Best Ever Albums

Re: Unnecessary Sequels

Anonymous — Sat, 26 Oct 2013 10:52:13 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/26/2013 14:52

lethalnezzle wrote:

Clerks 2 was hilarious.

That's why it's on my other list too. 😎

Re: Unnecessary Sequels

Anonymous — Sat, 26 Oct 2013 10:13:34 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/26/2013 14:13

sp4cetiger wrote:

Movies that were severely cheapened by the existence of a sequel:

Clerks

Clerks 2 was hilarious.

Re: Unnecessary Sequels

Anonymous — Sat, 26 Oct 2013 06:29:58 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/26/2013 10:29

Movie sequels usually suck because they're just exploitation, envisioned only as a way of making money off of the success of another movie. Often the original cast/director will back out for sequels, reducing the chance of quality even more. The exceptions are sequels that are within the scope of the story as it was originally envisioned, like Empire Strikes Back or the Lord of the Rings sequels.

I think some of it is just a selection effect, though. They only make sequels to really good movies (for the most part), so even an average movie is going to seem bad in comparison. My favorite sequels, in addition to some of those RockyRaccoon mentioned, include

Hellraiser 2
Dawn of the Dead (sort of a sequel)
Matrix 2
Clerks 2
Both Austin Powers sequels

Movies that were severely cheapened by the existence of a sequel:

Blair Witch Project
Jurassic Park
Clerks

Re: Unnecessary Sequels

Listmeister — Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:29:13 GMT

Author: Listmeister

Posted: 10/25/2013 14:29

Patman360 wrote:

How could this possibly be a bad movie? 🤔

People don't like Die Hard 2 and Die Hard With A Vengeance? But they're awesome, with all the explosions and terrorists and Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson being bad-ass and what not. 8)

My personal favorite genre of movies is
Good Triumphs Over Evil But Not Before A Whole Bunch Of Stuff Blows Up.

I used to give out annual awards for the best, I think Die Hard and With a Vengence (but not Die Harder) won for their years. I'll have to dig up that list and check it again.

More recently Iron Man 3 has a crowning moment of awesome where (spoiler ahead, but it's early in the movie so it doesn't spoil that much) Iron Man destroys a helicopter with a piano. Apparently, piano > helicopter. Not sure why I'm bringing this up, but it was just so amazing.

Re: Unnecessary Sequels

Jackwc — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 21:04:14 GMT

Author: Jackwc

Posted: 10/25/2013 01:04

Jhereko wrote:

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

]

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

Soooo much better than the original.

But Shrek 2? Are you for real?

Re: Unnecessary Sequels

Evandar — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:59:32 GMT

Author: Evandar

Posted: 10/24/2013 18:59

What can I say? I love the original Die Hard, but for each sequel they seemed more and more hellbent on taking things to the extreme, which didn't work, in my opinion (unless you're counting they worked in a "going to the theater to watch a braindead action flick that doesn't warrant repeated viewings" sort of way, then yes, they worked beautifully). Things were already rather extreme in the first one, but it had a lot of soul as well.

Re: Unnecessary Sequels

ShaneSpear — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:18:51 GMT

Author: ShaneSpear

Posted: 10/24/2013 18:18

Die Hard 3 took a strong turn downwards after the dream team stopped doing puzzles and ended up on a boat full of pancake syrup and later somehow in Canada.

Re: Unnecessary Sequels

RockyRaccoon — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:00:40 GMT

Author: RockyRaccoon

Posted: 10/24/2013 17:00

Patman360 wrote:

People don't like Die Hard 2 and Die Hard With A Vengeance? But they're awesome, with all the explosions and terrorists and Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson being bad-ass and what not. 8)

Die Hard With A Vengeance is fantastic.

Die Hard 2 is stupid. They take the airport hostage and the planes can't land? For real? There's like three other airports they could just go land at, no problem. It's good as just pure action porn, but it's not a whole lot more than that (though a lot of people would argue that the whole Die Hard franchise is just action porn, which is understandable, though I would disagree).

Re: Unnecessary Sequels

RockyRaccoon — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 12:58:16 GMT

Author: RockyRaccoon

Posted: 10/24/2013 16:58

Cymro2011 wrote:

You aren't missing out on much.

I figured as much. That's most of the reason I didn't see it.

Re: Unnecessary Sequels

Patman360 — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:46:21 GMT

Author: Patman360

Posted: 10/24/2013 15:46

Listmeister wrote:

Here's some sequels and prequels that I hope never get made:
Sharknado Blizzard

Re: Unnecessary Sequels

Cymro2011 — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:41:36 GMT

Author: Cymro2011

Posted: 10/24/2013 15:41

RockyRaccoon wrote:

(though I didn't see the most recent one).

You aren't missing out on much.

Re: Unnecessary Sequels

RockyRaccoon — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:00:42 GMT

Author: RockyRaccoon

Posted: 10/24/2013 15:00

Evandar wrote:

Except for "Die Hard With a Vengeance", which is really not a remotely good movie. Even the second one was rather meh compared to the first one. :/

HOW DARE YOU INSULT THE BEAUTIFUL WORK OF ART THAT IS DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE? HOW DARE YOU?

Though I'll agree, the second was shit. Worst Die Hard I've seen (though I didn't see the most recent one).

Re: Unnecessary Sequels

Listmeister — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:52:12 GMT

Author: Listmeister

Posted: 10/24/2013 14:52

Here's some sequels and prequels that I hope never get made:

Ocean's 5: The Teenage Years
Ironboy
Prince Kong
XI: Son of Malcolm
The Postman II: The UPS Guy
The Penultimate of the Mohicans
Sharknado Blizzard
Slumdog's Second Million
Plus Miserables
Steven Spielberg's Andrew Johnson
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Silly Rabbit
She's All That II: She's Even Thattier
Bieber and Hammerstein's The King and II

Re: Unnecessary Sequels

Evandar — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:23:38 GMT

Author: Evandar

Posted: 10/24/2013 14:23

nutso42 wrote:

Finally, someone got the necessary sequels right.

Except for "Die Hard With a Vengeance", which is really not a remotely good movie. Even the second one was rather meh compared to the first one. :/

Re: Unnecessary Sequels

Evandar — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:22:41 GMT

Author: Evandar

Posted: 10/24/2013 14:22

drakonium wrote:

I think sweden was joking about that fact that Dino (lol) was saying that The Godfather II is the other 0.1% when he should have been saying that it is part of the other 0.1%. Because indeed, if the whole 0.1% is represented by The Godfather II alone, then there are only 1000 sequels in the world. swedenman is a nazi.

Oh, well, sorry, my bad. :/

Re: Unnecessary Sequels

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Oct 2013 23:30:34 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/24/2013 03:30

RockyRaccoon wrote:

I like necessary sequels too. Maybe even one or two that were better than the original.

Empire Strikes Back (best Star Wars film, duh)
The Godfather II
Die Hard With A Vengence
Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan (100000000x better than the first)
Mad Max 2 (better than the original)
The Silence Of The Lambs (if you count it)
Terminator 2
Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers as well as Return Of The King
The Dark Knight
Aliens
Spider-Man 2
X2
Toy Story 2

Finally, someone got the necessary sequels right.

Re: Unnecessary Sequels

pearljammer13 — Wed, 23 Oct 2013 14:18:24 GMT

Author: pearljammer13

Posted: 10/23/2013 18:18

Dumb and Dumberer was terrible.

Dumb and Dumber To is filming now. I have high hopes for this one since Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels are actually signed on. One can only hope it's even remotely close to the brilliant quality of the original.

Re: Unnecessary Sequels

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:09:55 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/23/2013 15:09

SquishypuffDave wrote:

@Jhereko, the second and third films treated the toys' relationship with Andy in a much more complex manner. I'm not saying they were better, just that they explore interesting territory that the first film doesn't. Woody confronting the ephemerality of his relationship with Andy in the second film, passing up the opportunity for a false immortality, then facing the consequences of this decision in the third film, accepting death, then miraculously experiencing rebirth. That's some compelling shit.

I like the horse. He walks funny.

Re: Unnecessary Sequels

SquishypuffDave — Wed, 23 Oct 2013 00:52:18 GMT

Author: SquishypuffDave

Posted: 10/23/2013 04:52

@Jhereko, the second and third films treated the toys' relationship with Andy in a much more complex manner. I'm not saying they were better, just that they explore interesting territory that the first film doesn't. Woody confronting the ephemerality of his relationship with Andy in the second film, passing up the opportunity for a false immortality, then facing the consequences of this decision in the third film, accepting death, then miraculously experiencing rebirth. That's some compelling shit.

Re: Unnecessary Sequels

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Oct 2013 00:35:46 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/23/2013 04:35

RockyRaccoon wrote:

I like necessary sequels too. Maybe even one or two that were better than the original.

Empire Strikes Back (best Star Wars film, duh)
The Godfather II
Die Hard With A Vengence
The Lost World: Jurassic Park
Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan (100000000x better than the first)
Mad Max 2 (better than the original)
The Silence Of The Lambs (if you count it)
Terminator 2
Jurassic World
Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers as well as Return Of The King
The Dark Knight
Jurassic Park III
Aliens
Spider-Man 2
X2
Toy Story 2

this