Movies that had good/bad sequels

[Reply #160 on:]

Yea so

[Reply #161 on:]

I made a mistake posting. The new edited version is on the previous page and in a new edited version of this post down below for easy navigation.

 

Originally posted by Blackadder11:
     

Originally posted by DotheBartman:
That's just a rumor at this point, and I doubt that's the real storyline.  They don't even have a concrete script yet (since the last was rejected).  Not that I condone the idea of doing a fourth movie at all, but let's not be putting any stock in these rumors just yet.

Who cares if it's true at all? If episode 1 and 2 are any indication, not to mention the new realease of Star Wars on DVD, George Lucas is now nothing but an ordinary dipshit. Steven Spielberg has become just as bad too, so there really is no hope for the new Indian Jones.

[Reply #162 on:]

I don't think that's true about either one....Lucas has his flaws....very, very evident flaws (that were made up for largely by people like Irvin Kershner and his script co-writers on the OT), but he can still produce good material.  Phantom Menace was awful, but AOTC had much more of the Star Wars spirit and fun element.

For Spielberg....especcially not true.  Again, he has flaws, but moreso then Lucas still produces some good movies.  "Catch Me if You Can" for instance was a very stylish and fun movie.  In fact, stylish and fun movies are what he's always been best at (as evidenced by the Indy movies).  What exactly would you point to in Spielberg's decline?

However, again I'd still agree that this is an awful idea.  Raiders of the Lost Ark is like the best adventure movie ever, but just let the series be.

[Reply #163 on:]

I like The phantom menace it was'nt that bad, they could've made it a lot worse

[Reply #164 on:]

Episode 2 was better than the Phantom Menace, but other than it's Star Wars connections was nothing more than an average action movie, removing that godawful romance bit.

Catch if you Can was pretty good, but it has been the only recent Spielberg movie I've liked. A.I was just a blatant Pinnochio ripoff that wasn't any better than any other version of the story. Minority Report wasn't anything I really cared about, just a pointless, if good looking movie. Jurassic Park was alright, but it's sequal was pretty unbearable. I don't know if he's made any other recent movies, but one out of about five isn't a very good ratio.

[Reply #165 on:]

Jurassic Park is ten years old...and he's made more movies then that since.  Saving Private Ryan comes to mind anyway.

A.I. ...I enjoyed it personally, but you can mostly blame any story problems on Stanley Kubrick.

Minority Report I thought was creative and fun.  Not spectacular, but solid.

Either way I don't see how that's made him as bad as Lucas.  Nor do I see any real decline.  His flaws now are the same as they've always been.

[Reply #166 on:]

 

A.I. ...I enjoyed it personally, but you can mostly blame any story problems on Stanley Kubrick.

That's the most absurd thing I've read all day. If anything, the reason the movie was terrible had more to do with Spielberg's raping of Kubrick's original vision than any inherent story problems.

[Reply #167 on:]

I don't see how he raped it.  I think he fiddled with the ending, but as far as I know its not too much different from Kubrick's idea.

Kubrick gave it to Spielberg because he didn't feel he could adequetely convey the proper emotion (which he was right about; he's one of the coldest directors ever).  Whether or not his judgement of giving it to Spielberg was good or not, it was his judgement.  Personally I'd have to aknowledge that Spielberg himself tends to be iffy with emotion, but I think he pulled it off okay there.

[Reply #168 on:]

Yea, I liked A.I. but I thought it was somewhat confusing. Still, a cool movie though.

[Reply #169 on:]

Professor: "Shut up all of you!"

The last decade has seen Spielberg make the most creative and fascinating movies of his career. AI is possibly the most underated/misunderstood film EVER. It's incredible on every level, and probably the best film of the new millenium!

Minority Report is a brilliant, edgy, dark futuristic thriller.

Catch Me if You Can is a wonderful, stylish, caper. I can't understand how anyone wouldn't enjoy it. It's just so entertaiing.

The Terminal has it's flaws. I think it's structure is a little messy and it could probably do with being trimed down. It's still a warm hearted, comedy that made me leave the cinema with a big grin on my face.

