Enough With The FUCKING Sequels Already!

[God of War]

Why the fuck can't people just leave well enough alone? I'll never understand it. Everybody has to make a sequel or prequel or something to everything. I guess that it never occurrs to some movie-makers that in some cases, an original stand-alone film needs no sequels/prequels/spinoffs etc. Besides the obvious money issue, alot of franchises have been butchered or are just plain unnecessary. The De2cent is a prime example. Why make this movie and ruin the original's name? I love the original Descent. And now this straight to dvd piece of shit is going to tarnish that film. There is even talk of a 3rd movie. Why? There's absolutely no need for more in this franchise. It's done, finsished. No need...

[ilovemovies]

Well I disagree that a bad or unneccessary sequel tarnishes the original. Although I didn't care for The Descent myself.

Of all the sequels this summer, the most pointless for sure has to be Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2. I mean, really. Did the first one really need a sequel?

But I like sequels for the most part and there are a lot of them that I am looking forward to this summer.

Let's not forgot that if you ask a lot schmoes what movie they are anticipating most this summer, the top 2 that most would mention are sequels.

[Dragula]

Now a day's the studio doesn't give 2 shits if the audience likes the movie or not. It's all about the cash. No matter what people will pay to see the shitty sequeal.

[Tweek]

I fear that soon we will be up to Bring it On 20.:(

[Dragula]

I fear that soon we will be up to Bring it On 20.:(

I know! Enough bringing it on, why don't you bring it off!

[Scarfather]

The worst, most unnecessary sequel of all time will always be Arthur 2: On the Rocks.

[Skittle_boy15]

Well I disagree that a bad or unneccessary sequel tarnishes the original. Although I didn't care for The Descent myself.


Does it really count if its straight-to-video or made-for-tv? I mean there is so much shit floating around as "sequels" to decent movies (I just learned that there was a Cutting Edge 2...when they were advertising for Cutting Edge 3 of course).

Whether or not it totally ruins the original, it can definitely leave a bad taste in your mouth. Take a look at everything Disney has done to rape childhoods with all its worthless, crapped-out sequels.

On the other hand, some sequels are good, especially if they compliment and work well with their previous incarnations. I just watched Saw 4 the other day and thought it was decent and added more to the overall story instead of just continuing with the same plot of torture and try to shock. However, when I went back and rewatched the other 3 I realized that they were tied together a lot more than I remembered and it made me appreciate the whole series that much more because of it. Granted, I don't really see where they are going with a fifth entry but I guess I'll wait and see.

[Repo Man]

Well sometimes sequals can be a good thing and i dont personally mind em unless they are made for some pointless film who no one really cares about. Back to the Future was originally intended as one film but they ended up making 2 more wich was great, i love all of em. Indiana Jones movies are pure sweetness, Star Wars movies, awesome ( ok i may have been able to live without the new trilogy but i dont mind em ).

The Matrix however was something wich sequals didnt really work and they shouldnt have been made imo, i remember walking out of the theatre after seeing the first one and how i thought it all made sense ( or atleast as much sense as the movie can make ) and i thought there wasnt really anything that needed to be added to the film. I was a bit disapointed when i heard that they are gonna make the sequals, i quite like Reloaded but Revolutions is just mostly silly with lots of unintended comical moments and i must say that in my books the sequals kinda ended up hurting the original film.

[TannerBoyle]

Why the fuck can't people just leave well enough alone? I'll never understand it. Everybody has to make a sequel or prequel or something to everything. I guess that it never occurrs to some movie-makers that in some cases, an original stand-alone film needs no sequels/prequels/spinoffs etc. Besides the obvious money issue, alot of franchises have been butchered or are just plain unnecessary. The De2cent is a prime example. Why make this movie and ruin the original's name? I love the original Descent. And now this straight to dvd piece of shit is going to tarnish that film. There is even talk of a 3rd movie. Why? There's absolutely no need for more in this franchise. It's done, finsished. No need...

Look at it this way--just watch what you dig, and leave the rest alone.

For example...I'm a HUGE Halloween fan.

Well--of the first two, anyway.

For me, the Mike Myers saga ended in a firey blaze at the Haddonfield Memorial Hospital in the early morning hours of November 1, 1978.;)

[jackson13]

Of all the sequels this summer, the most pointless for sure has to be Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2. I mean, really. Did the first one really need a sequel?

I'm not trying to defend it, but, yes.

There are like 8 books in the Sisterhood series. They could make 8 movies, if they wanted to, easily.

