Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

New movies! Old movies! B-movies! Discuss discuss discuss!!!

Postby papalazeru on Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:42 am

I know what Santa baby is bringing you.....

Image
Papa: The musical!

Padders: "Not very classy! Not very classy at all!"
So Sorry "I'll give you a word to describe it: classless."
Cptn Kirks 2pay: ".....utterly unclassy....."
DennisMM: "...Decidedly unclassy..."
User avatar
papalazeru
Not very classy! Not very classy at all!!
 
Posts: 11475
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:26 am

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Fri Nov 23, 2007 2:27 pm

Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:What about Rocky guys?

What was once an open and closed case of a story of a guy not mattering wether he won or not and that was the message, period. - Now decided, not just to go one more movie just to satisfy all the victory seeking mofos in the movie house with Rocky 2, but then thought, well he's champ now, so let's give him a REAL test of a champ with Rocky 3, then thought, well he's WELL HARD now, so let's give him a show of just how REALLY UNBELIEVABLY SUPERHEROICLY STRONG he is with Rocky 4, then when they should have left it for definite here, as Stallone himself said, there's nowhere else left to go and anything else would be antimclimatic, they decided to piss all over Rocky's message of life success by doing Rocky 5, hoping to give him a REAL challenge of life survival but only making Rocky fans feel betrayed (crappy way it all went pear shaped for him in this film anyway), and then, 'cos Stallone wanted to make amends so much and probably just needed another hit, they give him a chance to hit back at life and go out happily in Rocky Balboa - even though the dude was in his 60s!?


I mean, one movie was enough, but even though you think, in for a penny in for a pound, you could have at least ended it at Rocky 3 or 4 - and even then, that's a stretch! It really should just have been one movie. But to go 6 MOVIES?!??!!?

WTF!??!?!?!





That's why I'm counting the days until Christmas and being a good little boy and not chasing little girls, just so that Santa baby can get me the Rocky 6 movie boxed set plus the Rocky Balboa soundtrack including virtually all of the movies' scores!!! Heeheheeeheee!!!!!


So, comments on this series, anyone? Necessary Evils, I mean, Sequels?


I f*rking hate it when someone posts something and it ends up on the very bottom of the last page where people most likely won't see it. Thanks for quoting me, Papa! :x
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16617
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Postby Fawst on Fri Nov 23, 2007 2:53 pm

Dee E. Goppstober wrote:Yeah, especially since the novel was written as a sequel of the movie really, was it not? That in itself is silly I think- I mean if you write a story, then continue that story- and not one you didn't come up with in the first place, right?


This happened with Jurassic Park. The Lost World was a novel based on a film, then the film based on that novel didn't even adapt it well. In fact, I will go so far as to say that The Lost World, the novel, was FAR superior to the film.

Beyond that, Jurassic Park 3 just didn't need to be made.

You know what really didn't need a sequel, but the sequel turned out to be a far better movie? House. House II: The Second Story was AWESOME compared to the original. It was cheesey comedic "horror." With a fucking ZOMBIE OUTLAW COWBOY. ON A ZOMBIE OUTLAW COWBOY HORSE. Winner.
Prince of the Land of Stench!
User avatar
Fawst
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3088
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:11 pm
Location: MacLaren's

Postby Maui on Fri Nov 23, 2007 2:57 pm

Meet the Parents 2

As if Meet the Parents wasn't bad enough.
User avatar
Maui
WoWie
 
Posts: 7608
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 10:19 pm

Postby minstrel on Fri Nov 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Fawst wrote:
Dee E. Goppstober wrote:Yeah, especially since the novel was written as a sequel of the movie really, was it not? That in itself is silly I think- I mean if you write a story, then continue that story- and not one you didn't come up with in the first place, right?


This happened with Jurassic Park. The Lost World was a novel based on a film, then the film based on that novel didn't even adapt it well. In fact, I will go so far as to say that The Lost World, the novel, was FAR superior to the film.


