Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

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

Re: Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

Postby Spandau Belly on Thu Jun 11, 2009 7:10 pm

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.
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 Lord Voldemoo on Thu Jun 11, 2009 7:19 pm

Fried Gold wrote: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.
Image
User avatar
Lord Voldemoo
He Who Shall Not Be Milked
 
Posts: 17641
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:18 pm
Location: Pasture next to the Red Barn

Re: Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

Postby Ribbons on Thu Jun 11, 2009 7:19 pm

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]
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 Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:15 pm

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.
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 papalazeru on Fri Jun 12, 2009 2:28 am

Lord Voldemoo wrote:
Fried Gold wrote: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.
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

Re: Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

Postby Spandau Belly on Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:25 am

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?
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 Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:40 am

Weren't they planning a sequel to Indian Summer called Nuclear Winter? :-P
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 Fried Gold on Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:49 am

Spandau Belly wrote: 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?
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 papalazeru on Fri Jun 12, 2009 12:45 pm

Fried Gold wrote:
Spandau Belly wrote: 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
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

Re: Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

Postby so sorry on Fri Jun 12, 2009 12:51 pm

papalazeru wrote:
Fried Gold wrote:
Spandau Belly wrote: 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.
User avatar
so sorry
Deacon Blues
 
Posts: 15699
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:29 am

Re: Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

Postby RogueScribner on Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:07 pm

So those will only be in flashbacks then?
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 papalazeru on Fri Jun 12, 2009 2:59 pm

RogueScribner wrote: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.
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

Re: Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

Postby Fried Gold on Fri Jun 12, 2009 3:39 pm

papalazeru wrote:
Fried Gold wrote:
Spandau Belly wrote: 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
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 papalazeru on Fri Jun 12, 2009 7:16 pm

Fried Gold wrote:
papalazeru wrote:
Fried Gold wrote:
Spandau Belly wrote: 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.
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

Re: Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

Postby TheBaxter on Mon Aug 12, 2019 2:14 pm

Chernobyl doesn't need a sequel, but it looks like it just might get one
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 Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:37 pm

Chernobyl 2: Nuclear Boogaloo
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13936
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: Movies That Didn't Need A Sequel

Postby so sorry on Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:13 pm

Ribbons wrote:Chernobyl 2: Nuclear Boogaloo



I want to LOL at this, but sadly it’s kinda true.
User avatar
so sorry
Deacon Blues
 
Posts: 15699
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:29 am

Previous

Return to Movie Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests