problem.

Minimizing Lainie Kazan's role as Maria was also a big mistake. Obviously, they didn't have a choice with Michael Constantine as Gus because he actually passed away. I would have included Kazan more and brought her on the trip. A storyline about dementia, and having her make jokes about it, just clashes with the comedic tone the movie is going for. Michael Constantine already got several of the best laughs in the other films. Kazan was his counterpart, and losing both of them as major players at the same time really works to the detriment of the film. She should have been with the family on the vacation, especially since it was to where her husband grew up, and they should have dropped the dementia idea altogether. I just didn't find any of those jokes funny and it doesn't benefit the film. It would have been so much more dramatically interesting if she actually met her husband's former lover as an active participant in the trip instead of just hearing about it secondhand.

I also felt like the writing for Paris and Aristotle was a weak point. The idea of Voula hiring Aristotle just to get them back together is icky. I get that this is the point because Voula is overstepping Paris' boundaries. But it still felt icky. Aristotle was not part of the last film, so we've never seen him and Paris together. I'm not saying she has to be involved with the same boy who she took to prom, but it is hard for the audience to invest in a relationship that occurred entirely offscreen. Paris also spends basically the entire movie not wanting to have anything to do with Aristotle...until we get to the end, when suddenly she does, because it is time for the story to end. If this is how Vardalos wanted the story to go, she should have spent time throughout the course of the movie building up the change in their relationship gradually so that it feels more natural and earned.

The idea of Paris struggling in school and risking disappointing her parents is a potentially interesting one, but it doesn't go anywhere. The end of this storyline is her realizing that she needs to fix her life? That should have been apparent to her from when she first failed. There is no arc there.

Really, there is no significant arc here for anyone. No wonder the movie is so unsatisfying.

That being said, Nia Vardalos and her real-life husband, Ian Gomez, got divorced in 2018. So at least Vardalos didn't write that in and their fictional counterparts are still happy together.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I thought the first movie was great. Tons of fun and winning performances. Especially Vardolos. No problem with Martin either.

I didn't say I had a problem specifically with Andrea Martin in the movie.

I hated "Greek Wedding" so much as a whole that it almost made me dislike Martin - that's the point.

Its stench coated everyone involved!

 

[Tino]

I didn't say I had a problem specifically with Andrea Martin in the movie.

I hated "Greek Wedding" so much as a whole that it almost made me dislike Martin - that's the point.

Its stench coated everyone involved!

I thought it was such a harmless film. Why so much hate?

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I thought it was such a harmless film. Why so much hate?

Because I think it's idiotic, inane crap that insults the viewer's intelligence at every turn?

 

[Tino]

Because I think it's idiotic, inane crap that insults the viewer's intelligence at every turn?

How so?

 

[Colin Jacobson]

How so?

If only I had a website where you could look up my review and answer these questions for yourself!

Here ya go, hoss:

My Big Fat Greek Wedding [Blu-Ray] (2002)

Reviewed by Colin Jacobson: Audiences disagreed with me in 2002, but virtually nothing about My Big Fat Greek Wedding appealed to me then or now. This comedy fails to deliver a single laugh, and it turns sappy and drippy at the drop of a hat. Add to that flat, cartoony performances and an inane...

dvdmg.com

 

[Jason_V]

That's interesting because my screening had nothing of the kind. It was just the movie. I wonder who decides which screenings get the recap and which don't. I agree it is lazy storytelling to literally tack such a thing onto a screening of the movie itself. It would make more sense to put up a recap as an online ad or something -- which they did.

Is this what you saw, or was it something else?

That was it, 100%.

(sorry for being so late...these notifications didn't pop up in my email for some reason...)