There are sequels that do surpass the originals. (Spider-Man 2, X2, Godfather 2, Bourne Supremacy, Blade 2 etc.)
Which sequels do you think were unnecessary? I think Terminator 3 should have never been made because T2 ended so well. I guess the producers just wanted to make more money.
Matrix sequels, sequels to Disney Classics, Dumb and Dumberer, Son of the Mask... Basically any sequel that doesn't have any of the original actors/characters.
spiderman and bourne supremacy? supremacy is part of a trillogy of novels.. and spiderman.. its a comic with tons of storys.. why wouldnt they make more?
the ones i hate are where they do like the same story but with a like B-list cast.. like cruel intentions 2, starship troopers 2
Godfather: part 2- Stfu, I loved it. I think Robert deniro's performance ruled, and if you think any different, than blow me.
The matrix was good, the sequels were somewhat necessary, but not as good as the original.
Rocky II, III, And IV were good IMO, but the fifth one sucked.
All of the Indiana Jones movies are spectacular, anyone who thinks those sequels are bad should be burned, hanged, thrown into a hot tar pit, and burned some more.
The highlander original was superb, but the sequels were walk-out-of-the-theater-laughing bad. end game was a 6/10 IMO.
The bloodsport sequels were unnecessary.
Spider-man 2 wasn't bad, but i prefer the original, there was too much CGI in the 2nd one.
Both of the X-men were equally good, but the beginning of the first "X-men" is unbeatable. the introduction of the characters was done so perfectly, ESPECIALLY wolverine.
Ace ventura: when nature calls was hilarious, the choice to use steve odekerk as the director was a good one.
The bourne Identity is much better than the sequel IMO, it had excellent cinematography for a action movie, and The sequel lagged behind just a tad.
The son of the mask, was absolutely terrible, you cannot make a sequel with different actors as long as the original had Jim carrey.
dumb and dumberer was not as good as the Dumb and dumber, but at least it was entertaining.
The original Batman was great, just great Long live Tim burton, and batman returns was just as good. but batman forever, and batman and robin just lagged behind so badly, running out of material much?
but batman begins surpasses all other batman movies IMO.
Jurassic park and Jurassic park 2 the first one being the absolute best. were good, but JP 3??! They should have stopped after 2.
The first Die Hard was excellent, absolutely awesome. But the next 2 were mediocre. and i dont know what the 4th is going to be like.
Terminator was great, and the sequel was even better! the third was very entertaining, but you CANT beat the 2nd.
Under siege with seagal was fantastic, the sequel was ok.
All the harry potters are needed, along with all the Lord of the rings.
all disney sequels are usually utter crap.
the ring 2 was crap.
Nigtmare on elmstreet was a good slasher, but they should have stopped after 3, and number 2 was amazingly BAD.
and last but not least starship troopers 2 was crap.
Yeah, they had purpose, but I still don't think that makes them necessary... the story worked absolutely fine without them, and in fact, I preferred the story without them.
By the same token some would call the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy 'unnecessary'. Because it is. The saga didn't need them, they're just backstory. They are unnecessary but not invaluable...
In my opinion, they didn't. I'm not just saying that they were bad, I'm saying that they actually ruined what was accomplished in the 1st. First, the first one was symbolic of the bible where he died and then came back to life. They didn't need to symbolize him as Jesus again (he sacrificed himself for man kind at the end of Revolutions). Also, in the first the entire concept where they could do all that cool shit was due to the fact that it was in a virtual reality. In the second and third one, he developed mental powers in the real world (this takes away from the whole explanation of why they had special abilities). Third, he already defeated Agent Smith. It was dumb for them to just simply bring him back and say 'ha, you didn't kill me, you just made me better.'
__________________
Greg Oden: The future of the Blazers. The future of the NBA.
What do you mean by quoting reasons not to like them? Are you saying it is necessary for Neo to beat Smith again? It would seem that he beat Smith at the end of the 1st, so why bring him back and fight him again? That does not seem necessary.
__________________
Greg Oden: The future of the Blazers. The future of the NBA.
I disagree. The original trilogy existed on its own for almost 20 years. Sure, the prequels add to that story, but it's just backstory and ultimately unnecessary. And in some cases the prequels even take away from my appreciation of the originals... (the demystification of The Force by turning it into science).
"Episode 4" was added at the time of the OT SE theatrical re-release, once the PT was planned and announced. So, that change didn't occur until the late 90's.
KMC Community Forums
Oct 9th, 2005 10:13 AM
