ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Jun 4, 2014 6:17:57 GMT -5
American Pie was fine as a stand alone coming of age comedy. I did not see more story there, but hey it made money so I guess that is why. Screw the story right?
Pirates? Nah, I see more story after the first one. Capt. Jack Sparrow had depth enough to rate following his adventures, but they have beaten it into the ground after too many sequels.
Halloween? Come on guys. He is one of the most recognized movie monsters in the history of film. I don't see any posts here decrying Godzilla for doing the same thing they did with Michael Myers.
Shrek- stand alone does not need sequel Mighty ducks-ditto Bad News Bears-ditto Matrix-one sequel ok. Trilogy? Nah, you get it done in two or don't bother
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Jun 4, 2014 6:20:27 GMT -5
The Mummy (1999)
A tough one that as I feel the "Mummy" could have been a good franchise if they actually put the effort in and have each film be a standalone adventure ala "Indiana Jones". The first was a damn good fantasy adventure flick with likable characters and a decent story & villain, The sequels sucked.
|
|
|
Post by RI Richmark on Jun 4, 2014 7:20:47 GMT -5
The Madea movies. How did a middle aged man in drag make 8+ movies?
|
|
|
Post by James Fabiano on Jun 4, 2014 10:27:39 GMT -5
I will forgive Shrek 2 because Jennifer Saunders. After that? No.
|
|
agent817
Fry's dog Seymour
Doesn't Know Whose Ring It Is
Posts: 21,258
|
Post by agent817 on Jun 4, 2014 10:49:30 GMT -5
Matrix-one sequel ok. Trilogy? Nah, you get it done in two or don't bother Well, if you really think about it, both "Reloaded" and "Revolutions" were shot at the same time and they were pretty much just one sequel split into two. The same could be said about "Back To The Future Part II and III."
|
|
|
Post by edgestar on Jun 4, 2014 13:03:15 GMT -5
The Disney one where the dog plays basketball, and Beverly Hills Chihuahua
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Jun 4, 2014 13:16:15 GMT -5
The Disney one where the dog plays basketball, and Beverly Hills Chihuahua Yeah, Air Bud A goofy family movie about a dog playing basketball alright... turning that into a franchise of it playing different sports (kinda ruining the whole "Air" part of the title) combined with a spin off now featuring talking dogs? not so much Matrix-one sequel ok. Trilogy? Nah, you get it done in two or don't bother Well, if you really think about it, both "Reloaded" and "Revolutions" were shot at the same time and they were pretty much just one sequel split into two. I do wonder how the prequel they wanted to make would have turned out... probably terrible... but that is one of the reasons 2 and 3 turned out the way they did, they was only supposed to be one sequel.
|
|
hassanchop
Grimlock
Who are you to doubt Belldandy?
Posts: 14,794
|
Post by hassanchop on Jun 6, 2014 21:42:00 GMT -5
The 1997 film Cube. The sequel and prequel ruined the aura of mystery of the Cube.
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hawkfield no1 NZ poster on Jun 6, 2014 22:56:25 GMT -5
Bloodsport and Kickboxer.
Without JCVD the sequels were totally unnecessary and sucked.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2014 23:01:14 GMT -5
The 1997 film Cube. The sequel and prequel ruined the aura of mystery of the Cube. Cube's awesome but I've never had any desire to watch the others.
|
|
|
Post by Heart Punch on Jun 7, 2014 0:41:23 GMT -5
The "Bring it On" movies.The first one was good.The second one was ok.But it should have ended there.5 of them is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Danimal on Jun 7, 2014 6:34:22 GMT -5
I don't even count the straight-to-video sequels. Most are mediocre or just plain bad flicks made as money-grabs, of course they were unnecessary.
I'll throw Smokey and the Bandit as a flick that could've done without the sequels.
|
|
|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on Jun 7, 2014 6:51:10 GMT -5
The 1997 film Cube. The sequel and prequel ruined the aura of mystery of the Cube. To be fair, the sequel was more of a spin-off in a completely different cube. It was basically taking the same concept but with traps based on quantum physics rather than mechanics, so it's pretty much a stand-alone film and I thought it did a fairly good job. The prequel (wait, is it even a prequel? I know the guy ends up like Kazan but I'm still fairly sure they're supposed to be different people and there is no real indication of when any of this is taking place compared to the first film and again, I do believe it's a different cube as the design is very different, unless the guys behind it just like to change the cube's look for shits and giggles) however, I agree was very silly and chock full of clichés but you know what? I don't mind it because it's still highly entertaining to me, for all the wrong reasons. Come on, you can't tell me Jax didn't make you crack a smile with how campy he is. To me, the three films are basically different executions of the same concept. You have the original, straightforward one with mechanical traps, the "what if we did that with quantum physics?" version and the "pop-corn movie" version. So if you take it as an anthology series, I actually find all three films to be very pleasant.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Jun 7, 2014 7:27:13 GMT -5
I hate that f***ing Cube sequel and I think the prequel is one of the worst things I've ever tried to watch. Emphasis on tried. Great choice!
However I really think the world needs the Air Bud/Buddies movies. They're fascinating on several levels. Can you imagine being given the job of writing a Buddies movie? Because people had to, and that just kinda blows my mind. Like someone woke up having no real connection to that bullshit and when they went to bed they had an assignment to create Treasure Buddies or Santa Paws, for the world. If one was to explore the notion of cinema as product the Buddies oeuvre is remarkably prime for that.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jun 7, 2014 9:45:59 GMT -5
The Mummy (1999) A tough one that as I feel the "Mummy" could have been a good franchise if they actually put the effort in and have each film be a standalone adventure ala "Indiana Jones". The first was a damn good fantasy adventure flick with likable characters and a decent story & villain, The sequels sucked. Agreed. Brendan Fraser had a great character in Rick O'Connell. Making him fight mummies in every film was stupid.
|
|
Johnny
Don Corleone
Achievement Unlocked: TLDR - Read the longest post in board history.
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by Johnny on Jun 7, 2014 11:04:59 GMT -5
My apologies if this has already been said, but "Rambo".
First blood is awesome!
Then it became a series of dumb action movies with little in common with the first.
|
|
|
Post by Heart Punch on Jun 7, 2014 21:14:27 GMT -5
I don't even count the straight-to-video sequels. Most are mediocre or just plain bad flicks made as money-grabs, of course they were unnecessary. I'll throw Smokey and the Bandit as a flick that could've done without the sequels. I totally agree with "Smokey and the Bandit". They should have left it alone.The second one was barely half as good as the original.The third was horrendously bad.
|
|
khali
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,597
|
Post by khali on Jun 8, 2014 0:31:27 GMT -5
I didn't mind the Psycho sequel. Anthony Perkins did a great job in it and it continued the story well. I find it better than most horror sequels. That being said, the book sequel was brilliant and should have been made into a movie.
The Halloween sequels were fine. They a couple different chances to mix it up and screwed both up. The second one was a food finish, and they could have kept going with the anthology route after III. Even though they didn't, they still had a good way to continue it without Myers after the fourth one, and screwed that up too.
|
|
agent817
Fry's dog Seymour
Doesn't Know Whose Ring It Is
Posts: 21,258
|
Post by agent817 on Jun 8, 2014 9:04:51 GMT -5
I don't even count the straight-to-video sequels. Most are mediocre or just plain bad flicks made as money-grabs, of course they were unnecessary. I have seen a few straight-to-video sequels and prequels, and I have to say that a lot of them aren't really good. Hell, a lot of them don't really relate to their predecessors. I remember watching "Into The Blue 2: The Reef" about a year ago and thinking it sucked, not that the original was really good but I kind of enjoyed that one. I also remember watching "Never Back Down 2: The Beatdown" and I had a really mixed opinion about it. Story-wise, the movie was not that good, but the fight scenes made up for it. Another example is "Smokin' Aces 2: Assassins Ball." This one is another example of me having a mixed opinion about. On one hand, I found it rather enjoyable, not to mention Autumn Reeser and Martha Higareda to be very nice to look at, but then it suffered from a cheesy plot, bad CGI effects and there was just something about it that made me think it was not that great. Again, I have a mixed opinion of it. However, I did like the "Death Race" prequels.
|
|
hassanchop
Grimlock
Who are you to doubt Belldandy?
Posts: 14,794
|
Post by hassanchop on Jun 8, 2014 19:48:03 GMT -5
Not sure if this counts, but Battle Royale did not need a sequel.
|
|