But really, a sequel to The Descent? That's like making a sequel to High Tension. Similar endings and stuff, ya know. Not really possible to do if you think about it, but yet, somehow, studios do it. And now that I've mentioned it some studio dude will read my post and say 'Sequel to High Tension? BRILLIANT!"

We (legit movie fans) are fucked.

[Le_Big_Mac]

Sequels need to stop being made to run-of-the-mill horror films and the infamous spoof movies, which pretty much leaves nothing around now that warrants one. But we can't lose faith in sequels entirely or there'll never be another Aliens or The Empire Strikes Back.

[Gregorious8]

Now a day's the studio doesn't give 2 shits if the audience likes the movie or not. It's all about the cash. .

What are you talking about? It's always been about money for the studios, all the way back to the beginning of film.

That's why it's called the "entertainment business."

[ilovemovies]

I'm not trying to defend it, but, yes.

There are like 8 books in the Sisterhood series. They could make 8 movies, if they wanted to, easily.




Didn't know that. I hope it's good since I like the cast and the first one was a surprisingly good movie.

[adamjohnson]

There are sequels, and there are cash ins. I dont hold Star Wars, Indy, Matrix, Dark Knight and others in the second category.

But let us not forget the biggest shit fest cash in of all time- the saw series.

[dreamcurls]

love your avatar

but as long as they keep making money, they'll keep producing them.
i know, it sucks.
i hate it too.

[hoojib127]

Yep, it seems any movie that does better than expected at the box office is automatically granted a sequel nowadays. Just goes to show a) how unimaginative studios have become, and b) some people will see any piece of crap more than once.

[Shockwave]

Im going to go in defense of sequels.

Stopping sequels is one of the most foolish notions i keep hearing on these boards.

Theres just been too many good ones to count them out, and i hope they continue.

Godfather 2, Spider-man 2, Empire Strikes Back, T2, Aliens, X2, Superman 2, Evil Dead 2, 28 Weeks Later, Dawn of the Dead, most of the James Bond movies, ect, ect.

I know alot of shit sequels are being made with horror movies, but thats not something thats going to stop. Its alwasy been apart of the movie industry and its going to continue. Sad but true.

Remember how long the Jasona dn Freddy movies ran/are still running?


Im more of a "stop the remakes" type of guy. If they want SNAKE PLISSKIN to return to the big screen, make a sequel and cast the original actor, not some new guy in the saem story weve already seen.

[The Postmaster General]

I'm in the camp that doesn't care if its a remake, sequel, adaptation, reboot, or whatever... My criteria starts and stops with me enjoying the flick.

[adamjohnson]

I'm in the camp that doesn't care if its a remake, sequel, adaptation, reboot, or whatever... My criteria starts and stops with me enjoying the flick.


The problem is, with very few exceptions, modern 'remakes' have been abhorrently low in quality.

That's not counting films like Batman Begins (which many wrongfully consider a remake), or, I dunno, The Fly or the Thing. MOST of them are pure, pure, pure shit. Dawn of the Dead, Shutter, The Grudge, One Missed Call, and on and on - GARBAGE, through and through.

And we all know that they never TRIED to be good. That's the problem.

[Shockwave]

The problem is, with very few exceptions, modern 'remakes' have been abhorrently low in quality.

That's not counting films like Batman Begins (which many wrongfully consider a remake), or, I dunno, The Fly or the Thing. MOST of them are pure, pure, pure shit. Dawn of the Dead, Shutter, The Grudge, One Missed Call, and on and on - GARBAGE, through and through.

And we all know that they never TRIED to be good. That's the problem.


I agee. Kinda.

I dont think many people( Uwe Boll excluded) set out to make a bad movie fromt he start.

I did enjoy the hell out of the THE THING, THE FLY, WILARD, DAWN OF THE DEAD, THE RING, and THE HILLS HAVE EYES remakes. Except for DAWN remake(..which i loved!), i thought all of the ones i just mentioned actualy equaled or surpassed the originals.


..but that doesnt really equal out the countless shit remakes that have sprung out in recent year just for the sake of a quick cash grab by the studio throwing whatever project at whatever director.

Really, its only that bad in the horror side of movies, but that relates to how quick and cheap most horror movies are to make in the first place, and how many sequels they have produced over the years.

Im just WAITING for someone to remake JAWS with a cgi shark.:mad:

[poopontheshoes7]

If they ever, ever, ever touch JAWS, theres gonna be one hell of a mess to clean up.

[God of War]

I think that my small rant has been somewhat misinterpreted by some. A re-read of my opening post is in oder I think. lol

1. I am all for sequels'prequels/spinoffs, and yes, even some remakes. But only when the story requeires more films to tell the tale or whaterver. Star Wars is obviously a prime example. Remakes should only be done when they can be done properly and do the original credit. Otherwise, forget it.

2. I detest sequels'prequels/spinoffs and remakes that are crappy cash in films. I could name many examples. Mostly horror movies.

3. When a film such as The Descent ahs a sequel. To me that's just plain silly. And that is why i chose that film as an example. The frist movie ended perfectly. There is no need for anymore in this franchise.

4. Horror movies seem to be the biggest culprit. Too many shitty sequels are made. Way too many.

To TannerBoyle. Love your post. I also am a huge fan of Halloween. The original and it's sequel. The remake was disgusting. As for watching what I like and not viewing the rest. That unfortunately doesn't alter the fact that studios will continue to pump out shit in the form of mindless waste of money straight to dvd sequels to great films and to somewhat mediocre movies.

What a waste.

[freakandgeek]

i agreeeeeeee!

sometimes you want to see where characters end up. star wars is a perfect example. lord of the rings (even though i know its a book series).
but, having sequels for beverly hills cop, austin powers (im sorry everyone, but i only liked the original)......and beverly hills cop is one of my favorite movies!
its like "i don't care where the story goes"...and, i also dislike when they have sequels and none of the original cast members (ie: jeepers creepers - cept for the boy, but that was stupid).

its like hollywood wants to milk every penny.

and what about the sequels for the movies that don't even do that well (the hills have eyes)

[ilovemovies]

I'm not against sequels or remakes.

Though I will say remaking movies from 80's is outright stupid. Even though I actually enjoyed The Hitcher remake, it was still stupid that it was ever made.

I'm not against remaking foreign movies though. Although I'm sick of all these horror remakes. The Ring, The Grudge, Dark Water, One Missed Call, The Eye, Shutter, ect.

A few of those I enjoyed but I'm really getting sick of them. They all have the same, or atleast very similar, story. It's really getting tired. It seems like they all have the same face and do they really think it's still scary?

But The Departed, despite some problems I had with the last twenty minutes, was nonetheless a VERY good movie and proof that remakes CAN actually be good.

[corran horn]

There are sequels, and there are cash ins. I dont hold Star Wars, Indy, Matrix, Dark Knight and others in the second category.



I'm not against sequels or remakes.

Though I will say remaking movies from 80's is outright stupid. Even though I actually enjoyed The Hitcher remake, it was still stupid that it was ever made.

I'm not against remaking foreign movies though. Although I'm sick of all these horror remakes. The Ring, The Grudge, Dark Water, One Missed Call, The Eye, Shutter, ect.

A few of those I enjoyed but I'm really getting sick of them. They all have the same, or atleast very similar, story. It's really getting tired. It seems like they all have the same face and do they really think it's still scary?

But The Departed, despite some problems I had with the last twenty minutes, was nonetheless a VERY good movie and proof that remakes CAN actually be good.

AMEN! I don't mind a sequel so long as it is good (if not better than its predecessor). I also don't mind a remake if it falls under certain conditions:
1) it's not a remake of something famous or classic
2) it's being helmed by a capable director and cast

Three recent remakes (the third of which is due out in December) meet these criteria:
1) The Departed (what else is there to say?)
2) 3:10 to Yuma (Mangold makes a point in the commentary in saying that remakes are not automatically bad unless they're done for greedy reasons, which his film was, thankfully, not)
3) Brothers: directed by Jim Sheridan and starring Tobey Maguire and Jake Gyllenhaal, this is an American version of a Danish film by Susanne Bier about a man who goes off to war (Maguire) while his younger brother (Gyllenhaal) watches over his family.

[SkyNet]

im not against sequels or remakes, for the most part.. there are some stuff that is just completely ridiculous to remake or add a sequel to.

Bill & Ted's SHOULD NOT be remade! But, i would never oppose a sequel that featured Alex Winter, Keanu Reeves & George Carlin!

i enjoy seeing the continuing adventures of some of my favorite characters. There is such a thing as Raping a franchise, which is what happened with Hannibal Rising, my choice for worst movie ever made!

some times these producers who wanna remake things think taking an idea and updating it for todays marketplace/ youth will equal money.. the only problem is: Today's youth are a bunch of dumbass imbeciles, that could never fully appreciate certain aspects of Cinema that we had when i was younger! (of course there are exceptions to every rule... some kids do appreciate, but for the most part, aside from younguns on Joblo....)!