It also happened with First Blood. In the novel, Rambo died. He didn't in the movie, and Stallone made the sequel. The original novelist wrote the novelization of the second movie and had to include a disclaimer at the beginning saying that the book was a sequel to the movie, and not to his original novel.
"Everybody is equally shitty and wrong." - Ribbons
User avatar
minstrel
Leader of the Insquirrelgency
 
Posts: 12634
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: Area 52

Postby St. Alphonzo on Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:01 pm

Maui wrote:Meet the Parents 2

As if Meet the Parents wasn't bad enough.



God bless you Maui! I thought I was the only person in this country who despised Meet The Parents. It was all I could do not to turn it off after a half-hour.

Never did subject myself to the sequel.
ImageImage
User avatar
St. Alphonzo
Patron Saint
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:20 pm
Location: Stumptown

Postby Maui on Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:11 pm

St. Alphonzo wrote:
Maui wrote:Meet the Parents 2

As if Meet the Parents wasn't bad enough.



God bless you Maui! I thought I was the only person in this country who despised Meet The Parents. It was all I could do not to turn it off after a half-hour.

Never did subject myself to the sequel.



hahahah - just didn't tickle me funny bone.

I'd also like to add:

Cheaper by the Dozen 2

The only funny stuff in those movies was the dynamic between Levy and Martin - otherwise both movies royally sucked.

bleh bleh bleh
User avatar
Maui
WoWie
 
Posts: 7608
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 10:19 pm

Postby The Vicar on Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:14 pm

Maui wrote:Meet the Parents 2

As if Meet the Parents wasn't bad enough.


DeNiro will be called to answer for this.
.
........................................
Image
User avatar
The Vicar
Fear & Loathing in the Zone
 
Posts: 16179
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:21 am

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:13 pm

ok, then, let's go one better, or one worser.

Prequels. All those f*rking Prequels. 'xake!!

Do we need to see ANY of them? Or are some necessary?

Like do we need the SW for starters? Even if they DID end up as better stories than what we got? Do we really HAVE to see 'how Joe Bloggs became Joe Bloggs, etc etc.'?
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16617
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Postby Chilli on Fri Nov 23, 2007 6:00 pm

Didn't need a damn one of them, Kirk.
User avatar
Chilli
The Unfriendly Ghost
 
Posts: 6869
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Wales

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Fri Nov 23, 2007 6:02 pm

Well I dunno about you CHilli or others, but I have absolute f*ck all to negative interest in seeing that fricking new Star Trek 'WHEN THEY WERE YOUNGER WAAAAYYYYY!!!!!!!' movie. I think that thread in here is a fahking disgrasssssssssssse!!
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16617
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Postby Chilli on Fri Nov 23, 2007 6:04 pm

I'll go see it, but it bugs me a little. I'm not sure whether they're aware of how much the slighest continuity hick-up will piss off the fanbase. That's a major problem with prequels, you want to tell an engaging story but have to keep in mind that the continuity has to be tracked so much tighter than any other story.

Makes me wonder what the point is artistically.
User avatar
Chilli
The Unfriendly Ghost
 
Posts: 6869
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Wales

Postby Fried Gold on Fri Nov 23, 2007 6:09 pm

Fawst wrote:
Dee E. Goppstober wrote:Yeah, especially since the novel was written as a sequel of the movie really, was it not? That in itself is silly I think- I mean if you write a story, then continue that story- and not one you didn't come up with in the first place, right?


This happened with Jurassic Park. The Lost World was a novel based on a film, then the film based on that novel didn't even adapt it well. In fact, I will go so far as to say that The Lost World, the novel, was FAR superior to the film.

The Lost World novel was not based on the Jurassic Park film - it followed on from the Jurassic Park novel. Frankly, I didn't think much of The Lost World novel...but liked the film.

2010: Odyssey Two is an example of a novel sequel being based on a film adaptation. Arthur C Clarke used the film of 2001 as the source rather than the book. This leaves the first book slightly detached from the rest.
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13930
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Postby DinoDeLaurentiis on Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:10 pm

Fried Gold wrote:The Lost World novel was not based on the Jurassic Park film - it followed on from the Jurassic Park novel.


Bah! Anna even a then, after a the goddamn Crichton, he clearly kill off a the goddamn Malcom inna the first novel, eh? Only a to bring a him a back a 'cos a the goddamn Goldblum turn him inna'to a the most popular character from a the first a film, no?

Anna he blows it alla off with a the line like a the goddamn "I'm a not dead, eh?" onna the first page, eh?

