The Sea of Monsters (Percy Jackson and the Olympians, #2) The Sea of Monsters discussion


274 views
So...Does the movie suck?

Comments Showing 1-32 of 32 (32 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

Emma I volunteered at a Percy Jackson Jeopardy Quiz, so you'd think the people there would be the hardcore fans. A few of them were talking about The Sea of Monsters movie, and I asked them their opinions (without high hopes). They told me that it was pretty terrible, but it was a big step up from the first one. Later this week, I talked to someone else who had just gone to see it. They told me that it was awesome and stayed pretty true to the book. I am skeptical about this, judging by the first one.

So I went to the people of Goodreads! Oh, great people of Goodreads! Is the movie worth seeing? Go ahead! Rip it apart!


❍◦●○❍Brooklyn ❍○●◦❍ Yes it is! I loved it way better then the first! and Grover is actually a wimp and wears a wedding dress! XD


Rich-Allana Brooklyn wrote: "Yes it is! I loved it way better then the first! and Grover is actually a wimp and wears a wedding dress! XD"
In the previews they make it look like he goes with them to the sea of monsters, but in the book Percy actually defies everyone and goes there with Annabeth to save Grover. Would you mind telling me which way they do it?


❍◦●○❍Brooklyn ❍○●◦❍ Sure, ok so Grover starts to go with them but when they get to D.C. Luke and his other half-blood helpers kidnap him. Then use him to find the fleece. eventually he is captured by the Cyclops.


Cassie    'The Thinker Go Go Go Go' Mis. Roben Goodfellow'\Isabelle Lightwood We just went to see it Tuesday Morning, and it was AWSOME!!! It's way better than the first one I thought.


Maja Kron This main contain tiny spoilers (except the one that says spoiler, watch it only if you don't care to be spoiled), but nothing of importance.

I admit, this one was funnier, Grover had a lot of funny lines, but all in all, it was not good. I had super low expectations on it, and it didn't even live up to them.
Honestly I'd say the first one was better... and I strongly dislike that one...

For people who haven't read the books, I believe this one might be confusing. They don't explain stuff very well at all. They don't even call them Demigods, but halfbloods. I mean, come on!

But one thing I really hate is that Annabeth have Mist in a parfume bottle or something, which she gives to Tyson for his eye, and they tell this little story about how Tyson had scared some people before he came to camp. WHAT?! So the mist covers everything, except from the cyclop's eye?! BS!

And the characters doesn't have any personality, except Grover. And Clarisse, oh my god, she's so NICE in the movie! What is this?! They make Annabeth look stupid, she can't do anything by herself and 90% of her lines were based on the fact that she needed Percy to help her. And they make Luke look like this pure evil dude, which they did in the first one as well, when he's so much more than that.
And Percy is still not funny.

And don't get me started on the "big fight" that was just ridiculous, I laughed at it (I actually laughed at a lot of scenes in this movie just because of how awful they were...) Gosh. (view spoiler)

And they ended it all with a bit of a cliffhanger, which probably means another movie...

So yeah, obviously I didn't like it, and I hope to God they won't do a third, and let someone else remake them in the future. THIS IS CLEARLY NOT WORKING, SO STOP! So if you are going to see it, don't expect much of it. Don't expect anything at all, you'll probably just be disappointed >.<'

But people, this is just my opinion, I still respect the ones who liked/loved it, ok?


Maddie Meyer I think that going in with low expectations is a good suggestion. I did and ended up liking it WAY MORE than I thought I was going to. It added certain details that I was very HAPPY about. Yes, it left things out and things were added and maybe som e characters aren't like they are in the book, but it was WAY BETTER THAN THE FIRST MOVIE.


❍◦●○❍Brooklyn ❍○●◦❍ Yep! and Thailia is amazing!


message 9: by Mandi (new) - added it

Mandi Special effects really suck in the movie though. when they r on the hippacampus their feet or pants should be wet but they are perfectly dry! SOOOO BADDD


Maddie Meyer technically, Percy could be dry, but I'm jsut kidding. Yeah, some of the effects were funny, but NATHAN FILLION was perfect. <3


❍◦●○❍Brooklyn ❍○●◦❍ I think they had great effects but....your right about the wet thing...


notyourfriend Maddie wrote: "technically, Percy could be dry, but I'm jsut kidding. Yeah, some of the effects were funny, but NATHAN FILLION was perfect. <3"

I agree


message 13: by Lyn (new) - rated it 5 stars

Lyn I wrote a pretty long rant (review I mean) on my blog. I have conflicted feelings about it. On one hand, casting and scenery was good but the plot was ridiculous.
http://bananachocolatemaine.blogspot....


Kelly The truth is, I thought that the movie didn't exactly portray the facts correctly. I mean come on! Clarice isn't suppose to be that pretty! Even though the second movie was better than the first, I still don't think that they should make a third movie since the last two were already quite bad.


Inês although the difrence from the book i have to say that i liked this movie better than the first ^^


Bipasha Emma wrote: "I volunteered at a Percy Jackson Jeopardy Quiz, so you'd think the people there would be the hardcore fans. A few of them were talking about The Sea of Monsters movie, and I asked them their opinio..."

look the movie unlike its predecessor is better. it maybe be a little offpoint from the book but its good, definitely.


