Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

[Spandau Belly]

Yes, I think Die Hard should've been left alone. I don't think there should've been sequels. DH2 is more even than DH3, DH2 doesn't have the high highs of DH3, but it also doesn't have the really shitty spots either. It's just so ..... sequelly. All the self-referetial jokes, all the absurd coincidence to recreate such a similiar situation as the first film, all the lame contrivance to bring back characters from the first one. Renny Harlin films the action well and if they cut out all the sequelly stuff and changed McClane's name and got a different actor to play the lead character it might've actually been good as a Die Hard knockoff like Under Siege or Sudden Death or whatever.

I've only seen the unrated cut of DH4 on DVD, so I don't know how much of it was trimmed for the theatrical cut. I will say that most of my enjoyment of that film came from McClane cussing and killing people in violent ways, so if they trimmed too much of that stuff I could see it being a less than passable film. I watched it with pretty low standards and had an okay time. It's got some of the same problems as the other sequels and some more lame self-refential humour, but it's at least not a rehash like DH2 and not horribly uneven like DH3. I like it the most of any of the DH sequels, which isn't saying much. But if you hated it in cinemas, you'll probably still not like it in its unrated cut.

[Lord Voldemoo]

Yep. No movie particularly NEEDS a sequel unless it's been made with further movies already in mind. It's a strategy which ultimately leaves the first film to be incomplete, unsatisfying and leave dangling threads. In fact, if a film can't stand up on it's own, it doesn't deserve a sequel.

Interesting. I tend to agree, but.......

what about the uber obvious examples of, say, Fellowship of the Ring or Empire Strikes Back. The films are incomplete, and leave dangling threads, by design. While both films are immensely enjoyable on their own, they can't "stand on their own" as they are parts of a larger story.

I'm probably getting into semantics as to what it means for a film to stand on its own.

[Ribbons]

I kind of feel like the first one should have been left alone. I'm with Baxter that most sequels are technically unnecessary, but a couple of franchises in particular I think would have been better off as standalone films. Die Hard is one of them. The whole conceit of Die Hard was that a normal guy ends up saving the world due in part to moxie and due in part to dumb luck. That obviously goes out the window once he saves the world 4 times, especially since McClane's abilities become progressively, ridiculously superhuman with each film. You can chalk (some of) that up to experience, but then that sort of undermines the character's everyman appeal. Also the fact that I didn't like any of the three sequels doesn't help, but again it's hard for me to separate how much of that is the quality of the films themselves or how much of that is just my cynicism towards the concept. Even Die Hard-durr, the only other sequel that most "Die Hard die hards" actually like. Saving the world at all is pretty ridiculous, but I can dig that whole "oh my god, I can't believe this is happening to me!" thing once. Not so much when it's like "oh my god, I can't believe this is happening to me! Again! Only louder and dumber!" The fact that McClane actually knows he has a catchphrase now practically pisses on everything the first film stood for. It's like... it's like punching the American flag in the face, goddammit!

[/slight exaggeration]

[RogueScribner]

I think the sequels have diluted the Die Hard cachet. While they all have varying degrees of coolness, none of them match the first film. I love John McClane so I'll take any opportunity I can to see him. But I do think the franchise has veered far from what made the first film so cool and so it's all a bit formulaic now. I think the 3rd act of DH3 blows, DH4 strained believability in parts, and DH2 was just DH1 amped up to 11 (and not in a good way). DH1 was about a normal guy thrust into an incredible situation and barely coming out the other side. The sequels were about a supercop.

[papalazeru]

Yep. No movie particularly NEEDS a sequel unless it's been made with further movies already in mind. It's a strategy which ultimately leaves the first film to be incomplete, unsatisfying and leave dangling threads. In fact, if a film can't stand up on it's own, it doesn't deserve a sequel.

Interesting. I tend to agree, but.......

what about the uber obvious examples of, say, Fellowship of the Ring or Empire Strikes Back. The films are incomplete, and leave dangling threads, by design. While both films are immensely enjoyable on their own, they can't "stand on their own" as they are parts of a larger story.

I'm probably getting into semantics as to what it means for a film to stand on its own.

I kinda of like dangling strands from a film which are incomplete. I find a film that ties itself up too neatly a little too fake. It also allows me to think on the way those will end, which keeps me pondering the characters and the story that bit longer.

Even lovely perfect bundles of joy like A new hope left a few dangling strands like Han, after getting his medal from his last minute crisis of conscience, does he stay with the rebels or go, after all he's a lifelong wheeler dealer. And what happened to Darth Vader?

I liked pondering those questions at the end of a film.

[Spandau Belly]

I think movies where you just see a cop or agent type guy work a case are the best/easiest thing to sequelize because you can just send them out on another case. James Bond can always go on another assignment. Dirty H@rry can always get another case. I'm actually really surprised they never made Bullitt 2.

Die Hard fits more into a disaster movie category in that it's an unlikely situation that causes a hero to emerge. Die Hard was as much about the whole situation and supporting characters as it was about McClane.

I guess one of the least likely movies to get a sequel that did (five sequels infact) would probably be ROCKY. I actually like all the Rocky movies except for number 5, but it's a weird movie to sequelize if you think about it because it's a drama that involves so much change in the lead character's life. Most dramas don't sequelize well and people typically make jokes about the possibility of a sequel to dramas because of how conclusive dramas typically are. I mean, can you imagine a sequel to The Shawshank Redemption or something?

[RogueScribner]

Weren't they planning a sequel to Indian Summer called Nuclear Winter?

[Fried Gold]

I mean, can you imagine a sequel to The Shawshank Redemption or something?

The Mexico-set buddy movie about two guys building not just a boat, but a friendship?

[papalazeru]

I mean, can you imagine a sequel to The Shawshank Redemption or something?

The Mexico-set buddy movie about two guys building not just a boat, but a friendship?

Rated PG-13

[so sorry]

I mean, can you imagine a sequel to The Shawshank Redemption or something?

The Mexico-set buddy movie about two guys building not just a boat, but a friendship?

Rated PG-13

Not if they have flashbacks of their ass-rapings.

[RogueScribner]

So those will only be in flashbacks then?

[papalazeru]

So those will only be in flashbacks then?

Yeah, but stylised like Flatliners, so the past is coming back to haunt them.

Richard Dreyfuss can do the voice over.

[Fried Gold]

I mean, can you imagine a sequel to The Shawshank Redemption or something?

The Mexico-set buddy movie about two guys building not just a boat, but a friendship?

Rated PG-13

NO IT NEEDS TO BE HARD-R OR IT WON'T BE ANY GOOD

[papalazeru]

I mean, can you imagine a sequel to The Shawshank Redemption or something?

The Mexico-set buddy movie about two guys building not just a boat, but a friendship?

Rated PG-13

NO IT NEEDS TO BE HARD-R OR IT WON'T BE ANY GOOD

I Brokeback my Sore Shank.

[TheBaxter]

Chernobyl doesn't need a sequel, but it looks like it just might get one

[Ribbons]

Chernobyl 2: Nuclear Boogaloo

[so sorry]

Chernobyl 2: Nuclear Boogaloo

I want to LOL at this, but sadly it’s kinda true.