Homestar Runner Wiki Forum :: View topic - Do the majority of movie sequels suck?

Well, not all of them are. I've seen sequels that are horrible, and I've seen some that are fantastic. Don't you people think that the LORT trilogy is amazing?

ramrod wrote:

Well, not all of them are. I've seen sequels that are horrible, and I've seen some that are fantastic. Don't you people think that the LORT trilogy is amazing?

LORT? I think you mean LotR...and being a trilogy of movies based on a series of books that had been around for a long time (all of which were overall simultaneously conceptualized by their author ), it's not really fair to call the subsequent movies "sequels," because that would imply that the initial movie/story was meant to be a stand-alone piece, where with LotR, it wasn't.

Horror sequels usually suck, because the moster more often than not, died in the first, but then the movie made a lot of money, so they came up with a crappy reason to bring him back.

ramrod wrote:

Well, not all of them are. I've seen sequels that are horrible, and I've seen some that are fantastic. Don't you people think that the LORT trilogy is amazing?

Well, I never saw the LotR trilogy, so I kinda didn't know what it was really all about. Would Austin Powers have been a better example?

Horror sequels usually suck, because the monster more often than not, died in the first, but then the movie made a lot of money, so they came up with a crappy reason to bring him back.

ramrod wrote:

Well, I never saw the LotR trilogy, so I kinda didn't know what it was really all about. Would Austin Powers have been a better example?

How about you stick to movies you have seen? You'll look less like a fool.

i watched them, but out of order. was international man of mystery first of second?

Ooh!
Toy Story 2 was better than Toy Story 1 in some ways!

(Yes I liked the Ewoks, you got a problem?)

Beyond the Grave wrote:

(Yes I liked the Ewoks, you got a problem?)

Yes I do, freakin' teddy bears...just as bad as Jar Jar.
5 was the best in the series, though Star Wars is another series where the sequels were planned ahead, a true part of the story, so that worked.

DESTROY US ALL! wrote:

Beyond the Grave wrote:

(Yes I liked the Ewoks, you got a problem?)

Wait, I thought that Lucas made the prequels to explain how tragic a character Anakin is, because that wasn't getting across well enough.

Author:	tompkins! [ Sun Jan 07, 2007 4:18 am ]
Post subject:	Do the majority of movie sequels suck?
Well, in my opinion, pretty much every sequel i've seen has sucked compared to the first movie.

Author:	DESTROY US ALL! [ Sun Jan 07, 2007 4:19 am ]
Post subject:
Prequels are worse, STAR WARS. But sequels can be the best in the series STAR WARS

Author:	ramrod [ Sun Jan 07, 2007 4:27 am ]
Post subject:
Well, not all of them are. I've seen sequels that are horrible, and I've seen some that are fantastic. Don't you people think that the LORT trilogy is amazing?

Author:	PianoManGidley [ Sun Jan 07, 2007 4:36 am ]
Post subject:
ramrod wrote: Well, not all of them are. I've seen sequels that are horrible, and I've seen some that are fantastic. Don't you people think that the LORT trilogy is amazing? LORT? I think you mean LotR...and being a trilogy of movies based on a series of books that had been around for a long time (all of which were overall simultaneously conceptualized by their author ), it's not really fair to call the subsequent movies "sequels," because that would imply that the initial movie/story was meant to be a stand-alone piece, where with LotR, it wasn't.

Author:	topofsm [ Sun Jan 07, 2007 5:23 am ]
Post subject:
Well, there are different times when one will be better than the originals. Comedy movies are generally better faring sequels than other kinds. Shrek 2 was way better than Shrek IMO. Scary Movie had 3 sequels, and pretty much every one exept SM4. Anything else sucks at sequels. Period. Star Wars and LOTR maybe, but basically everything else. And the worst is the cartoon sequel. Does anyone remember Land Before Time? It got way old after about the 18th sequel. Or the 2nd one, take your pick.

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Do the majority of movie sequels suck? http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10555	Page 1 of 2

Author:	bwave [ Sun Jan 07, 2007 5:41 am ]
Post subject:
PianoManGidley wrote: ramrod wrote: Well, not all of them are. I've seen sequels that are horrible, and I've seen some that are fantastic. Don't you people think that the LORT trilogy is amazing? LORT? I think you mean LotR...and being a trilogy of movies based on a series of books that had been around for a long time (all of which were overall simultaneously conceptualized by their author ), it's not really fair to call the subsequent movies "sequels," because that would imply that the initial movie/story was meant to be a stand-alone piece, where with LotR, it wasn't. Also, they were all shot at once, and just cut into different movies, becuase most people arent patient enough for a 10 hour movie. I think that the fact that J.R.R. Tolkien spent so much time on them, and that the movies were all shot at once, that is why the movies were all good. Horror sequels usually suck, because the moster more often than not, died in the first, but then the movie made a lot of money, so they came up with a crappy reason to bring him back. Comedy sequels are often good. The just have to keep making jokes, and character development and story are not always the most important part. Action sequels are often corny. "OMG! The world is in danger! send in james bond, alone with 2 cool gadgets. Seriously, dont send anyone with him. It's not like there are hundreds of people in our military ready to fight. He can handle 965,000 enemies on his own."

Author:	topofsm [ Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:01 am ]
Post subject:
bwave wrote: Horror sequels usually suck, because the moster more often than not, died in the first, but then the movie made a lot of money, so they came up with a crappy reason to bring him back. Well, usually the horror movies now keep the enemy or whatever alive, for 2 reasons. 1. To make the viewer afraid that it might still be out there. 2. To have room for a crappy sequel if the movie itself is commercially successfull.

Author:	ramrod [ Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:27 am ]
Post subject:
PianoManGidley wrote: ramrod wrote: Well, not all of them are. I've seen sequels that are horrible, and I've seen some that are fantastic. Don't you people think that the LORT trilogy is amazing? LORT? I think you mean LotR...and being a trilogy of movies based on a series of books that had been around for a long time (all of which were overall simultaneously conceptualized by their author ), it's not really fair to call the subsequent movies "sequels," because that would imply that the initial movie/story was meant to be a stand-alone piece, where with LotR, it wasn't. Well, I never saw the LotR trilogy, so I kinda didn't know what it was really all about. Would Austin Powers have been a better example?

Author:	Beyond the Grave [ Sun Jan 07, 2007 3:55 pm ]
Post subject:
ramrod wrote: Well, I never saw the LotR trilogy, so I kinda didn't know what it was really all about. Would Austin Powers have been a better example? How about you stick to movies you have seen? You'll look less like a fool. I think there are some really well done sequels out there, like Godfather Part II, Spider-Man 2, Episodes 5 & 6 of Star Wars(Yes I liked the Ewoks, you got a problem?), And yes there are some really horrible sequels, Batman & Robin comes to mind.

Author:	ready for prime time [ Sun Jan 07, 2007 4:17 pm ]
Post subject:
bwave wrote: Horror sequels usually suck, because the monster more often than not, died in the first, but then the movie made a lot of money, so they came up with a crappy reason to bring him back. is that what happened after Alien 3? oh, wait. Ripley died, not the alien. my mistake.

Author:	ramrod [ Sun Jan 07, 2007 4:26 pm ]
Post subject:
Beyond the Grave wrote: ramrod wrote: Well, I never saw the LotR trilogy, so I kinda didn't know what it was really all about. Would Austin Powers have been a better example? How about you stick to movies you have seen? You'll look less like a fool. Well, I was trying to appeal to something that many people have seen, that's why. That's why after I said that the Austin Powers series would have been a better example.

Author:	King of Katamari [ Sun Jan 07, 2007 4:30 pm ]
Post subject:
ready for prime time wrote: i watched them, but out of order. was international man of mystery first of second? First.

Author:	Cybernetic Teenybopper [ Sun Jan 07, 2007 5:56 pm ]
Post subject:
"Cut up?" It's a bit more complicated than that, and anyway, I think the third movie alone was maybe 10 hours with everything they shot for it. But I think you really just have to judge sequels on an individual movie basis. I don't think being a sequel automatically exhaults or dooms a movie. Lazy directors and scriptwriters might, but that can happen to any movie. So I say it just depends.

Author:	PianoManGidley [ Sun Jan 07, 2007 9:08 pm ]
Post subject:
I at least think that Terminator 2 was much more pwnsome than the first Terminator movie (which was pretty cool itself), but T3 was just a big let-down for me...probably because they hyped it up for being even better than T2, which it wasn't. I guess I'm bad that way--I expect hype to be true, and if it falls short, then the movie just really sucks in my eyes...and it makes me want to hurt the producers or something. But whatever...pretty much 99% of all the movies being released by Hollywood anymore are remakes, sequels, prequels, or adaptations...you're hard-pressed to find anything truly original.

Author:	iKipapa [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 12:00 am ]
Post subject:
I voted "yes, with a few exceptions." Spider-Man 2 is one I can think of right now.

Author:	keneniah6 [ Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:29 am ]
Post subject:
Wierdest exception, the Star Trek movies, all of the even numbered ones are better than the odd numbered ones. Pirates 2 does not count as a sequel as much the next in a series ala Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back. What's worse? Movies that are made into T.V. Shows. Only exception I know, SG1. But, they hired none of the original actors and started years after the movie. Goodness, I am a movie snob/geek.

Author:	ChickenLeg [ Sat Jan 13, 2007 1:39 am ]
Post subject:
It depends on what movie it is. I find Naked Gun 33 1/3 hilarious, but I wouldn't touch Airplane! 2 with a ten foot pole.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Revenge of the Burninated [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:26 pm ]
Post subject:
yes, cartoon sequels are almost always worse, especially when all the original voices are dead and the animation is different but the movie still tries to be exactly the same, whih means they reuse their old plot. Anyway....it all depends on who made it. Pirates 2 was not as good as 1, and I guess it's a sequel, although it's in a trilogy. It seems kind of like a filler movie, building up to the third which will be awesome (kind of like how Two Towers was nto quite as good as the others, tho it was still awesome.

Author:	SEAN'D! [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 2:43 pm ]
Post subject:
Ooh! Toy Story 2 was better than Toy Story 1 in some ways!

Author:	ready for prime time [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 3:21 pm ]
Post subject:
so i'm not the only one who thought that...

Author:	Cybernetic Teenybopper [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:04 pm ]
Post subject:
SEAN'D! wrote: Ooh! Toy Story 2 was better than Toy Story 1 in some ways! I think I'm the only one who doesn't like Toy Story 2. I never really did. It's my least favorite Pixar movie. I don't even like it as a movie in general.

Author:	Did he sell eggs? [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 11:21 pm ]
Post subject:
Yeah, but I have seen good movie sequels. Video game sequels are usually great, if the first one was good enough.

Author:	DESTROY US ALL! [ Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:29 am ]
Post subject:
Beyond the Grave wrote: (Yes I liked the Ewoks, you got a problem?) Yes I do, freakin' teddy bears...just as bad as Jar Jar. 5 was the best in the series, though Star Wars is another series where the sequels were planned ahead, a true part of the story, so that worked.

Author:	J-Man [ Fri Jan 12, 2007 11:34 pm ]
Post subject:
Topic name: Do the majority of movie sequels suck? Poll title: Do all sequels suck? Uhm...? Either way, I think most sequels/prequels suck.

Author:	ready for prime time [ Sat Jan 13, 2007 1:43 am ]
Post subject:
luckily, i have this 11 foot pole!

Author:	StrongRad [ Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:28 am ]
Post subject:
Some sequels are incredible (sometimes better than the original). The determining factor seems to be whether the sequel was made because the first movie made a crapload of money or because the first movie was good and could reasonably be extended upon. Action movie sequels aren't always horrible. Ever hear of a little movie called Terminator 2? What about the James Bond movies (recent ones excluded, of course)? Comedy movies CAN make great sequels, too. Meet the Fockers was a pretty good sequel. Cannonball Run 2 and some of the Smoky and the Bandit sequels weren't any worse than the originals. Clerks II was pretty funny, too. Maybe slightly funnier than the original. A lot of sequels shouldn't be made, though (Land Before Time 3-32767, I'm looking at you!).

Author:	The Noid [ Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:32 am ]
Post subject:
DESTROY US ALL! wrote: Beyond the Grave wrote: (Yes I liked the Ewoks, you got a problem?) Yes I do, freakin' teddy bears...just as bad as Jar Jar. 5 was the best in the series, though Star Wars is another series where the sequels were planned ahead, a true part of the story, so that worked. Wait, I thought that Lucas made the prequels to explain how tragic a character Anakin is, because that wasn't getting across well enough.

Author:	StrongRad [ Sun Jan 14, 2007 2:52 am ]
Post subject:
The Noid wrote: DESTROY US ALL! wrote: Beyond the Grave wrote: (Yes I liked the Ewoks, you got a problem?) Yes I do, freakin' teddy bears...just as bad as Jar Jar. 5 was the best in the series, though Star Wars is another series where the sequels were planned ahead, a true part of the story, so that worked. Wait, I thought that Lucas made the prequels to explain how tragic a character Anakin is, because that wasn't getting across well enough. That's what a lot of people say, but after seeing 2 and 3, I say it's more likely $$$

Author:	Revenge of the Burninated [ Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:49 pm ]
Post subject:
yes, Toy Story 2 was even better, as was Shrek 2. As long as the movie is recent, people are getting better at making sequels. But when they make sequels of old movies... Star Wars 1-3 were to increase popularity by making it well-CGI'd. Old fans would like it, and new people would start to like Star Wars b/c it was well done. They were also trying to capitalize on the growing popularity of fantasy, by making the old republic virtually Rome, with guns. 4-6 could be passed off as Sci-Fi, but 1-3 were fantasy with some robots added. Question is, are 7-9 ever coming out?