Goddamn putz.
User avatar
DinoDeLaurentiis
SHE'S A THE SARAH SILVERMAN
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: Private Villa inna Santorini

Postby The Vicar on Sat Nov 24, 2007 12:07 am

Fried Gold wrote:
Fawst wrote:
Dee E. Goppstober wrote:Yeah, especially since the novel was written as a sequel of the movie really, was it not? That in itself is silly I think- I mean if you write a story, then continue that story- and not one you didn't come up with in the first place, right?


This happened with Jurassic Park. The Lost World was a novel based on a film, then the film based on that novel didn't even adapt it well. In fact, I will go so far as to say that The Lost World, the novel, was FAR superior to the film.

The Lost World novel was not based on the Jurassic Park film - it followed on from the Jurassic Park novel. Frankly, I didn't think much of The Lost World novel...but liked the film.

2010: Odyssey Two is an example of a novel sequel being based on a film adaptation. Arthur C Clarke used the film of 2001 as the source rather than the book. This leaves the first book slightly detached from the rest.


I really liked 2010, though.
Helluva great cast.
Wonder if the third book will ever get filmed?
.
........................................
Image
User avatar
The Vicar
Fear & Loathing in the Zone
 
Posts: 16179
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:21 am

Postby Maui on Sat Nov 24, 2007 12:11 am

papalazeru wrote:I know what Santa baby is bringing you.....

Image



Lugz's face looks like a Dairy Queen Dilly Bar.
User avatar
Maui
WoWie
 
Posts: 7608
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 10:19 pm

Postby darkjedijaina on Sat Nov 24, 2007 12:29 am

Maui wrote:Lugz's face looks like a Dairy Queen Dilly Bar.


awh, man. you're making me hungry....
User avatar
darkjedijaina
BAD ASH
 
Posts: 7197
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:41 am
Location: Houston, TX

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:39 am

I always thought that Jurassic Park 3 and Terminator 3 were CRIMINAL waste of money and time crimes.

What the f*rk point was there to JP3? There was hardly any story to it at all, let alone any advancement to the story left off from the 2nd film? Just a set piece retread of the first 2!

Terminator 3. What, $150 milly odd spent on that, just to again, repeat the first 2 movies!!!!???? Only not as good?! Are you taking the f*cking piss!?!!??!

I thought that T3 would have finally shown us the Machine War from the trailer, something that 2 movies in already, we still haven't gotten round to. One formula repeat of Terminator was enough with T2, but to do it a 3RD TIME?!?!!? Get the f*rk out!!! Instead of showing us the War, they bloody well saved it for the last 5 MINUTES!!!!!!!

No need for T3!! At least show the war getting going half way through that movie, therefore making it different from the other 2 and setting out a decent transcendment of a 'guys on the run from Killer Robot' to 'this is what it's REALLY all about, The War of the Machines', but instead they REPEAT the run away from Mr Bad Robot again!

Oh, but what you don't get Kirk is that there's a twist this time! The Killer Robot, get this, you'll love it - she's a FEMALE!!!!!!

Oh God, head in hands.
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16617
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Postby bakerboy on Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:36 am

dunno if its been mentioned so far but speed 2 cruise control
MacReady: I know I'm human. And if you were all these things, then you'd just attack me right now, so some of you are still human. This thing doesn't want to show itself, it wants to hide inside an imitation.
bakerboy
GLIB
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:49 am
Location: scotland

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Sat Nov 24, 2007 12:35 pm

Oh Boy!! Speed 2! Set on an ocean liner - which really doesn't give off that sense of er, Speed. Even with Keanu aboard that, I'd still feel there'd be a pointlessness to it.

The way I see it, you should do a sequel if it's sorta like 'the continuing adventures of a character that you just have so much more things that you can do something with and explore', not a formula.

Which gives over to the Home Alones for one thing.
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16617
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Postby The Vicar on Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:15 pm

bakerboy wrote:dunno if its been mentioned so far but speed 2 cruise control


Damn you, n00b.
No one is supposed to type that out loud.
Not here.
Not ever.
Go my son, and sin no more.
.
........................................
Image
User avatar
The Vicar
Fear & Loathing in the Zone
 
Posts: 16179
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:21 am

Postby King Of Nowhere on Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:16 pm

No one mentioning the Vacation movies they made recently?

Cousin Eddie's Adventure or some shit.
User avatar
King Of Nowhere
SPAM Killer!
 
Posts: 6173
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 4:36 pm

Postby Fried Gold on Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:18 pm

And you just know whoever decided Speed 2 was good idea was also thinking of a Speed 3: Train/Plane/Spacecraft sequel too.
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13930
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Postby Maui on Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:19 pm

Big Top Pee Wee

Sure, I chuckled at Pee Wee's Big Adventure - but I don't think we needed a 2nd one, eh?
User avatar
Maui
WoWie
 
Posts: 7608
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 10:19 pm

Postby instant_karma on Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:54 pm

The best Speed sequel was the Father Ted episode with the milk float...
User avatar
instant_karma
Comes in 4 exciting flavours
 
Posts: 2863
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:57 am
Location: Thereabouts

Postby minstrel on Sat Nov 24, 2007 2:39 pm

Well, I'm going to nominate The NeverEnding Story. The film only adapts the first half of the book, so I guess you could say it needed a sequel.

Just not the one it got.
"Everybody is equally shitty and wrong." - Ribbons
User avatar
minstrel
Leader of the Insquirrelgency
 
Posts: 12634
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: Area 52

Postby jcannon on Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:39 pm

Smokey and the Bandit
Smokey and the Bandit Part 2
Dumb and Dumber
The Mask
"A life of booze, drugs and unprotected sex is only going to fuck you up! I mean, look at me!"
-Ozzy Osbourne
jcannon
GLIB
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:15 pm
Location: Wareham, MA

Postby Fievel on Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:53 pm

Revenge Of The Nerds
American Pie
Meatballs
The Godfather II
Day Of The Dead (there's a shitty Direct to DVD film)
Clerks (didn't hate the sequel, but it didn't need it)
Superman II (both the old sequel and the Singer sequel - would have preferred a new beginning)
Back To The Future II (I just hate the third installment so much)
Beverly Hills Cop (sequels sucked)
Dream A Little Dream (because the first one ROCKED)
Fantastic Four
Children Of The Corn
Daddy Day Care
Achievement Unlocked: TOTAL DOMINATION (Win a Werewolf Game without losing a single player on your team)
User avatar
Fievel
Mouse Of The House
 
Posts: 12145
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:07 pm
Location: White Lake, MI

Postby buster00 on Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:22 pm

The Blues Brothers.

Slap Shot.

And, I Know What You Did Last Summer.

I'm sure I'm not the first to notice, but I Still Know What You Did Last Summer takes place a year after the original.

Shouldn't it be called I Know What You Did Two Summers Ago?
User avatar
buster00
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 6401
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:12 pm

Re: Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

Postby TheButcher on Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:41 am

From The Playlist: Francis Ford Coppola Admits More Than One 'Godfather' Film Was A Bad Idea
"I don’t think 'Godfather' ever should have had more than one movie, actually. It was not a serial, it was a drama. The first movie wrapped up everything. To make more than one Godfather was just greed.
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

Postby Spandau Belly on Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:12 am

Die Hard

Even though I've enjoyed parts of DH3 (mostly in the first half) and had an okay time in DH4, I just thought the first one was driven so much by an unlikely situation that making sequels pushed the coincidence too far.

Stuff like James Bond or Lethal Weapon can sequelize easier because they show the heroes on the job when they're seeking out these situations, but a guy who keeps ending up in them on his spare time is stupid.
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Re: Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

Postby RogueScribner on Tue Jun 09, 2009 11:54 am

Well, to be fair, McClane didn't stumble upon the threats in the last two movies while relaxing on vacation or anything. He was working in his hometown in NYC and was purposefully targeted by the villain in DH3 and he was on the job protecting someone the villain wanted dead in DH4.
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Re: Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

Postby RogueScribner on Tue Jun 09, 2009 11:58 am

TheButcher wrote:From The Playlist: Francis Ford Coppola Admits More Than One 'Godfather' Film Was A Bad Idea
"I don’t think 'Godfather' ever should have had more than one movie, actually. It was not a serial, it was a drama. The first movie wrapped up everything. To make more than one Godfather was just greed.


