I read on here someone ranted about the sequels to Smokey and the Bandit being real bad compared to the first movie. So I will start this thread about movie sequels that can't live up to its original.
Smokey and the Bandit was a great movie, but it's two sequels were not the same as its first.
Smokey and the Bandit II was funny and Jackie Gleason, like in the first, one was funny and made me laugh like the first, but the thrill of the chase and the cat and mouse premise were totally lacking in the second. It was even more cartoonish than the first.
First of all there was no race against time and only Buford was after the Bandit and not every law enforcement officer in the southeast like in the original. The lovers spat of Bandit and Carrie ruined the film and the elephant cargo having them stop every 100 miles ruined the whole action. Though the desert showdown did make up somewhat for it, it still lacked the spirit of the previous.
Then Bufords car having the roof lights smashed by Mean Joe Greene and seconds later undamaged was out of the Road Runner cartoon. Plus the car falling off a bridge into the water to be pulled out dry and like nothing happened, is very unnatural. Then his scrunched up car in the end was unrealistic as in the first his piece of shit was believable.
Then number 3 bombed without Burt Reynolds as that one Gleason the Star with Jerry Reed as the new Bandit was subplot to the story. Plus Reed is no Bandit anyway.
What movie sequels do you find terrible compared to the first?
The Matrix sequels dragged were trash and the original down with them.
I liked Godfather I far better than Godfather II, despite many saying the movies are equal or even some saying II is superior to I.
Airplane II and Caddyshack II were both terrible sequels to two of the best comedies ever.
Quote from: cabiness42 on March 02, 2021, 04:05:01 PM
Airplane II and Caddyshack II were both terrible sequels to two of the best comedies ever.
A lot of people didn't like Ghostbusters II for similar reasons but I think time has been way kinder to said sequel.
The Naked Gun 33 1/3 did not live to standards.
Ones I can think off the top of my head
Home Alone: first movie is classic (even though incredibly implausible), but the sequels are not just implausible, but unbearably bad.
The Santa Clause: First one was awesome, second one was ok (minus the dumb toy Santa subplot), third one was awful (and contradicted the whole message of the franchise).
Free Willy: Great First movie, sequels were bad and unnecessary.
Spider Man (Toby McGuire movies): Liked the first one, sequels were meh.
The Chronicles of Narnia movies: first one was good, the other two were not (I didn't really care for the books outside of the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and the Magicians Nephew)
Major League. The first one was a classic, the second was pretty horrible.
Boondock Saints. They definitely should have left that alone.
American Pie. All of the reboots were bad.
Speed. Good old fashioned 90's action movie. Speed on a non-speed boat? No thanks.
Jurassic Park. Although the more recent ones with Chris Pratt were good, the initial sequels were bad.
Scream. A really imaginative horror movie. The second one, not as much.
Chris
Quote from: I-39 on March 02, 2021, 05:36:21 PM
Ones I can think off the top of my head
Home Alone: first movie is classic (even though incredibly implausible), but the sequels are not just implausible, but unbearably bad.
The Santa Clause: First one was awesome, second one was ok (minus the dumb toy Santa subplot), third one was awful (and contradicted the whole message of the franchise).
Free Willy: Great First movie, sequels were bad and unnecessary.
Spider Man (Toby McGuire movies): Liked the first one, sequels were meh.
The Chronicles of Narnia movies: first one was good, the other two were not (I didn't really care for the books outside of the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and the Magicians Nephew)
Knowledge hub had their own take on the Santa Clause saga which I now accept as canon:
Any Hellraiser after the original was a huge decline in quality. Hellraiser 2 was okay but the rest are total garbage even by slasher movie standards.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 02, 2021, 06:35:42 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 02, 2021, 05:36:21 PM
Ones I can think off the top of my head
Home Alone: first movie is classic (even though incredibly implausible), but the sequels are not just implausible, but unbearably bad.
The Santa Clause: First one was awesome, second one was ok (minus the dumb toy Santa subplot), third one was awful (and contradicted the whole message of the franchise).
Free Willy: Great First movie, sequels were bad and unnecessary.
Spider Man (Toby McGuire movies): Liked the first one, sequels were meh.
The Chronicles of Narnia movies: first one was good, the other two were not (I didn't really care for the books outside of the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and the Magicians Nephew)
Knowledge hub had their own take on the Santa Clause saga which I now accept as canon:
Lol, I still like the first one even after watching that, but the sequels are trash.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 02, 2021, 04:23:47 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on March 02, 2021, 04:05:01 PM
Airplane II and Caddyshack II were both terrible sequels to two of the best comedies ever.
A lot of people didn't like Ghostbusters II for similar reasons but I think time has been way kinder to said sequel.
I think comedies in general don't lend themselves to sequels.
The aforementioned Airplane and Caddyshack sequels, plus Anchorman and The Hangover.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 02, 2021, 07:01:35 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 02, 2021, 04:23:47 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on March 02, 2021, 04:05:01 PM
Airplane II and Caddyshack II were both terrible sequels to two of the best comedies ever.
A lot of people didn't like Ghostbusters II for similar reasons but I think time has been way kinder to said sequel.
I think comedies in general don't lend themselves to sequels.
The aforementioned Airplane and Caddyshack sequels, plus Anchorman and The Hangover.