Jenelle I really didn't expect much from the movie... as the first one really didn't thrill me. However, I really enjoyed it. It's not perfect, and yeah, they changed some things... but it's a really fun movie and way better than the first one. I wrote a more comprehensive review of it (without spoilers) over here: http://jenelleschmidt.com/percy-jacks...


message 18: by Lory (new) - rated it 5 stars

Lory Sakay I actually liked the first movie way better


message 19: by Sara (new) - rated it 5 stars

Sara If I hadn't read the book it would have been a lot better. I wasn't very impressed it was messed up way more than the first one and some parts just make me sick thinking about them.


Juliet Lory wrote: "I actually liked the first movie way better"

Thank you! I thought I was crazy but I thought the second one was TERRIBLE. The first one at least kept my attention, I didn't think of how awful it was until afterwards. But this one had me wanting to leave the theater. I hated everything about it.


Edward the Energetic Dog It was full of fucking shit!


Kieran Unsure about whether or not to watch this movie? Watch this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSBJWP...


❍◦●○❍Brooklyn ❍○●◦❍ They have to make a third or I might die (not really) But come on! I want to see Nico! XXDD


Emily Rensi the movie was amazing and i want to see it again and again and again!!!!!


message 25: by [deleted user] (new)

OK. So, yeah they got some facts wrong such as but not limited to:

1. They drink Nectar all willy nilly.
2. In the beginning, when they show how Thalia, Annabeth, Luke and Grover come over to camp halfblood Annabeth is like, 12! She's supposed to be seven!
3. Clarisse is pretty and nice!
4. The Last Olympian prophecy is in there! *
5. Dionsysus doesn't drink diet anything! Just water!


*Which I actually think means there will be a lot more movies.... Leading up the Last Olympian.

I wish RR wrote the script. That would be WAY better.

Anyway, yeah, if you're a major fan of percy jackson you should see it, just cause then you'll know what everyone is talking about, but don't get to excited. It's not very good.


Fatema didn't like the movie at all the beginning was good but the sucked they took away my percy


Edward the Energetic Dog It was full of fucking shit!


Lily Mandi wrote: "Special effects really suck in the movie though. when they r on the hippacampus their feet or pants should be wet but they are perfectly dry! SOOOO BADDD"

percy is the son of a sea GOD.it mentions them not getting wet ALL THE TIME! I mean think.


Celestina Here is what I say, They fallowed the book but they cut the book out. So they cut all of the islands out except for the Cyclops island. Then after they arrived they didn't fallow the book pretty much at all. But other than that it was okay. I think it is worth seeing but don't go in with super high hopes.


Paula Maja wrote: "This main contain tiny spoilers (except the one that says spoiler, watch it only if you don't care to be spoiled), but nothing of importance.

I admit, this one was funnier, Grover had a lot of fu..."


exactlyyy! i think the movie sucked >.< worse than the first one, which was already pretty bad


Emily Sorry but i hated the movie. it was very boring and didn't ever get you on the edge of your seat(which every single movie should). Its too bad cause they dont really look at the book to do the movie. i mean for peet sake the first movie was all about finding these magic pearls when in the book someone just gave it to him!!!!!!!!!!! that really killed me!!!!


message 32: by Rose (last edited Oct 18, 2013 11:37AM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Rose As just a movie, I found it entertaining. I liked the casting and didn't mind most of what was changed or added.

I thought the scenes for Thalia's story were perfect. I liked that Annabeth actually looked like Annabeth, and wasn't terribly disappointed that she wasn't as headstrong and take-charge. I actually found that a bit annoying in the first movie and at the beginning of the series (Annabeth had to grow on me a bit). As far as Clarisse, it's been a while but I recall a line from one of the books where Percy thought Clarisse might have been pretty if she hadn't been trying to rip his head off all the time, so I was pleasantly surprise by who they picked for the part. She was able to be a frustrating hard-ass who looked good but like she could kick butt without hesitation; a tough role to play. Yes, she was a little too passive at times, but I think they were trying to not make her too detestable for those that hadn't read the books.

(view spoiler)

When discussing which movie was better, it all comes down to the question: which movie sacrificed more of the story for the sake of trying to make the movie "fun"?

Drum roll, please. The answer is the first movie. There were unnecessary cuts and changes made to the story and characters for the sole purpose of making the demigod world more appealing to the audiences which was unnecessary. Even as someone who had not yet read the book thought a few of the scenes felt forced and/or extended far too long. The satyr dance scene for one. What was with that? And Hades is the only god influenced by modern trends? You can make a good book-based film and still stay true to the story, but the first movie failed to stay consistant even with it own version of the adventure. The Sea of Monsters did a better job; not perfect, but much better.
Now keep in mind, you can still have a successful series after two feeble attempts. Look at the Harry Potter movies. If I had based my opinion of the series on the first two movies alone, I would have never picked up the books. I certainly would not have seen the later films which continued to improve greatly. Percy Jackson at least has a better start, so I'm looking forward towards the next film hoping for similar results because, oh, there's so much potential!


back to top