I wonder if TG3 was heaped with praise like the first two movies were if he'd still be saying that. Obviously since the first sequel was a critical and financial success (one of the rare sequels to win Best Picture!) the idea of continuing a drama isn't automatically a bad idea. It's all in how you handle it. It wasn't handled as well for TG3 as the TG2, that's all.
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Re: Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

Postby Spandau Belly on Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:52 pm

RogueScribner wrote:Well, to be fair, McClane didn't stumble upon the threats in the last two movies while relaxing on vacation or anything. He was working in his hometown in NYC and was purposefully targeted by the villain in DH3 and he was on the job protecting someone the villain wanted dead in DH4.


I guess having Gruber's brother also be a master thief who was planning an elaborate score that happened to be in McClane's town isn't an absurd coincidence in your book, but it is in mine.

But I'll agree with you that the fourth one was the least absurd of a contrivance to put McClane at the core of a terrorist situation.
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Re: Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

Postby King Of Nowhere on Tue Jun 09, 2009 3:25 pm

Spandau Belly wrote:I guess having Gruber's brother also be a master thief who was planning an elaborate score that happened to be in McClane's town isn't an absurd coincidence in your book, but it is in mine.


I always thought that Simon planned everything as epic revenge.
Sure, he was working for someone, but he was the mastermind behind pretty much everything in the movie, so he could've tracked down McClane & then planned the gold heist just to push him over the edge.
The real ending pretty much confirms this, as Simon has double crossed pretty much everyone (after killing his boss during the movie) and McClane's life is ruined, he's not a cop anymore, he got blamed for everything that happened...
User avatar
King Of Nowhere
SPAM Killer!
 
Posts: 6173
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 4:36 pm

Re: Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

Postby Raziel on Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:21 pm

I'd certainly agree with Jaws. It's a standalone classic that should have been left alone.
User avatar
Raziel
PRIMITIVE SCREWHEAD
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:44 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland.

Re: Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

Postby TheBaxter on Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:42 pm

maybe i'm being too literal here, but really, there are very very very few movies that NEED a sequel. almost every movie that's had a sequel, didn't NEED a sequel. this is really more of a "sequels we wish hadn't been made" thread... take star wars for example. star wars didn't NEED a sequel. it's a complete film unto itself. if lucas had just made star wars, and then moved on to other stories, it wouldn't feel any less satisfying. but he did make TESB, which a lot of people think is even better than the first, and so you wouldn't put star wars on this list. but what if star wars 2 had been a suckfest? THEN it would most definitely make the list. by the same token, if jaws II had been an amazingly written, directed and acted film that surpassed the original, jaws wouldn't be here either. so really, it's just a list of sequels people don't like.

if you made a list of the films that DID or DO need a sequel, it would probably be a much shorter list. Fellowship of the Ring, for example, NEEDS a sequel because the story isn't complete by the time the film ends. if they had just made FOTR and then stopped there, then there's be a problem. i'm trying to think of films that need a sequel but haven't gotten one. unbreakable seems to be one of those films, though i'm not sure it NEEDS a sequel. judging from the last few m night films, if we ever did get an unbreakable sequel, it would probably catapult it right onto the list of films that didn't need a sequel.
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 19197
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

Postby Ribbons on Tue Jun 09, 2009 5:30 pm

I'll tell you what movie needs a sequel: The Blunchblack of Blotre Blame! We need to find out how Blasimodo got off that bell tower...
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13936
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

Postby RogueScribner on Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:34 am

Properties conceived in multiple installments like LOTR and Harry Potter shouldn't really count. People know up front they are part of a series and would expect future installments. A movie like Star Wars could stand alone, but there was definitely a set up for future adventures of Luke Skywalker. I think many people would have been greatly disappointed if Lucas never pursued any more SW movies. The SW universe was barely tapped into in the first film and people wanted more.

I think the Unbreakable example is a good one. After first watching that movie, I immediately wanted more. I wanted to know what a bona fide superhero would do in our world (as presented by M. Night) and whether there were others of his kind. I found the idea fascinating but it never happened.

So yeah, technically movies never NEED a sequel, but what I think the OP was asking was about movies that really worked best as a single entry and not a series. That had a story that was satisfactorily wrapped up in the first movie and if a sequel was never made we wouldn't care. Pirates of the Caribbean comes to mind . . . :wink:
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Re: Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

Postby Spandau Belly on Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:04 am

I don't know about Pirates of the Carribean. I didn't like the sequels, but I think good ones could've been made. It was just never epic material, so making one story span two films was just tedious. It added up to like 5 hours worth of the same couple of people stealing and re-stealing the same bunch of magic objects.

If they'd made more single installment lighthearted films like the first one but with more eloborate monsters it could've just been like the Sinbad movies or something.
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Re: Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

Postby Spandau Belly on Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:10 am

TheBaxter wrote:maybe i'm being too literal here, but really, there are very very very few movies that NEED a sequel. almost every movie that's had a sequel, didn't NEED a sequel. this is really more of a "sequels we wish hadn't been made" thread... take star wars for example. star wars didn't NEED a sequel.


I think what we're talking about here is movies where the main story got told in the first movie and sequels can either tell a lesser story or have to backtrack and undo most of what their predecessor accomplished only so they can do it over again. HIGHLANDER has been the best example here so far.

The movies that NEED sequels tend to be that way by design and I typically hate those movies. We get this all the time these days where they film and market something as a trilogy and then none of installments are satisying on their own. Like a movie like JUMPER, it was all just a big set-up for sequels, but I didn't want them. I hear PUSH is the same thing. I'd even say the same about LOTR.
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Re: Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

Postby Spandau Belly on Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:18 am

King Of Nowhere wrote:
Spandau Belly wrote:I guess having Gruber's brother also be a master thief who was planning an elaborate score that happened to be in McClane's town isn't an absurd coincidence in your book, but it is in mine.

I always thought that Simon planned everything as epic revenge.
Sure, he was working for someone, but he was the mastermind behind pretty much everything in the movie, so he could've tracked down McClane & then planned the gold heist just to push him over the edge. The real ending pretty much confirms this, as Simon has double crossed pretty much everyone (after killing his boss during the movie) and McClane's life is ruined, he's not a cop anymore, he got blamed for everything that happened...


I've never seen the "real" ending. Vern described it to me once and it sounded pretty stupid, but now it sounds even stupider. I'll have to YouTube that. DH3 should've just ended on the boat, no sejour to Canada, no McClane playing Jigsaw with Gruber II, just kill him on the boat.

Anytime I've ever sounded like I was coming around and cutting this movie some slack, I take it back. What a lousy movie.
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Re: Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

Postby Fried Gold on Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:29 am

Spandau Belly wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:maybe i'm being too literal here, but really, there are very very very few movies that NEED a sequel. almost every movie that's had a sequel, didn't NEED a sequel. this is really more of a "sequels we wish hadn't been made" thread... take star wars for example. star wars didn't NEED a sequel.


I think what we're talking about here is movies where the main story got told in the first movie and sequels can either tell a lesser story or have to backtrack and undo most of what their predecessor accomplished only so they can do it over again. HIGHLANDER has been the best example here so far.

The movies that NEED sequels tend to be that way by design and I typically hate those movies. We get this all the time these days where they film and market something as a trilogy and then none of installments are satisying on their own. Like a movie like JUMPER, it was all just a big set-up for sequels, but I didn't want them. I hear PUSH is the same thing. I'd even say the same about LOTR.

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.
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13930
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Re: Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

Postby Peven on Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:06 pm

ok, here is one that hasn't happened yet but i wouldn't be surprised in the least...a sequel to "Juno"......

.....but you know, i could actually see a sequel to that working
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14661
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

Postby TheBaxter on Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:13 pm

RogueScribner wrote:I think the Unbreakable example is a good one. After first watching that movie, I immediately wanted more. I wanted to know what a bona fide superhero would do in our world (as presented by M. Night) and whether there were others of his kind. I found the idea fascinating but it never happened.


well, we did get Heroes :?
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 19197
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

Postby RogueScribner on Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:47 pm

Ugh.
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Re: Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

Postby Spandau Belly on Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:19 am

Peven wrote:ok, here is one that hasn't happened yet but i wouldn't be surprised in the least...a sequel to "Juno"......