[Brendan M.]

I loved The Descent and I guess a sequel could have potential, but I doubt it would live up to it. It would need to be well thought out for it to work, especially since the first would be better off standing on its own.

All sequels should be well thought out because so many pointless ones are produced these days. Or I don't think there ever really was a day and age when we didn't have bad sequels to movies. Jaws 4: The Revenge, and even dating back to Revolt of the Zombies. And regarding the Universal Monsters, Bride of Frankenstein may have been the only good sequel made to any of those monster movies, although the Creature of the Black Lagoon trilogy was quite interesting.

[The Postmaster General]

The problem is, with very few exceptions, modern 'remakes' have been abhorrently low in quality.

That's not counting films like Batman Begins (which many wrongfully consider a remake), or, I dunno, The Fly or the Thing. MOST of them are pure, pure, pure shit. Dawn of the Dead, Shutter, The Grudge, One Missed Call, and on and on - GARBAGE, through and through.

And we all know that they never TRIED to be good. That's the problem.


Yeah, but I think the market is flooded with bad movies in general. Even with all those bad movies, you still have The Departed, 3:10 to Yuma, King Kong...

I just think bad movies are always made, but just now, there's more movies in general. There's nothing convincing me that a remake, sequel, whatever... is inherently bad because for every bad remake, there are probably 50 bad non-remakes. I'll even go as far to say the ratio to good:bad films is the same, or even lower, than good:bad remakes.

[Digifruitella]

Why the fuck can't people just leave well enough alone?

http://www.newsweek.com/media/25/71014_MoneyHappiness_vl-vertical.jpg

[Brendan M.]

Yeah, but I think the market is flooded with bad movies in general. Even with all those bad movies, you still have The Departed, 3:10 to Yuma, King Kong...

I just think bad movies are always made, but just now, there's more movies in general. There's nothing convincing me that a remake, sequel, whatever... is inherently bad because for every bad remake, there are probably 50 bad non-remakes. I'll even go as far to say the ratio to good:bad films is the same, or even lower, than good:bad remakes.

I love the departed and 3:10, but I thought king kong was awful.

[Skittle_boy15]

I love the departed and 3:10, but I thought king kong was awful.

Did you think the story of King Kong was awful or just the remake? And are you comparing it to a better version of Kong made previously? If so, I hope you aren't comparing it to 70's version which was also, in fact, a remake. Personally I thought it was pretty good and stayed pretty faithful to the original story, just could've used a little tightening up on that overly long boat ride.

[LordSimen]

I love sequels. Keep 'em coming. :D

[The Postmaster General]

I love the departed and 3:10, but I thought king kong was awful.


I wasn't a fan much at all, but it was successful with both audiences and critics. As much weight as I'd like to think I have in the film industry, I know there's a lot more people gauging whether the film was worth it or not.

Anyway. Yeah, that whole post was pretty much not intended to make the point that everyone likes King Kong.

[cloneofkelso]

i agree alot of them suck but then there are some really good ones to
ace ventura when nature calls
tmnt secret of the ooze
ghostbusters 2
batman rteurns
spiderman 2

[Brendan M.]

Did you think the story of King Kong was awful or just the remake? And are you comparing it to a better version of Kong made previously? If so, I hope you aren't comparing it to 70's version which was also, in fact, a remake. Personally I thought it was pretty good and stayed pretty faithful to the original story, just could've used a little tightening up on that overly long boat ride.

I couldn't get into the film at all. Simple as that. The thing that bothered me the most though was King King ice skating.

[smok3h]

Personally I love sequels. Just avoid the shitty ones.

[Juliet Bravo]

There are actually some advantages in shooting a sequel. We already are acquainted with most of the characters in the plot, and we can now focus on their inner turmoils and character development. If done well, I wouldn't mind it. Spiderman 2 and 3 didn't suck, in my opinion.

As for The Descent sequel...I have to admit that I'm a little curious. I liked the original. We're talking about that movie with the women trapped in a cave with gollum-like creatures, right?

[Antonio141]

I don't mind sequels as much as I'm insulted by remakes!

[God of War]

We're talking about that movie with the women trapped in a cave with gollum-like creatures, right?
Yep.

[porkchopexpress]

I only agree with remakes if there was something inherently wrong with the original, it may have had a great plot but was very poorly executed. With sequels I think they are justified as long as the story and characters are rich enough and have enough depth so that people want to see where they go and what they do next