At least Ghostbusters was at minimum equal parts Science Fiction as comedy. Ghostbusters 2 was definitely not a bad movie nor deserved to be lumped into categories like Caddy Shack 2 and all the garbage American Pie sequels.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 02, 2021, 07:14:19 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 02, 2021, 07:01:35 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 02, 2021, 04:23:47 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on March 02, 2021, 04:05:01 PM
Airplane II and Caddyshack II were both terrible sequels to two of the best comedies ever.
A lot of people didn't like Ghostbusters II for similar reasons but I think time has been way kinder to said sequel.
I think comedies in general don't lend themselves to sequels.
The aforementioned Airplane and Caddyshack sequels, plus Anchorman and The Hangover.
At least Ghostbusters was at minimum equal parts Science Fiction as comedy. Ghostbusters 2 was definitely not a bad movie nor deserved to be lumped into categories like Caddy Shack 2 and all the garbage American Pie sequels.
Ghostbusters 2 wasn't nearly as bad as the reboot......
Blues Brothers 2000 (which was actually released in 1998). I only saw it once but was sorry I did.
Jim
Pretty much almost everything in the Alien franchise after Aliens. I did like Prometheus though...
Also everything outside of the original Halloween and Halloween III doesn't do it for me.
All of the Star Wars prequels and the Abrams Star Wars movies.
(Sits back and waits for some anger from this. Sorry, they're not as good as the original trilogy)
Also:
Indiana Jones and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Waiting almost 20 years and that's what we get??
Blade Runner 2049, see note above with an even longer duration in between.
The sequels being worse than the original is the rule. We could have a much shorter thread writing about sequels that are better than the original.
Hmm, I think Odyssey is a more interesting epic than the Iliad.
Quote from: kkt on March 02, 2021, 11:33:07 PM
The sequels being worse than the original is the rule. We could have a much shorter thread writing about sequels that are better than the original.
Hmm, I the Odyssey is a more interesting epic than the Iliad.
Lethal Weapon was with good sequels and II was better than the original.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 02, 2021, 11:32:15 PM
All of the Star Wars prequels and the Abrams Star Wars movies.
(Sits back and waits for some anger from this. Sorry, they're not as good as the original trilogy)
Also:
Indiana Jones and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Waiting almost 20 years and that's what we get??
Blade Runner 2049, see note above with an even longer duration in between.
No argument about Star Wars here. Rogue One is the only one that's close to as good as the original movie.
And Abrams, well, if he wanted to make some fantasy/SF movies that had nothing to do with Star Trek, he shouldn't have called them Star Trek.
Quote from: kkt on March 02, 2021, 11:36:16 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 02, 2021, 11:32:15 PM
All of the Star Wars prequels and the Abrams Star Wars movies.
(Sits back and waits for some anger from this. Sorry, they're not as good as the original trilogy)
Also:
Indiana Jones and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Waiting almost 20 years and that's what we get??
Blade Runner 2049, see note above with an even longer duration in between.
No argument about Star Wars here. Rogue One is the only one that's close to as good as the original movie.
And Abrams, well, if he wanted to make some fantasy/SF movies that had nothing to do with Star Trek, he shouldn't have called them Star Trek.
Yep! The first Abrams Star Trek, IMO, was a huge middle finger to long term fans.
"Let's take the history all you Trek fans know, and chuck it out the window ASAP. Also, let's make the bridge of the Enterprise look like an Apple store and ensure nobody in the Federation is over 30!"
Christmas and European were pretty good Vacation movies and held their own and are comparable to the original. Vegas was awful.
Quote from: kkt on March 02, 2021, 11:33:07 PM
The sequels being worse than the original is the rule. We could have a much shorter thread writing about sequels that are better than the original.
Hmm, I think Odyssey is a more interesting epic than the Iliad.
Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo
The original Hellboy (with Ra Ra Rasputin, Sammael, the Ogrdu Jahad) might be the best movie based on a horror comic.
The sequel had forced humor, unlikeable villains*, and too many idiot plot turns. Really disappointing.
Incredibles 2: not as bad as Hellboy: Lame Elf Shit but some Cool Del Toro Creatures, but didn't measure up to the original at all.
Disclaimer: didn't see the second: but X-Files movie 1 (disappointing compared to TV series) was followed 10 years later by a movie with no paranormal stuff in it. What's the point.
(Halloween III might not be the best Halloween, but it's the most interesting. Killer robots and Lovecraftian plots > guy in knife and mask)
* yes, you're supposed to dislike villains usually, but that elfy sibling pair was simply annoying
For me, the standard for a horrible sequel is Highlander 2: The Quickening Sickening. I knew fans of Highlander that walked out of the theater in the middle of Highlander 2.
I haven't seen it, but I'm told that Independence Day: Resurgence was pretty bad.
Cars 2 for me was nowhere as good as Cars. Way too much Mater.
There are a small number of sequels that I think are actually better than the original:
X-Men 2: X-Men United was better than X-Men, for me. X-Men 3 is best forgotten about, though.
Shrek 2 was better than Shrek because of Puss In Boots.
The Dark Knight was lots better than Batman Begins, which I'm not a fan of.
Quote from: Takumi on March 03, 2021, 12:09:13 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 02, 2021, 11:33:07 PM
The sequels being worse than the original is the rule. We could have a much shorter thread writing about sequels that are better than the original.
Hmm, I think Odyssey is a more interesting epic than the Iliad.
Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo
I'm struggling to think of many sequels that were better, or even as good as the initial one.
