View Full Version : Sequels, the good, bad and pointless.
August 4th, 2003, 06:34 AM
This is inspired by a thread in the fantasy forum about sequels for stand alone books.
I got to thinking the same about films (as I'm too lazy to read these days)
What sequels were good and bad?
What series (if any) got better with each installment, or at least maintained a level of quality?
Which sequels sucked like a leech?
My example would be T3 as an unnecessary sequel, despite having not seen it, simply because T2 hade nicely wrapped up the story well.
I personally think that T3 was an exercise in cashing in, with the obligatory tough chick eye candy, which has become so common these days.
Anyway, your thoughts and opinions please.
August 4th, 2003, 07:05 AM
OK, I can name a few sequels that de-valued the original movies.
HIGHLANDER ~ WTF were they thinking, the first movie was/is brilliant, one of my faves to this day. So what do they do? Release a sequel that suggests the immortals are aliens!!! Bring back Sean Connery from the dead, release a TV series that is totally confusing, release a third sequel about a stupid looking magician, then a fourth sequel that blends the movies with the series to totally fubar!!!
JAWS ~ 2 was OK, 3 and 4 were just pants.
T2 was a great move, T3 I have yet to see but trust Kahn.
The Karate Kid part 2 was brilliant and a joy to watch... Daniel San's Okinawa trip was a natural plot extension. 3 was @rse and 4 I haven't even watched.
LOL I like all the American Ninja movies.
And of course, The Godfather and Alien sequels were outstanding to good.
August 4th, 2003, 07:09 AM
I verhemently oppose your statement that t3 was just a cash in on a well built franchise: I think the movie was in everyway the equal of its predessors, and did great justice to the series.
But there are other movies that I believe are just cash ins on a prosperous franchise, trying to milk it for all its worth while offering nothing new to the world and degrading it by its existance.
These movies include aliens3 and alien reserection. While they should have stopped and realized they were doing more damage than good to the alien saga after 3, the idiots brought out an inane 4, which is by far the worst thing I have ever seen done to the alien world and is essentially blasphemey to one of the great scifi series of all time. The people involved in the production of 3 and 4 should kill themselves for making such drivel - sourgorny weaver should have known better.
Another crap line of shitty sequels comes in the form of jurrassic park. The first movie was groundbreaking in the dinosaur cgi - but jurrassic park 2 offered nothing new and should not have been made. I wont even mention the utter **** that is jurrasic park 3. Now I hear jurrasic park 4 is in the pipelines... :rollseyes: I never thought I could have seen anything as retarded as jurrasic park three but I guess theyre going for an alltime low with four!
tsk tsk, hollywood should know better
August 4th, 2003, 07:32 AM
Agree with the choices. Sigourney Weaver had a lot to do with the Aliens degradation of quality as she owned the franchise for a while and everything had to be approved by her.
Jurassic Park was a good groundbreaker, the 2nd and 3rd were total pants (i.e. crap).
My opinion of T3 was purely based on the trailers/footage/interviews etc I've seen. I tend to give an instant appraisal of a film based on what the company chooses to show to entice me to watch it. Plus T3 seemed to me to be following the standard formula of "hey let's make it a female this time" in a desperate ploy for a different (yet still formulaic) approach.
Sometimes, though I am pleasantly surprised when a film exceeds my low expectations though.
August 4th, 2003, 07:34 AM
Godfather II with Al Pacino as Michael Corleone, bloody brilliant.
(Juzz, I seem to be agreeing with you on these and also Highlander - the first was a classic, then in typical Hollywood style they went & buggered it up)
Toy Story 2 (I told you guys, I have a thing for animated movies - then again I didn't really enjoy Lion King 2 - Return to Pride Rock)
Mad Max (any after 1, it was different at first, but then just became too much) I know there are those who will say it was a perfect movie for a sequel since not much was known of the character, so call me crazy, but I think the beauty of it was in the mystery.
Mission Impossible II - for no particular reason other than peeing me off tremendously.
The Pointless (or rather The Big Fat WTF?)
What Happens to the Broken Hearted - follow up to Once Were Warriors, absolutely dismal IMO & should never have been attempted.
Book of Shadows - Blair Witch Two - because we'd want to sit through it all again...........WHY?
Austin Powers - anyone after the first - the humour & wit had dried up (along with the paint on the wall I'd been watching) & seemed forced.
For the most part I cannot stomach sequels, it peeves me that film makers would regurgetate the same old storyline & characters to make a bit of extra money instead of churning out new ideas or at least fresh approaches to old ideas.