Spielberg is SO successful, he doesn't need to prove anything anymore. He's got his Oscar (twice), made more money than god and won the respect of...well, most people. He's now making experimental films for his own enjoyment. It just so happens they're very successful and entertaining experiments.

Bring on War of the Worlds! (how cool is this gonna be?)

As for Lucas, I love the prequels every bit as much as the original trilogy. I KNOW what a bad film is, and the prequals are NOT bad films!

[Reply #170 on:]

 

Originally posted by M Jackson:
Bring on War of the Worlds! (how cool is this gonna be?)

I saw the original version in my 5th grade science class. My grandpa even told me aout the origanal radio broadcast when he heard it. His dad loaded up the shot gun... 

[Reply #171 on:]

 

Originally posted by M Jackson:
I love the prequels every bit as much as the original trilogy.

I KNOW what a bad film is,

Those two statements are contradictory.

[Reply #172 on:]

Whatever. I think you'll find that A LOT of people agree with me. The Phantom Menace made nearly a billion dollars at the box office. Sure there was so much hype and marketing it was always going to make alot of money. But in order for a film to make that kind of money, people have to go and see it again, and again.....because they loved it and they want to see it more than once. Apart from jar Jar Binks who I can see why many people hate him (to be honest he doesn't bother me), I fail to see why people dislike a wonderful fantasy film with dazzling visuals brimming with imagination and fun in EVERY single shot.

I saw each of the prequels 3 times in the cinema. Maybe it's my generation (i'm 19) that enjoy them and the older original fans just can't except them?
If you actually read most reviews from critics now, the films are well recieved, it's just sad internet geeks that continue to moan about them.
 http://www.empireonline.co.uk/site/incinemas/ReviewInFull.asp?FID=4869
 http://www.empireonline.co.uk/site/incinemas/ReviewInFull.asp?FID=8015

[Reply #173 on:]

Well, I'm 21 and I can't stand the prequels.  Well, "can't stand" is a bit too harsh.  I was severely disappointed by Episode 1 - there was no tension, so strong antagonist role, and the plot just wandered around for way too long.  Episode 2 was better, although not as good as the original series.  There were still some big problems (like the non-acting during the love scenes), but it was a step above.

Here's something I've noticed about you, M Jackson: you like to take unpopular stances.  You defend the prequels, claiming they're just as good as the originals, you defended Michael Jackson when that was big on the board, and I'm sure there was something else (did the Simpsons jump the shark?) I'm not complaining, just noticing.

[Reply #174 on:]

Yeah, as a kid I didn't like Phantom Menace much.  Its just not a good movie, and I don't think that has anything to do with generation.

Also, its not just net nerds.  While I don't trust movie reviewers much myself, the reviews for the prequels were hardly universally positive.  In fact most were very scathing on some level.  Ebert liked Phantom Menace (suprisingly he didn't seem to like AOTC) but then he gave a decent review to Gigli.

[Reply #175 on:]

 

Originally posted by evan:
Here's something I've noticed about you, M Jackson: you like to take unpopular stances.  You defend the prequels, claiming they're just as good as the originals, you defended Michael Jackson when that was big on the board, and I'm sure there was something else (did the Simpsons jump the shark?) I'm not complaining, just noticing.

I've noticed that too. I'm not doing it to "be different" It's just my true opinions on certain things. I'm not a fool, and I try not to be swept along with the crowd. If I truely feel differently about something I'll say so and why I feel that way, that's all. I can see why many people have negative opinions about these things (films, Michael Jackson....), but once you actually look into the situation things aren't the way they first appear.

In the case of Michael Jackson, people would be AMAZED just how much of what is written about him is total BS. Not just exagerations, but often PURE fabrication. The problem is these stories get printed or broadcast then when it turns out they are not true the media just ignores it and doesn't even make an apology or correction!

For example, last week a story was spread that during the police raid of the Neverland Ranch, photos were found in Michael Jacksons bedroom of little boys naked lying face down on his bed! The story went into specific details, it had to be true, right? Just a few days later the source that originally tipped off the media ADMITTED it was a hoax! But nobody decided to cover that story!
Did you know that due to his outstanding commitment to good causes all over the world, Michael Jackson was nominated for the nobel peace prize last year!? No, well that's because the media didn't think that was worth covering.

For nearly 40 years he's dedicated his life to creating outstanding music, setting more records and winning more awards than ANYBODY in history (including Elvis and the beatles). Just because he's a bit strange, and some scumbag racist sherrif and a money hungry bitch and her son decide to bring him down, i'm not going to believe he's a child molester without some proof (and they haven't got any yet). Infact the case is slowly starting to fall apart. In court a few weeks ago the mother of the boy ADMITTED that before she even met Michael Jackson she hired a lawyer with the sole purpose of settling with him for money! You be the judge of that.

Wow, I went on a bit there. But I made my point.

[Reply #176 on:]

I liked Phantom myself, except for that batard Jar Jar. C-3PO and R2-D2 are much better at comic relief than Jar Jar. Their style made us laugh in between battle scenes.
Then they came back in Attack of the Clones.
They where so much better than Jar Jar.

[Reply #177 on:]

C-3PO was gut blastingly awful in Attack of the Clones. He actually made the movie less enjoyable for me.

[Reply #178 on:]

 

Originally posted by M Jackson:
Professor: "Shut up all of you!"

The last decade has seen Spielberg make the most creative and fascinating movies of his career. AI is possibly the most underated/misunderstood film EVER. It's incredible on every level, and probably the best film of the new millenium!

Could I ask why? Is it because it completely rips off Pinocchio, but thinks it's being different only because it changes the ending?
Because it rehashes the annoying old theme of "how far should we go with technology? (The same theme Spielberg himself used in Jurassic Park and Minority Report). Or just because it pisses everybody off?

A.I. is clearly nothing buy a gigantic piece of crap hurled at us from beyond the second moon in order that mankind might have another shitty movie.

[Reply #179 on:]

How about Austin Powers? The original was great because it was a perfect parody of James Bond. The next two were nothing but two-hour-long Pepsi advertisements with the occasional interlude of a slutty dance by Brittany Speares. Foxxy Cleopatra was hot in the third one though...

[Reply #180 on:]

Also, Waynes World. The first one is brilliant because it's kind of realistic but the second one is just a big wacky pile of crap with a few funny lines here and there.

[Reply #181 on:]

I've just picked up th latest issue of Empire ("The world's best movie magazine" don't ya know) and this months the regular Top 10 is, the worst sequels ever made.

Here's the list...


1: Batman & Robin
2: Highlander 2: The Quickening
3: Jaws: the Revenge
4: Speed 2: Cruise Control
5: Superman IV: The Quest for Peace
6: Babe: Pig in the City
7: Hannibal
8: Trail of the Pink Panther
9: Alien Resurrection
10:The Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions

I agree with that list except for #7 Hannibal. It may not be up there with Silence of the Lambs (or even the suprisingly good Red Dragon) but it's still 2/3 of a good film. The final act just falls apart with the pigs showdown and Hannibal becomes a bit too campy. But then there's the great final scene with the little boy on the plane. + it's all brilliantly shot by Ridley Scott and for the most part it's an engaging (if slightly grisly) thriller. Not a great film but not a bad one either, shouldn't be on the list.

And i've made my feeling about Reloaded/ Revolutions clear before. This very magazine gave them 4 and 3 star reviews respectivly on their theatrical release. I'm disapointed a reputable magazine like Empire would cave in to pier pressure and change their tune so quickly.  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/matrix_reloaded/
I can think of dozens of sequels worse than either Hannibal or the Matrix's. Pick ANY sequel in a popular horror franchise, eg Nightmare on Elm Street, Texas Chainsaw Massacre.....


As shit as Jaws: the Revenge is (and that's REALLY shit) personally I think Jaws 3 is even worse.
But overall I agree with the choices in Empire's list. Surely NOBODY would defend the abizmal Batman & Robin or Speed 2!?

Discuss...

[Reply #182 on:]

Can't argue with that.

What, two people died in the entire Jaws: The Revenge..? Come on.

Michael Caine deserved to get eaten, just for agreeing to do the movie.

[Reply #183 on:]

Alien Resurrection was'nt that bad of a film

[Reply #184 on:]

Yes it is.  Its the worst sequel ever to a movie that's actually good.  (The worst sequel PERIOD is Ace Ventura 2).

[Reply #185 on:]

It's true y'know. It's like they took everything good about the Alien series and crapperised it.

*Alternatively, Frankerised

[Reply #186 on:]

 

Originally posted by M Jackson:
Highlander 2: The Quickening

There are no Highlander sequels.

There can be only one.

[Reply #187 on:]

That's good David A, keep telling yourself that and it'll be OK. That's what I do with Speed. Such a wonderful action film, good I HATE Speed 2....I mean, Speed 2? never heard of it.

[Reply #188 on:]

Do made-for-TV movies count? I absolutely loved the original two Brady parody movies like "A Very Brady Sequel," but, there was a new made-for-TV sequel to that. It sucked  more than a Hoover!

[Reply #189 on:]

Oh, I'd have to say that ESB and ROTJ are some super wicked sequels. Two Towers and ROTK are equally as good. Then of course there's the Matrix Reloaded, X-Men 2, Spider-Man 2, Harry Potter 2 & 3, Kill Bill Vol. 2 and many others that I don't feel like naming off.
As for bad sequels go, bad movies have bad sequels. These are usually any horror movie you've seen.

[Reply #190 on:]

Even tho it wasnt really a sequal Blade runner the directors cut. It was  the first directors cut I've seen that had less material than the oringinal (they could have a at least had the option to see the orginal theatrical release as well as the redo)

[Reply #191 on:]

 

Originally posted by SlurmGuy_3rdtry:
Oh, I'd have to say that ESB and ROTJ are some super wicked sequels. Two Towers and ROTK are equally as good. Then of course there's the Matrix Reloaded, X-Men 2, Spider-Man 2, Harry Potter 2 & 3, Kill Bill Vol. 2 and many others that I don't feel like naming off.
As for bad sequels go, bad movies have bad sequels. These are usually any horror movie you've seen.

Not All Horror Movies have Bad Sequals SLurmguy

[Reply #192 on:]

 

Originally posted by SlurmGuy_3rdtry:
Oh, I'd have to say that ESB and ROTJ are some super wicked sequels. Two Towers and ROTK are equally as good. Then of course there's the Matrix Reloaded, X-Men 2, Spider-Man 2, Harry Potter 2 & 3, Kill Bill Vol. 2 and many others that I don't feel like naming off.
As for bad sequels go, bad movies have bad sequels. These are usually any horror movie you've seen.

Through using the term 'super wicked' you've lost any respect i may have had for you and your opinions.

[Reply #193 on:]

 

Originally posted by Zogonif:
 Not All Horror Movies have Bad Sequals SLurmguy

Did I say all or did I say usually?
And Mr. Nintendo, I stand by the term super wicked.

[Reply #194 on:]

yeah...well i've heard the said term enough times on dumb-ass americanised youngster's tv to turn me into a bitter cynic *grumbles and shakes fist*.

[Reply #195 on:]

good

[Reply #196 on:]

 does anyone like the rocky sequels (rocky 5 is the worst film i have probably ever seen in my whole life it sucks) rocky 1 2 3 are the only half decent ones
if anyone says that they like rocky 5 i will 
queue the lamp incident

[Reply #197 on:]

On the Matrix sequels: Reloaded was made worse by Revolutions- If Revolutions had answered just 10% of the questions they raised in Reloaded, then both movies would be bearable... But instead they went 50/50 with action vs. half-arsed philosophy in both the sequels. If not for the cliffhanger ending, the two movies didn't even have anything to do with each other. And even less to do with the first one, plot-wise.

[Reply #198 on:]

I know this is the opposite of most peoples opinions, but I've recently watched the Star Wars trilogy, and Indiana Jones trilogy again, on DVD. Here's how I order each trilogy, from best to worst:

Star Wars trilogy:
Return of the Jedi
A New Hope
The Empire Strikes Back

Indiana Jones trilogy:
The Temple of Doom
The Last Crusade
Raiders of the Lost Ark

So for me at least, both these trilogies included movies which I preferred over the original movie in each trilogy...

[Reply #199 on:]

I didn't quite like Jurassic Park 3. I think that part of the film where they accidentally stepped into this deserted lab and they saw different samples of dinosaurs used as experiments by scientists looks a bit like the ideas from Alien 2 & 4.