There's a good argument that
Godfather II and
The Empire Strikes Back were better movies than the originals, but the originals weren't trash. The initial success probably gave them the greater financial backing and bravado to create the productions they wanted with fewer restrictions. Pretty much each of the movies in the
Lord of the Rings series is on equal footing, though I've not seen them all more than twice.
Quote from: Finrod on March 03, 2021, 03:34:47 AM
There are a small number of sequels that I think are actually better than the original:
X-Men 2: X-Men United was better than X-Men, for me. X-Men 3 is best forgotten about, though.
Ok, there's another one. (I forget if I actually saw the third one.)
Any video game examples? (I play specific games, not a wide variety, so I have no examples of my own.)
Quote from: kkt on March 02, 2021, 11:33:07 PM
The sequels being worse than the original is the rule. We could have a much shorter thread writing about sequels that are better than the original.
The overall opinion of
Star Trek: The Motion Picture has grown more favorable over the years.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan still blows it away.
TWOK is probably the best of all the franchise's films, period.
All the original The Fly sequels were a big drop from the original. The 80s The Fly remake had a decent sequel in The Fly II but it's a huge leap down from the original. I can't say I dislike it but it's probably only because of the top notch gore.
Iron Man 2 and Iron Man 3 were pretty bad compared to the original.
Super Man 3 and 4 were some of the worst all time super hero movies. Batman Forever and Batman & Robin are also very trashy.
Mortal Kombat Annihilation is one of the worst movies ever made whereas as the original was passable.
Spider Man 3 is another that movie that I can't stand. People complain about Venom but they miss the real villain in Mary Jane Watson.
Also, I did expect to see someone else say that they liked Halloween 3. Totally underrated movie and not afraid to go after anyone.
As a general rule, I don't watch anything that's billed as a "reboot". Just give me the original, or at least a "remake".
Quote from: 1 on March 03, 2021, 07:32:46 AM
Any video game examples? (I play specific games, not a wide variety, so I have no examples of my own.)
Super Mario Bros 2, Zelda 2: The Adventure of Link.
Neither were bad games, but not as good as their predecessors. Both franchises, however, had amazing 3rd titles in the series.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 03, 2021, 12:02:27 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 03, 2021, 07:32:46 AM
Any video game examples? (I play specific games, not a wide variety, so I have no examples of my own.)
Super Mario Bros 2, Zelda 2: The Adventure of Link.
Neither were bad games, but not as good as their predecessors. Both franchises, however, had amazing 3rd titles in the series.
Amusingly I absolutely love Zelda 2. I got so good at it once that I was able to beat it without using a continue. That game is over the top absurdly difficult though.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 02, 2021, 11:42:42 PM
Yep! The first Abrams Star Trek, IMO, was a huge middle finger to long term fans.
"Let's take the history all you Trek fans know, and chuck it out the window ASAP. Also, let's make the bridge of the Enterprise look like an Apple store and ensure nobody in the Federation is over 30!"
And then Into Darkness was even worse, with them developing an interesting plot, only to chuck it out the window in favor of re-doing Khan. To make matters worse, the producers spent months outright lying to everyone regarding Khan because they didn't like that the fans figured out what they were going to do. And it still felt like college students in space, even though they should have been more experienced than in 2009.
Quote from: 1 on March 03, 2021, 07:32:46 AM
Any video game examples? (I play specific games, not a wide variety, so I have no examples of my own.)
Life is Strange. The prequel Before the Storm is controversial, and Life is Strange 2 (with completely different characters) has some fans but was overall a let-down - nothing has really taken off as much as the original.
Also the SimCity series - people loved SimCity 4, but SimCity: Societies and SimCity 2013 both failed to take off. And then EA basically killed it off.
As a general rule, any sequel that wasn't part of a designed trilogy (or similar) is trash compared to the original. There are exceptions like Wrath of Khan or Terminator 2, but the vast majority of the time, the sequel will suck.
The reason is simple; sequels are blatant cash grabs by studios trying to bleed an idea dry. They're rehashing the same story as the original, or using lamer bad guys. Or worst of all, they undo the ending of the original so they can have the same character do the same things again. Comedy sequels are big offenders of this.
"We want Austin Powers to creep on women again in this one, so let's get rid of the chick he married in the first one. Because being a horny sleaze ball is funny, but not if he's cheating on his wife." -big studio
Some franchises manage to find a little mojo with a third movie that was lost in a second movie. Usually by pairing the hero with another strong character. Like Indiana Jones. Last Crusade was way better than Temple of Doom because of Sean Connery. Or Die Hard. First movie: great; all time classic. Second movie: meh; too much the result of thinking "how about Die Hard, but in an airport?" Then the third one comes along and pairs John McClain with Samuel L. Jackson and its a much better movie. Not as good as the first one, of course, but very watchable.
The worst thing is the nostalgia sequels. It's been 10+ years since the original and someone gets it in their head that we need to check in on Harry and Lloyd or Bill and Ted and that is always going to suck. Let's pull John McClain out of retirement and stick him in a fighter jet with that kid who did those Apple commercials and convince ourselves it won't suck.
My major criticism of Star Wars 7-9 was that it was just a basic poor man's retelling of 4-6 with different characters. I didn't even care that they stunk because I'd seen these movies before. It begins with a young, ignorant person trapped on a desert planet, has them getting trained in the middle movie by a mentor who wants to show them what an ignorant dumbass they really are while their friends get beaten up by the bad guys, and then ends with Lando Calrissian leading a hopeless assault on an impenetrable base in the Millennium Falcon. And that's just a very basic summary; I could type an entire list detailing every story crossover.
Quote from: formulanone on March 03, 2021, 05:57:28 AM
Pretty much each of the movies in the Lord of the Rings series is on equal footing, though I've not seen them all more than twice.
The Two Towers and Return of the King weren't really sequels, though. LOTR was one film in three parts, written as one, financed as one, three film commitment from the actors and creative staff...
Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2021, 04:55:13 PM
Quote from: formulanone on March 03, 2021, 05:57:28 AM
Pretty much each of the movies in the Lord of the Rings series is on equal footing, though I've not seen them all more than twice.
The Two Towers and Return of the King weren't really sequels, though. LOTR was one film in three parts, written as one, financed as one, three film commitment from the actors and creative staff...
Even still, the strongest of the three IMO is The Fellowship of the Ring. My preference slides down hill in the two progressing movies. To be fair, that isn't an insinuation that the movies were bad...the Hobbit movies on the other hand were. The Hobbit should have been a single movie and felt obviously stretched out as a money grab.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 02, 2021, 11:35:01 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 02, 2021, 11:33:07 PM
The sequels being worse than the original is the rule. We could have a much shorter thread writing about sequels that are better than the original.
Hmm, I the Odyssey is a more interesting epic than the Iliad.
Lethal Weapon was with good sequels and II was better than the original.
didn't like I, loved 2-4
Quote from: texaskdog on March 03, 2021, 06:21:59 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 02, 2021, 11:35:01 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 02, 2021, 11:33:07 PM
The sequels being worse than the original is the rule. We could have a much shorter thread writing about sequels that are better than the original.
Hmm, I the Odyssey is a more interesting epic than the Iliad.
Lethal Weapon was with good sequels and II was better than the original.
didn't like I, loved 2-4
I liked 2 and 3 but 4 is a little weak IMO, not terrible though. I kind of find myself surprised when I watch the Lethal Weapon movies nowadays how good they were.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 03, 2021, 04:47:54 PM
My major criticism of Star Wars 7-9 was that it was just a basic poor man's retelling of 4-6 with different characters. I didn't even care that they stunk because I'd seen these movies before. It begins with a young, ignorant person trapped on a desert planet, has them getting trained in the middle movie by a mentor who wants to show them what an ignorant dumbass they really are while their friends get beaten up by the bad guys, and then ends with Lando Calrissian leading a hopeless assault on an impenetrable base in the Millennium Falcon. And that's just a very basic summary; I could type an entire list detailing every story crossover.
I don't know why Star Wars gets away with that. Jedi had to copy the same ending as the original. Can't ever write some original scripts.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 03, 2021, 06:07:01 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2021, 04:55:13 PM
Quote from: formulanone on March 03, 2021, 05:57:28 AM
Pretty much each of the movies in the Lord of the Rings series is on equal footing, though I've not seen them all more than twice.
The Two Towers and Return of the King weren't really sequels, though. LOTR was one film in three parts, written as one, financed as one, three film commitment from the actors and creative staff...
Even still, the strongest of the three IMO is The Fellowship of the Ring. My preference slides down hill in the two progressing movies. To be fair, that isn't an insinuation that the movies were bad...the Hobbit movies on the other hand were. The Hobbit should have been a single movie and felt obviously stretched out as a money grab.
Agreed. If you look at the lengths of the original books, the Hobbit is more or less the same length as one Lord of the Rings volume. Since there are three of those, and one movie for each one, shouldn't there have been one Hobbit movie?
Apparently not. The problem is when you stretch a story out like that, you have to come up with a whole lot of plot for the movie that didn't exist in the book - one of the worst things you can do in my opinion. I get that in some cases you have to change up the plot a bit due to time/length constraints, but this should never be done in a way that completely changes the story. The second and third Hobbit movies wound up being okay but the first one was so bad it's almost unwatchable.
Quote from: texaskdog on March 03, 2021, 06:40:45 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 03, 2021, 04:47:54 PM
My major criticism of Star Wars 7-9 was that it was just a basic poor man's retelling of 4-6 with different characters. I didn't even care that they stunk because I'd seen these movies before. It begins with a young, ignorant person trapped on a desert planet, has them getting trained in the middle movie by a mentor who wants to show them what an ignorant dumbass they really are while their friends get beaten up by the bad guys, and then ends with Lando Calrissian leading a hopeless assault on an impenetrable base in the Millennium Falcon. And that's just a very basic summary; I could type an entire list detailing every story crossover.
I don't know why Star Wars gets away with that. Jedi had to copy the same ending as the original. Can't ever write some original scripts.
"Darn! My zillion credit Death Star just got blown to smithereens by Rebels in cheap snub fighters! What to do. I know! I'll build a NEW Death Star with the same plans and the same vulnerabilities! And this time, nothing can go wrong!"
The original Death Wish series went downhill after the first one. When I watched Death Wish V, I thought "please, put this series out of its misery". I got my wish on that one, though the Death Wish franchise was later revived -- I didn't see any of those.
The original Star Trek movies, the even-numbered ones were better than the odds, with V particularly awful. But II was a classic, while the first one I found forgettable. III was also pretty good.
The only non-Abrams Trek movie I really have no feeling toward is Nemesis. It seemed the franchise could never win; either the movie was criticized for being too un-Trek like, or especially with Generations and Insurrection that they were *too* much like a two-hour TV episode. The franchise just never really translated well to the big screen other than II.
I came to appreciate V a lot more over time for the fact it was the only one of the six movies that felt like the whole crew together having an adventure on the Enterprise. The rest of the films had the crew split up for large parts of the movie, and the one other movie they were all together (IV) had no Enterprise.
Quote from: oscar on March 03, 2021, 08:05:30 PM
The original Death Wish series went downhill after the first one. When I watched Death Wish V, I thought "please, put this series out of its misery". I got my wish on that one, though the Death Wish franchise was later revived -- I didn't see any of those.
The sequels were just excuses for Charles Bronson to kill lots of people on screen. The way his daughter died in the second movie is so over the top that it is impossible to take those movies serious from that point after.
Quote from: oscar on March 03, 2021, 08:05:30 PM
The original Star Trek movies, the even-numbered ones were better than the odds, with V particularly awful. But II was a classic, while the first one I found forgettable. III was also pretty good.
Probably because the main thrust of Star Trek: The Motion Picture was "check out this sweet new
Enterprise model we got". I swear, the scene where they were booting up the ship and pulling out of Spacedock took at least 20 minutes because of all of the establishing shots of the ship model. (To be fair, it was a cool-looking model.) I think they got enough footage from that, they didn't even need to shoot any exterior solo shots of the ship for the next two movies. (And then I think they got to reuse some of them for V and VI as long as they didn't show the registry number.)
Star Trek I, of course, inspired us to rename the original forum admin, Cody (username: voyager), to V'Ger when he was no longer welcome on the forum.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 03, 2021, 08:39:01 PM
Quote from: oscar on March 03, 2021, 08:05:30 PM
The original Death Wish series went downhill after the first one. When I watched Death Wish V, I thought "please, put this series out of its misery". I got my wish on that one, though the Death Wish franchise was later revived -- I didn't see any of those.
The sequels were just excuses for Charles Bronson to kill lots of people on screen. The way his daughter died in the second movie is so over the top that it is impossible to take those movies serious from that point after.
They should get Christopher Meloni to have Elliot Stabler take over and do what Elliot on SVU would ideally like and kill all sex perverts.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 03, 2021, 09:12:43 PM
Quote from: oscar on March 03, 2021, 08:05:30 PM
The original Star Trek movies, the even-numbered ones were better than the odds, with V particularly awful. But II was a classic, while the first one I found forgettable. III was also pretty good.
Probably because the main thrust of Star Trek: The Motion Picture was "check out this sweet new Enterprise model we got". I swear, the scene where they were booting up the ship and pulling out of Spacedock took at least 20 minutes because of all of the establishing shots of the ship model. (To be fair, it was a cool-looking model.) I think they got enough footage from that, they didn't even need to shoot any exterior solo shots of the ship for the next two movies. (And then I think they got to reuse some of them for V and VI as long as they didn't show the registry number.)
Star Trek I, of course, inspired us to rename the original forum admin, Cody (username: voyager), to V'Ger when he was no longer welcome on the forum.
I was reading someone's retrospective on seeing it in theaters when it came out. He made a point it was the first time in 10 years anyone had seen the Enterprise at that time, so to him the extra porn and pomp on that scene made sense.
So can we consider the Hobbit movies as sequels, even though they're prequels? They were released after and aren't near as good as LOTR, in my opinion
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 03, 2021, 09:56:20 PM
So can we consider the Hobbit movies as sequels, even though they're prequels? They were released after and aren't near as good as LOTR, in my opinion
Admittedly they are prequels in every sense of the word, but they were only made because they were cashing in on the success of the LOTR movies. The Hobbit has a huge issue in that it was intended to be a children's novel when the Lord of the Rings was decidedly adult oriented. Trying to the scale up The Hobbit to something adult oriented just didn't work. So really The Hobbit movies aren't really true as they should be to the source material whereas the LOTR movies were.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 03, 2021, 03:28:43 PM
As a general rule, any sequel that wasn't part of a designed trilogy (or similar) is trash compared to the original. There are exceptions like Wrath of Khan or Terminator 2, but the vast majority of the time, the sequel will suck.
The reason is simple; sequels are blatant cash grabs by studios trying to bleed an idea dry. They're rehashing the same story as the original, or using lamer bad guys. Or worst of all, they undo the ending of the original so they can have the same character do the same things again. Comedy sequels are big offenders of this.
"We want Austin Powers to creep on women again in this one, so let's get rid of the chick he married in the first one. Because being a horny sleaze ball is funny, but not if he's cheating on his wife." -big studio
Some franchises manage to find a little mojo with a third movie that was lost in a second movie. Usually by pairing the hero with another strong character. Like Indiana Jones. Last Crusade was way better than Temple of Doom because of Sean Connery. Or Die Hard. First movie: great; all time classic. Second movie: meh; too much the result of thinking "how about Die Hard, but in an airport?" Then the third one comes along and pairs John McClain with Samuel L. Jackson and its a much better movie. Not as good as the first one, of course, but very watchable.
The worst thing is the nostalgia sequels. It's been 10+ years since the original and someone gets it in their head that we need to check in on Harry and Lloyd or Bill and Ted and that is always going to suck. Let's pull John McClain out of retirement and stick him in a fighter jet with that kid who did those Apple commercials and convince ourselves it won't suck.
That's a good point, and brings up another issue with Star Trek: Into Darkness that caused me to not like the movie - it basically rehashed the same formula, down to Kirk getting in trouble early on but getting in command anyways because something happens to the people above him, having a scene where characters don space suits for a high-speed, high-stakes flight and also the pointless action sequence to save the Enterprise from something with gravity after the plot is resolved. Beyond deviated from that, mainly because it had a different writing team and JJ Abrams had moved on to Star Wars.