Thanks, but I'd rather watch some B slasher flick - at least I know I'm going to be watching a bunch of nonsense, with the added bonus that I pay less and don't have some Hollywood ad exec trying to convince me that it's the best thing since sliced bread & if you stay to the end you might witness the coming of the Messiah :rolleyes:
August 4th, 2003, 09:55 AM
Oh yes, Highlander, Highlander
Did I mention Highlander.
Was there ever a sequel like it? That not only was absolute crap compared to the original but actually completely changed the back story.
Planet Zeist, WTF????
As with T3, so with Aliens 3 and 4.
Aliens wrapped up the story nicely, in a way that made absolute sense with Ripley's character arc.
Last we saw she was a clone Alien hybred fighting some google eyed crossbreed. Again WTF?
Jaws 4. A shark with the concept of revenge???
Perhaps the only greater mystery is how did Michael Caine come back to Oscar glory from this low ebb?
August 4th, 2003, 10:07 AM
A classic case of crap sequels would have to be the Batman films, i.e. the ones without Michael Keaton.
Val Kilmer WTF? So wooden he may has well been "Plankman"
And "Gorgeous George"Clooney? (as he was known) Smiling come-to-bed-eyes don't really work for Batman's psyche.
August 4th, 2003, 11:31 AM
I'm not sure why T3 is a bad sequel, whether it was the writing, torrid acting, weak attempts at humour or the lacklustre SFX (barring one chase scene) but having seen it, I can confirm that it is...
I think that there possibly was (and is) life in the Terminator franchise, but what was needed was forward movement, cracking new plot lines, not a retreat backwards into the mythos of T2. I won't comment to much more on T3, except to say that it's a literal retread of the events of T2, but this time without any Cameron's verve and pace. If wanted to see someone'd bad reinterpetation of T2 then I would have just watched Technosapiens. ( :D )
Why do some sequels suck, and yet others rock? I think it's less to do with how much life is in a franchise, and more to do with the individual movie.
Aliens is always cited as a superior movie to it's predecessor, and I'm inclined to agree. Alien 3 was woozy and overall a bit of a step backwards. Alien ressurection felt a bit rushed, or something... not quite sure what to make of it. Certainly weaker than it's grandfather Aliens and greatgrandfather Alien.
What else springs to mind? Blade 2 - Probably a better movie than the first, in every sense.
August 4th, 2003, 02:17 PM
Aliens is a great sequal because it does something different from the first one. With Alien 3 you got the impression it should have been good (by the sheer weight of acting talent if nothing else) but it just didn't work for some reason (oh and the special effects were awful).
Alien Resurection is just the most blatent attempt at a cash in I've ever seen (except maybe the second Care Bears). It was just a bad film.
Empire Strikes back is often sited as an example of a good sequal. When I was little It was my least favoraite, but now I think it's probably the best. Its just so much darker than the others.
I agree on Austin Powers, first one had it's moments but I was bored of it before the end of the movie, no need for a second and especially a third.
Of course an excelent example of bad sequals is Police Academy. For a series to start on such a low and then go lower is really quite an achievement. (although that guy who makes the funny noises is hilarious)
Batman films is another one I agree with. The first one is a genuinly good film. Second one was crap the third one kind of worked because it didn't take it'self too seriously but was still failry entertaining. After that it just goes way down hill.
I guess this might not count as a 'series' as such but the Kevin Smith films are sort of set in the same universe. Clerks is the first one, it's ok but it's filmed in blank and white on a budget of about 10 dollers and the script isn't as great as it could be (which is a problem as there only about 3 locations in the whole film and the bulk of it is just people talking). Mallrats and Chasing Amy are better and Dogma is better still. Havn't seen Jay and SIlent Bob Strike back but I've heard it isn't great.
August 4th, 2003, 05:44 PM
I think Austin Powers 2 was shakey but I thought 3 half decent, I don't think its a bad series by any means. However may I point to the lamentable Sly Stallone and Rambo 3 and Rocky 5, I mean the previous movies to those two were good imo but didn't he know these were going to be absolute bunk? Good sequels - I think Die Hard 2 and especially 3 were as enjoyable as the first if not so fresh. Other notables for me are Snatch, tenuous but which somehow bettered the 'first', American Pie 2 which I laughed at a lot more than the first, more recently X2, Matrix Reloaded and Two Towers. I must also point out the abominations which are SW: EP1 and 2 and Fast and Furious 2 *shudder*
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.