Print

Author Topic: "Why?" Sequels  (Read 19827 times)

Glorb

  • Banned
« on: July 26, 2006, 08:22:30 AM »
There are tons of them: movie/game sequels that simply make you say "Why?" for various reasons. First off, there's the garden-variety, normal-crappy sequel, like half the James Bond movies. But then there's the dreaded Third Movie. For some reason, the filmmakers think that by the third movie, they're invincible. I mean, Terminator, Alien and The Godfather were all good movies; so were their sequels, T2: Judgement Day, Aliens and The Godfather 2. So, naturally, third time's a charm, right? Well, for some reason, it isn't, so we end up with B-movie drivel like Terminator 3, Alien 3 and The Godfather 3.
And then there's the completely unneccesary sequel, whom I have one really good example of: Jurassic Park III. The movie that killed the franchise. You can tell it's a bad thing when you go to see a formerly intelligent, speculative science fiction movie just to see a big, ham-fisted fight between a T-Rex and a Spinosaur. And the T-Rex, the mascot of Jurassic Park, loses. Not to mention the whole spooky, haunted feel of some shots, which is completely unfaithful to the original movies.
But I'm ranting. Anyway, just post about bad sequels here.
every

« Reply #1 on: July 26, 2006, 10:24:18 AM »
I just saw The Sandlot 2. That was really pointless. It was the same plot with different characters...it really looked like a remake. There's mine.

« Reply #2 on: July 26, 2006, 10:49:30 AM »
The Batman Movies were destroyed by the 4th movie: Batman and Robin. It's a shame really, mainly because the third movie,  Batman Forever, was excellent. They either should have left the franchise alone (so that they could come back in a few years or so and make a better one) or put more effort into a movie that was sub-par compared to it's three counter-parts.
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

Chupperson Weird

  • Not interested.
« Reply #3 on: July 26, 2006, 10:51:05 AM »
Batman Forever was good? Hahahahahahah
That was a joke.

« Reply #4 on: July 26, 2006, 10:59:21 AM »
Yes, it is.
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

« Reply #5 on: July 26, 2006, 11:31:34 AM »
I could mention all the sequels to just about every Disney movie that have been made in the last decade or so. There's also the 11 Land Before Time movies. I saw number 1 in the theater! :)

Markio

  • Normal
« Reply #6 on: July 26, 2006, 12:03:41 PM »
A relatively unknown movie series to many, 3 Ninjas eventually lost their charm too.  The first one was a great, funny kids movie that really made them seem like ninjas, but with the kiddie feel so it's not all too serious.  All three kids were great.
 Then came 3 Ninjas Kick Back where they go to Japan and meet a girl that also helps them save their grandfather, who won this dagger long ago that his old rival wants to steal to open some legendary Cave of Gold, etc.  I have to say this: the nurse that is taking care of the grandfather in the hospital was the cook from the movie Clue!  Anyway, this movie was actually an alright followup, even though 2 of the 3 ninjas were different actors.  It was also annoying how the youngest Ninja did pretty much no karate at all.  He couldn't even climb a rope, the other two had to push him up before they started climbing. 
After that came 3 Ninjas Knuckle Up.  This one was originally filmed before 3 Ninjas Kick Back, so it had the original three kids, which is always better.  The movie itself was a bit low on plot and not as interesting.  The 3 ninjas are at their grandfather's cabin like they are every summer, and this time they meet this indian girl Jo, who says that this bad man that runs the dump is illegally dumping chemicals on the indian land, which is killing off the indians.  The bad man captured Jo's father, because he had some proof on a disk that showed that the evil guy was guilty.   So the 3 Ninja's help out!  The fighting was entertaining, and the plot gave a nice gesture, but it seemed like it was still just a small-town plot; it was as if the movie was the kind you buy directly on video. When you saw it, you wished more was at stake, or that something would happen at the end that made them seem like real heroes. But then the moral of the movie was that a ninja must listen to the flower when it blooms: (When it blooms, it says nothing!  It doesn't want to show off how pretty it is, it just wants to be pretty.)
This is where things really got off track.  They made 3 Ninjas: High Noon at Mega Mountain.  All 3 kids were different. They don't even look like the original. Grandpa only appears briefly.  The bad guys weren't just dumb, they were completely evil and rude and hurting innocent people for money.  And Hulk Hogan is in the movie.  Bad plot, bad characters, unlike the original.  It was just sad, really.  I own the previous three, but not this one, and for good reason.

So indeed, sequels are often a lot worse than the original.  Or something like that.  Go see the original 3 Ninjas, it's like being eight-years-old all over again!
"Hello Kitty is cool, but I like Keroppi the best."

SushieBoy

  • Giddy fangirl
« Reply #7 on: July 26, 2006, 03:07:37 PM »
Sequels are just made to continue what happened in the original, or to answer some questions that whrere left unanswered. Or mabye because the first was so popular they decide to make a new one.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

« Reply #8 on: July 26, 2006, 04:30:14 PM »
There are too many horrible sequels out there.  Lilo and Stitch anyone?
However, one sequel, which I thought would be terrible, ended up being better than the original.  Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest.

Maybe there is more to me than there is to me...

Hirocon

  • June 14-16, every year
« Reply #9 on: July 26, 2006, 04:45:53 PM »
There can almost never be a movie franchise that is uniformly good, because every time a good movie in the franchise is made, that movie will be financially successful and a sequel will follow.  That sequel might be good, too, but if it is it will just be followed by another sequel.  And another.  The franchise will not end until eventually a bad sequel is made (usually this doen't take long).  The exception is when the movie creators have pre-planned the number of movies they want to make and intentionally end the franchise after that number of movies, e.g. in The Lord of the Rings trilogy.

« Reply #10 on: July 26, 2006, 05:03:33 PM »
I dislike Disney's obsession with sequels. When they attempted a Toy Story 3, Pixar executives became enraged and took hold of the project so it wouldn't be just another cheap Disney sequel.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2006, 05:05:21 PM by NintendoExpert89 »

« Reply #11 on: July 26, 2006, 05:24:35 PM »
"Dead Man's Chest" was not nearly as fun to watch as "The Black Pearl". It relied too heavily on CG and not enough on actor talent. I just hope "World's End" will bring back everything the fans loved from the first one (and a few elements of the 2nd) to create a much better sequal.
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

« Reply #12 on: July 26, 2006, 05:29:59 PM »
Umm...I thought it was just as good as the first one if not better. /:)

« Reply #13 on: July 26, 2006, 06:20:57 PM »
I think Dead Man's Chest would have been as good as the first, had it not been a sequel. That doesn't mean I didn't like it; It just means it wasn't as original. Since we were already used to the storyline and type of humor, it wasn't as new and funny as the first, but definitely good.

« Reply #14 on: July 26, 2006, 06:33:51 PM »
Umm...I thought it was just as good as the first one if not better. /:)

I should have said this before, but there will always be fans who liked the way "DMC" used a different approach. I am not one of them, and thought it would have been better had it not been a sequal.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2006, 06:35:50 PM by PaperLuigi »
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

Print