Something similar happens with National Treasure 2, which even went so far to split up the main couple just so they could repeat their arc from the first movie. Although at least we got to meet the main character's mom (although that may be a retcon) and we got a cool car chase with the backup camera.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 03, 2021, 09:12:43 PM
Quote from: oscar on March 03, 2021, 08:05:30 PM
The original Star Trek movies, the even-numbered ones were better than the odds, with V particularly awful. But II was a classic, while the first one I found forgettable. III was also pretty good.
Probably because the main thrust of Star Trek: The Motion Picture was "check out this sweet new Enterprise model we got". I swear, the scene where they were booting up the ship and pulling out of Spacedock took at least 20 minutes because of all of the establishing shots of the ship model. (To be fair, it was a cool-looking model.) I think they got enough footage from that, they didn't even need to shoot any exterior solo shots of the ship for the next two movies. (And then I think they got to reuse some of them for V and VI as long as they didn't show the registry number.)
Star Trek I, of course, inspired us to rename the original forum admin, Cody (username: voyager), to V'Ger when he was no longer welcome on the forum.
That scene was so long it got parodied in Lower Decks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTTXy4y1jn4
Wouldn't a more limiting topic be sequels that are BETTER than the original?
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 03, 2021, 09:41:49 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 03, 2021, 09:12:43 PM
Quote from: oscar on March 03, 2021, 08:05:30 PM
The original Star Trek movies, the even-numbered ones were better than the odds, with V particularly awful. But II was a classic, while the first one I found forgettable. III was also pretty good.
Probably because the main thrust of Star Trek: The Motion Picture was "check out this sweet new Enterprise model we got". I swear, the scene where they were booting up the ship and pulling out of Spacedock took at least 20 minutes because of all of the establishing shots of the ship model. (To be fair, it was a cool-looking model.) I think they got enough footage from that, they didn't even need to shoot any exterior solo shots of the ship for the next two movies. (And then I think they got to reuse some of them for V and VI as long as they didn't show the registry number.)
Star Trek I, of course, inspired us to rename the original forum admin, Cody (username: voyager), to V'Ger when he was no longer welcome on the forum.
I was reading someone's retrospective on seeing it in theaters when it came out. He made a point it was the first time in 10 years anyone had seen the Enterprise at that time, so to him the extra porn and pomp on that scene made sense.
I mean, I'm not saying it was
bad, necessarily. The twelve-year-old Trek geek that I was when I watched it for the first time loved it, and the music score was perfect. But in retrospect, I don't even really remember the plot of the movie, just how long that scene was. :P
Quote from: kkt on March 02, 2021, 11:33:07 PM
The sequels being worse than the original is the rule. We could have a much shorter thread writing about sequels that are better than the original.
Quote from: texaskdog on March 03, 2021, 11:06:41 PM
Wouldn't a more limiting topic be sequels that are BETTER than the original?
Which one of these posts is better, the original or the sequel?
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 03, 2021, 11:19:43 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 02, 2021, 11:33:07 PM
The sequels being worse than the original is the rule. We could have a much shorter thread writing about sequels that are better than the original.
Quote from: texaskdog on March 03, 2021, 11:06:41 PM
Wouldn't a more limiting topic be sequels that are BETTER than the original?
Which one of these posts is better, the original or the sequel?
I thought about that next. Asking which ones are great, but we have our own opinions of which specific ones that we like less or dislike more. I thought it would be good to discuss and so far I see it has.
Quote from: texaskdog on March 03, 2021, 11:06:41 PM
Wouldn't a more limiting topic be sequels that are BETTER than the original?
What a good idea. Thanks for mentioning it.
Homestuck^2. The original though...let me tell you about it ;)
I did enjoy the Epilogues, which are pretty much their own thing. Would've been included in the original story at first, but then stuff kept happening.
Any of the Michael Bay Transformers after the first one, especially Revenge of the Fallen and The Last Knight
Quote from: ET21 on March 04, 2021, 09:13:29 AM
Any of the Michael Bay Transformers after the first one, especially Revenge of the Fallen and The Last Knight
Bumble Bee was by far the best of the current Transformers movies. I would attribute that completely to Michael Bay not being the director.
Someone needs to teach Michael Bay how tall buildings fall down. :-/
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 04, 2021, 07:14:04 PM
Someone needs to teach Michael Bay how tall buildings fall down. :-/
Someone needed to tell Michael Bay he was carried by the cheesiness of Nicolas Cage.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 04, 2021, 07:14:04 PM
Someone needs to teach Michael Bay how tall buildings fall down. :-/
Someone also needs to tell Michael Bay the real story of Pearl Harbor and the Doolittle Raid. Forget bad sequels, this was bad, period.
Quote from: texaskdog on March 03, 2021, 06:40:45 PM
I don't know why Star Wars gets away with that. Jedi had to copy the same ending as the original. Can't ever write some original scripts.
But Return of the Jedi has more going on than just the assault on the Death Star - it also has the ground battle and the battles between Luke, Vader and the Emperor. The original only had the assault on the first Death Star.
It's been awhile since I've seen the "Star Trek" movies, but I remember being bored and a little let down by the first one, especially since I had been such a fan of the television series. And I never really understood why Khan was the villain brought back for the second movie, as I never really was a huge fan of the "Space Seed" episode where he first appeared. I almost would have preferred a return of tribbles.
Some of the "Dirty Harry" movies were as good as or better than the original, I thought; but again, it's been years since I have seen any of them.
I saw The Wrath of Khan before I saw "Space Seed" and I remember thinking "Space Seed" was pretty lame compared to the movie. (Then again, pretty much all of the original series is kind of lame, although it's lame in the most fun way possible.)
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 04, 2021, 10:20:28 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on March 03, 2021, 06:40:45 PM
I don't know why Star Wars gets away with that. Jedi had to copy the same ending as the original. Can't ever write some original scripts.
But Return of the Jedi has more going on than just the assault on the Death Star - it also has the ground battle and the battles between Luke, Vader and the Emperor. The original only had the assault on the first Death Star.
Original had the chase through the Death Star, to get the tractor beam turned off, and the jailbreak and the garbage compactor! And the scenes on Tantoine. I thought I got my money's worth.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 04, 2021, 11:07:05 PM
I saw The Wrath of Khan before I saw "Space Seed" and I remember thinking "Space Seed" was pretty lame compared to the movie. (Then again, pretty much all of the original series is kind of lame, although it's lame in the most fun way possible.)
Most of the original Star Trek series is a huge drop in quality compared to any of the movies. 1960s TV in general hasn't aged well at all and feels as primitive as it really was through modern eyes.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 04, 2021, 11:34:05 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 04, 2021, 11:07:05 PM
I saw The Wrath of Khan before I saw "Space Seed" and I remember thinking "Space Seed" was pretty lame compared to the movie. (Then again, pretty much all of the original series is kind of lame, although it's lame in the most fun way possible.)
Most of the original Star Trek series is a huge drop in quality compared to any of the movies. 1960s TV in general hasn't aged well at all and feels as primitive as it really was through modern eyes.
The cringeworthy moments to me are mostly the treatment of women. A lot of the time, though, I'm impressed by how well they did with a shoestring budget, just by having some good ideas and good actors.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 04, 2021, 10:35:32 PM
It's been awhile since I've seen the "Star Trek" movies, but I remember being bored and a little let down by the first one, especially since I had been such a fan of the television series. And I never really understood why Khan was the villain brought back for the second movie, as I never really was a huge fan of the "Space Seed" episode where he first appeared. I almost would have preferred a return of tribbles.
After the first movie was successful at the box office but had also cost (for the time) an enormous amount of money to make which Paramount saw as a pyrrhic victory, Gene Roddenberry was kicked upstairs. One of the new creative heads brought in for the sequel watched all the TOS episodes and felt Khan was the perfect villain. If you think about it though, he's really the only "name" villain associated with the entire franchise. The bad guys of the week were usually identified by races, not names and faces. DS9 brought back three TOS Klingon villains of the week (I believe they killed off two, then kept the third one for a few recurring appearances before offing him as well), but only hardcore fans of the franchise would get those references.
Some guys tried making a feature length fan film about Garth of Izar ("Whom Gods Destroy") which got Paramount's attention in a very bad way, and led to their heavy crackdown on Trek fan media.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 04, 2021, 09:41:02 AM
Quote from: ET21 on March 04, 2021, 09:13:29 AM
Any of the Michael Bay Transformers after the first one, especially Revenge of the Fallen and The Last Knight
Bumble Bee was by far the best of the current Transformers movies. I would attribute that completely to Michael Bay not being the director.
The Transformer designs were overall nice, I liked them. To bad we paid more attention to the human story and the horrid dialogue
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 04, 2021, 10:20:28 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on March 03, 2021, 06:40:45 PM
I don't know why Star Wars gets away with that. Jedi had to copy the same ending as the original. Can't ever write some original scripts.
But Return of the Jedi has more going on than just the assault on the Death Star - it also has the ground battle and the battles between Luke, Vader and the Emperor. The original only had the assault on the first Death Star.
And the Empire is defeated by teddy bears
Quote from: texaskdog on March 05, 2021, 09:27:51 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 04, 2021, 10:20:28 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on March 03, 2021, 06:40:45 PM
I don't know why Star Wars gets away with that. Jedi had to copy the same ending as the original. Can't ever write some original scripts.
But Return of the Jedi has more going on than just the assault on the Death Star - it also has the ground battle and the battles between Luke, Vader and the Emperor. The original only had the assault on the first Death Star.
And the Empire is defeated by teddy bears
Yeah that was cheesy. The Ewoks were obviously for the younger audience, but that said I'd take the Ewoks over Jar-Jar any day! 🤢
Quote from: kkt on March 05, 2021, 12:51:28 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 04, 2021, 11:34:05 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 04, 2021, 11:07:05 PM
I saw The Wrath of Khan before I saw "Space Seed" and I remember thinking "Space Seed" was pretty lame compared to the movie. (Then again, pretty much all of the original series is kind of lame, although it's lame in the most fun way possible.)
Most of the original Star Trek series is a huge drop in quality compared to any of the movies. 1960s TV in general hasn't aged well at all and feels as primitive as it really was through modern eyes.
The cringeworthy moments to me are mostly the treatment of women. A lot of the time, though, I'm impressed by how well they did with a shoestring budget, just by having some good ideas and good actors.
The Gorn fight is something that highly amuses me to this very day. I don't know how they could have filmed that scene without repeatedly laughing.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 10:12:51 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on March 05, 2021, 09:27:51 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 04, 2021, 10:20:28 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on March 03, 2021, 06:40:45 PM
I don't know why Star Wars gets away with that. Jedi had to copy the same ending as the original. Can't ever write some original scripts.
But Return of the Jedi has more going on than just the assault on the Death Star - it also has the ground battle and the battles between Luke, Vader and the Emperor. The original only had the assault on the first Death Star.
And the Empire is defeated by teddy bears
Yeah that was cheesy. The Ewoks were obviously for the younger audience, but that said I'd take the Ewoks over Jar-Jar any day! 🤢
I subscribe for eh Darth Jar Jar theory and his Drunken Master style of using the dark side. BTW the Ewoks might look cute but they probably ate their Storm Trooper victims.
The Ewok are awesome. Cuddly forest creatures who can launch a successful attack against the enemy. Our youngest dressed as an Ewok one or two Halloweens ago, and we still use the costume for daycare dress-up.
Jar Jar was fine in the first movie, but not after that.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 05, 2021, 02:11:24 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 04, 2021, 10:35:32 PM
It's been awhile since I've seen the "Star Trek" movies, but I remember being bored and a little let down by the first one, especially since I had been such a fan of the television series. And I never really understood why Khan was the villain brought back for the second movie, as I never really was a huge fan of the "Space Seed" episode where he first appeared. I almost would have preferred a return of tribbles.
After the first movie was successful at the box office but had also cost (for the time) an enormous amount of money to make which Paramount saw as a pyrrhic victory, Gene Roddenberry was kicked upstairs. One of the new creative heads brought in for the sequel watched all the TOS episodes and felt Khan was the perfect villain. If you think about it though, he's really the only "name" villain associated with the entire franchise. The bad guys of the week were usually identified by races, not names and faces. DS9 brought back three TOS Klingon villains of the week (I believe they killed off two, then kept the third one for a few recurring appearances before offing him as well), but only hardcore fans of the franchise would get those references.
Some guys tried making a feature length fan film about Garth of Izar ("Whom Gods Destroy") which got Paramount's attention in a very bad way, and led to their heavy crackdown on Trek fan media.
The Go Fund Me effort and questionable places for the finances really got CBS teed off (they had most to lose) especially since they were starting up the CBS All Access and was going to showcase new Star Trek to drive up subscriptions. They now were concerned about the money they could lose if someone else was doing a decent Trek online for "free".
Quote from: Life in Paradise on March 05, 2021, 01:03:49 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 05, 2021, 02:11:24 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 04, 2021, 10:35:32 PM
It's been awhile since I've seen the "Star Trek" movies, but I remember being bored and a little let down by the first one, especially since I had been such a fan of the television series. And I never really understood why Khan was the villain brought back for the second movie, as I never really was a huge fan of the "Space Seed" episode where he first appeared. I almost would have preferred a return of tribbles.
After the first movie was successful at the box office but had also cost (for the time) an enormous amount of money to make which Paramount saw as a pyrrhic victory, Gene Roddenberry was kicked upstairs. One of the new creative heads brought in for the sequel watched all the TOS episodes and felt Khan was the perfect villain. If you think about it though, he's really the only "name" villain associated with the entire franchise. The bad guys of the week were usually identified by races, not names and faces. DS9 brought back three TOS Klingon villains of the week (I believe they killed off two, then kept the third one for a few recurring appearances before offing him as well), but only hardcore fans of the franchise would get those references.
Some guys tried making a feature length fan film about Garth of Izar ("Whom Gods Destroy") which got Paramount's attention in a very bad way, and led to their heavy crackdown on Trek fan media.
The Go Fund Me effort and questionable places for the finances really got CBS teed off (they had most to lose) especially since they were starting up the CBS All Access and was going to showcase new Star Trek to drive up subscriptions. They now were concerned about the money they could lose if someone else was doing a decent Trek online for "free".
Yeah, I'm not sure what they were thinking. Just because you're not selling the movie doesn't mean you're not profiting from the Kickstarter if you're going to be selling movies made with the same studio built using the Kickstarter funds. They were practically asking to be shut down. The fact that the movie took place in the mid-23rd Century and that all this was happening right as Star Trek: Discovery was starting pre-production could not have helped either.
It looks like that crackdown might have relaxed a little, as I've seen fan media released in recent times that exceeds the 15 minutes max per part/30 minutes max total from the original guidelines.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 10:12:51 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on March 05, 2021, 09:27:51 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 04, 2021, 10:20:28 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on March 03, 2021, 06:40:45 PM
I don't know why Star Wars gets away with that. Jedi had to copy the same ending as the original. Can't ever write some original scripts.
But Return of the Jedi has more going on than just the assault on the Death Star - it also has the ground battle and the battles between Luke, Vader and the Emperor. The original only had the assault on the first Death Star.
And the Empire is defeated by teddy bears
Yeah that was cheesy. The Ewoks were obviously for the younger audience, but that said I'd take the Ewoks over Jar-Jar any day!
A little cheezy, but you needed a primal element that could outsmart the technological prowess of the Empire. After all, Luke switches off his computer in the Battle of Yavin IV and trusts his otherworldly senses. His machinery and tools are stymied by Yoda. It still begs the question how they could have allowed the shield base to be built there in the first place, if they were able to outwit them later on. Maybe they just didn't care until they had something to fight for in the name of the Storytelling Solar Element / Great Golden Master.
A race of Wookiees would have made quicker work for essentially the same effect, but (1) then they'd be able to out-muscle the humans (2) the costumes would have cost more.