.....but you know, i could actually see a sequel to that working


I kinda thought so too, but I doubt both Ellen Page or Diablo Cody returning to it.

What I could, unfortunately, see happening would be some lame attempt at making a television series with different actors and it would chronicle Juno MacGuff's wacky high school adventures. It would get canned in under three episodes, but I could see them doing it.
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Re: Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

Postby King Of Nowhere on Thu Jun 11, 2009 1:31 pm

Spandau Belly wrote:
King Of Nowhere wrote:
Spandau Belly wrote:I guess having Gruber's brother also be a master thief who was planning an elaborate score that happened to be in McClane's town isn't an absurd coincidence in your book, but it is in mine.

I always thought that Simon planned everything as epic revenge.
Sure, he was working for someone, but he was the mastermind behind pretty much everything in the movie, so he could've tracked down McClane & then planned the gold heist just to push him over the edge. The real ending pretty much confirms this, as Simon has double crossed pretty much everyone (after killing his boss during the movie) and McClane's life is ruined, he's not a cop anymore, he got blamed for everything that happened...


I've never seen the "real" ending. Vern described it to me once and it sounded pretty stupid, but now it sounds even stupider. I'll have to YouTube that. DH3 should've just ended on the boat, no sejour to Canada, no McClane playing Jigsaw with Gruber II, just kill him on the boat.

Anytime I've ever sounded like I was coming around and cutting this movie some slack, I take it back. What a lousy movie.


Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

You've got to remember that after they get off the boat, the chief tells McClaine that he'll probably get the blame for "all this," regardless of what happens afterwards.
McClaine is on suspension at the start of the movie & it's kinda implied that he's an alcoholic as well.
So when you combine all that, it's not like he had anything to loose by hunting Simon down & playing "Russian Roulette" with him.

The ending can be found Here. It's an easter egg on the DHWAV DVD. Disk 1, in the commentary menu.
User avatar
King Of Nowhere
SPAM Killer!
 
Posts: 6173
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 4:36 pm

Re: Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

Postby Spandau Belly on Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:56 pm

Well, I'm glad in a way I finally watched that Die Hard 3 alternate ending so I know what everybody's talking about.

It's even worse than the theatrical ending for its breaking of the pace of a movie that otherwise took place all in one day. This seems like it's years later. I also find it completely out of tone for the DH movies. Belongs in The Punisher or Hostel or something.

From what I understand, DH3 started out as a script called 'Simon Says' and in that draft it ended on the boat. Then it was re-written to be Lethal Weapon 3, but they decided LH3 should go in a different direction for a romance angle or some shit. Then it got re-written to be Die Hard 3 and they added everything after the boat because they figured it would be more in step with the first Gruber blowing up the building to fake his own death and get away clean, only it seems DH3 just couldn't find a good way to end it.

Anyway, I'm glad I finally say I think DH3 is a bad movie, I was on the fence for years wanting to say that the first half made up for the second, now I'm sure it doesn't.
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Re: Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

Postby King Of Nowhere on Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:29 pm

wiki wrote:The film is based on a script written by Jonathan Hensleigh originally titled Simon Says, which was originally conceived as a Brandon Lee action film, then later considered for use as the fourth installment of the Lethal Weapon series. The first 45 minutes, until immediately after the Wall Street bombing, of Die Hard with a Vengeance is almost identical to Simon Says; the robbery was added to bring the story in line with other Die Hard films. The original plan was to have the villains burgle the Metropolitan Museum of Art, an idea not used here, but which appears in John McTiernan's film The Thomas Crown Affair and also the video game Die Hard: Vendetta.


This is quite different from what i've heard before.
There's quite a few descriptions on the net that say the film was something like Speed 2, originally. Your info & the wiki article seem to completely disprove this though.

Now that you thing DH3 is a bad movie, do you think that DH2 shouldn't have happened either?
No DH2 means no ...Vengeance & no Live Free..., so you may fell like the first should've been left alone.

I still haven't seen the unrated version of Live Free....
Unless it's a completely different experience, if i'm ever having a Die Hard marathon, i'll just watch DH & DH3.
User avatar
King Of Nowhere
SPAM Killer!
 
Posts: 6173
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 4:36 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Movie Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests