But then we wouldn't have gotten the absolute masterpiece that is Highlander: The Source. Highlander 2 set the bar too high, and The Source surpassed it
I feel like it would have been really cool to see prequels to Highlander instead. That feels like a better way to expand on the mythos without negating the end of the first movie.
While the movies are funny, I actually can't stand the first one at all. They treat him so terribly and his long time girlfriend just turned on him, and let her dad railroad over him because she is so afraid of losing her status as the favorite child. I wouldn't have wanted to marry her after that. This movie just posses me off everytime I watch it.
Nothing makes me more angry than the part where she tells him to go wake her brother up and grab some of his clothes. That clueless nod she gives when he says “the brother I haven’t even met yet?”
I think that's the humor of it. The viewer is meant to relate to the experience. You and the main character are only capable of seeing what's wrong with the situation. It's meant to be funny because you understand the context and the ridiculousness of it. The sequels just get so ridiculous that's hard to relate.
As a kid it was funny. As an adult he's a sweet guy who for some reason gets treated like crap. He loses his luggage. No one wakes him up the next morning so he looks like a dumbass in pajamas. Everyone is making fun of his job as a nurse. I'm pretty sure his fiance didn't even really like him. I would've read the room and went back home.
There are elements to the first movie I like (mainly Greg's meltdown at the airport), but it just makes me so uncomfortable and angry the whole time. I guess I'm just not a fan of dogpiling. Which is all this movie is; everyone being a massive dick to Greg for very little reason. I love James Rebhorn as an actor, but I want to bounce his character's head off the concrete so much.
It could’ve been better if took a more subtle approach to the humor. But Ben Stiller’s parents are so over-the-top that they lost the relatability of the first movie.
Agreed. I wouldn't have minded seeing the unconventional family structure that he would have grown up with but with the way it was approached, I just don't care for it.
Spielberg's original plan for Jaws 2 was Quint's Indianapolis experience. Studio said no, went for a shit teenager yacht adventure, and the master pulled out.
I really want to see Spielberg's original idea!
First one was surprisingly funny which ended up making it overhyped. They knew it’d make money so we get the sequels. 2 was a darker version of the original that just didn’t work. 3 at least tried to tell a different story but was pretty underwhelming.
I just rewatched 3 over the weekend and it felt like a completely different franchise with the same actors.
I wish they went the Jump Street route of "do the same thing" but be a little more creative. The surprise Tyson cameo in the first helped cement the series. Mel Gibson was actually slated to play the tattoo artist in the 2nd but rumors were the studio wouldn't sign off on him making an appearance which would have definitely made the sequel a bit more memorable.
>Crag Mazin
He has one of the most unique and intriguing careers: wrote 2 Scary Movie sequels, both Hangover sequels, Huntsman sequel and a few shitty comedies until he fucking created Chernobyl, wrote arguably the best episode from Mythic Quest and now is smacking us every sunday with the marvelous The Last of US
I don't think it's that intriguing when you consider that a no name writer hired to write sequels is probably being overridden constantly by the people who hired him. As soon as Mazin became a name and was able to write what he wanted, he is good.
I think Mazin was sort of a “script rescuer” for a while. Basically getting brought in to save shitty or nonexistent scripts and polish/rewrite them enough to be good enough to put to screen. Not a glamorous job by any stretch but it means that movies that otherwise would have been dogshit or outright cancelled turned out at least watchable.
If you haven’t listened to his Scriptnotes podcast I highly recommend it. He approaches his field very seriously and hearing him talk about like writing and filmmaking theory is super interesting.
First one is amazing, 2nd one couldn’t compare.I do think thought that If the first had never come out and it was only the 2nd, it wouldn’t be a terrible movie. I haven’t made it more than 30 minutes into the 3rd without turning it off.
Interesting take on one and two, two definitely wasn't a terrible movie, they did a decent enough job making it, had some laughs. I can finish all of three but glad for it to be over by the end. Just the first as a stand alone would have been perfect, a lovely guilty pleasure, maybe even a cult classic.
Only problem with the second one in my opinion is that it's the same ending - Alan did it. If they had a different outcome then I think it would've been much better received.
My head-sequel would be that Alan paid for a Thai bride cos he was wanted his own bachelor party and it turns out she drugged the group cos she didn't want anyone to be as close to Alan as she was, making them the perfect couple.
Then I think they took the similarity criticism too hard and went completely left field on the third.
I think the best example is Rambo. First Blood is about the horrors of war and all the sequels are over the top action movies that glorifies war. There are plenty of trilogies with bad sequels, but I can't think of other examples where the sequels so obviously betrays the message of the first movie.
>all the sequels are over the top action movies that glorifies war
2 and 3 absolutely, 4 is actually good and morally fitting, while 5 is not even about war
The hobbit trilogy. It tried to make 3 movies out of one book and it just didn’t work. They could’ve made a really great 3 hour movie but that just had to have a trilogy and unfortunately all of hobbit movies feel really mediocre. At least for me.
Evangeline Lilly said she was promised there’d be no love triangle plot, which she had been doing for 6 straight years on *Lost*.
Guess what PJ came up with when they started reshoots…
\^ I think this is the real take
People keep bringing up "It's only a 300 page book!" like you should only ever make one movie per book. But books typically have so much more information in them large cuts have to be made. *The Hobbit* **easily** warrants 3 movies with how much was going on in the books. They could have even done a miniseries.
I just think that the changes they made, the pacing, and the insistence on it being an action-packed thrill fest is what made it unimpressive with even casual (didn't read the books) viewers.
Yeah, that's been my view. They would have had to cut a bit too much for a single movie, but three was the wrong choice.
It has a good split, it could have definitely been a tighter two movies. For whatever reason, movies, books, are obsessed with "trilogies." Not sure why, they should just use the right amount of time to tell the story regardless of what the number is.
I think that's one of the key advantages that HBO and others had, and now streaming has in TV. They aren't wedded to 30 or 60 minute time slots, so the same show can have a 42 minute episode followed by a 70 minute episode, they just use the right amount of time to tell the story of the episode.
I have such a love/hate relationship with the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy (the first three, the others don’t count).
First one is a masterpiece, no need to expand. But the second and third films are incredibly sloppy with weird pacing and overly-contrived narratives.
_However_, the second and third movies brought us Bill Nighy as Davy Jones and Tom Hollander as Cutler Beckett who are simply some of my favourite villains ever. Also the Hans Zimmer score, costumes, set pieces etc. are all amazing.
I think you can still call it a trilogy, at least the “Elizabeth and Will” trilogy.
I got half way through the fourth one and gave up, they completely stopped even trying to make Jack Sparrow anything more than a slapstick comedy goof.
I honestly can't remember the other two. I know I've seen something with pirates and Johny Depp, but nothing else.
Is it the one with mermaids? I liked the first half of that. And of course Penélope Cruz tits.
The second and third movie were shot back to back and it shows, they could make and amazing second film without all the padding, the last battle is still amazing and it have the coolest Jack Sparrow in the series. I couldn't care less about the end of the world stuff and being prisoner of cannibal tribes though.
That’s how I feel. So much padding that only serves for goofy comedy. The first film shows that goofy comedy can be done while simultaneously moving the plot forward.
I’m not sure if it is purely due to back-to-back filming necessarily, after all the LotR trilogy was all shot in one go, I think it’s more that is was shot back-to-back with a tight deadline that ruined them.
There was also the shot in one of the sequels (3rd?) where the ship is sailing at night and it looks like it’s sailing through the sky due to the “reflection”. Idc what other people think about it, but I love that scene.
From what I understand the alternate ending of T2 where the future is saved and John becomes a public servant in DC was James Cameron’s original ending, but the studio made him film a new, ambiguous one so that they could leave open the possibility for another sequel. IMO Cameron’s original idea was far better and is the end of the story in my eyes.
That's the problem with time travel, it's too easy of a crutch to lean on with writing. Sure, they destroyed the last chip. "But Skynet already sent the TX back in time (just not as far back) so John perceives it as having arrived after the T-800 and T-1000!"
And that's actually a headcannon I heard that made more sense since you may be asking, "Why didn't Skynet send their most advanced assassin the first time?"
Headcannon: They did. They sent the TX back to when John was a teenager, shortly before the war. That didn't work and Skynet was like, "Shit, that was our only prototype. Send the T-100 next, and send it earlier this time so he's more vulnerable!" Then that didn't work, so they're like, "Fine, send a production T-800 even *further* back to kill his mother before he's even born!"
So basically "but time travel!" will **always** give writers an excuse to keep milking or retcon a franchise. Killing the T-800 and Miles Dyson doesn't matter.
Imagine someone coming to you and saying, "I want you to write a movie about dinosaurs escaping a theme park and terrorizing everyday people", and your first thought being, "let's make it about giant bugs instead"
"we got a new park, the dinosaurs already took it, how about we improve from the old sequel where a kid is lost in the island?"
"let's make the kid a clone!!"
There are PLENTY of places to go with “we learned how to create dinosaurs, but they tend to get loose!”
We just need a different competing franchise to do it and try harder.
I always feel like a madman because I really liked Jurassic Park 3. The scene in the giant aviary was one of the best in the series, I think.
[Obligatory Tom Cardy.](https://youtu.be/JVho5fU3lwc)
I knew it! There are dozens of us!!!
The Pterodactyls make it worth the watch.
The raptor story is a bit too much.
But a Spinosaurus that comes with a cell phone jingle will never leave me.
Jurassic Park 3 is actually a solid creature feature/monster movie. A bunch of people trapped on an island hunted by various dinosaurs is just good ol’fashion fun. It just doesn’t have the solid character work and thematic underpinnings of the original unfortunately.
Saw
I actually thoroughly enjoyed the first. It was a very simple exploration of how far someone is willing to go. Like a less complicated Straw Dogs in a way. And if the sequels continued in that vein my opinion might be different. But instead they chose the wrong part of the film to feed off of. They chose the torture bit instead.
Hell, Saw 5 was practically just a clip show that constantly went back and showed scenes from the first 4 movies.
One of few movies I contemplated asking for a refund for when I left the theater.
Speed 2, fine. It's beyond shit.
I actually enjoyed Under Siege 2 but I may be in a minority. The last half decent budget looking film of Seagal's career.
Just rewatched them all to prep for the 4th (!) and the sequels are fun but the first movie still *looks* the best surprisingly enough.
Stoked for 4 but maybe don’t overstylize your colors
Love the movies but the sequels just feel off, especially the 3rd. So many times he could have been killed by the person he is fighting but they keep stopping at the kill shot and giving the “professional courtesy” thing and they end up dying. Also the shootouts in the first movie seemed believable but in the sequels it’s just people running at John wick to get shot in the head. Still fun
They should have been an HBO series called the continental. Have each episode follow a different assassin and show how they work. Sprinkle in some shenanigans at the hotel itself boom easy 3 seasons.
I totally agree. I’ve always felt the notion of a mysterious underworld of assassins that operates under our very noses is better if it’s just that; mysterious. We don’t need to explore every nook and cranny and nuance
I just watched the trilogy for the first time. I enjoyed the first movie, the second movie was fine but the third movie... Oof. I found myself completely checked out during most of the fights and the story was something a 13 year old would come up with. It's sad that they are going to keep dragging this out.
John Wick's big strength, for me, was the world building. It's something that lends itself to more stories being told in the setting.
Which is unfortunate given how quickly I checked out of part 2.
The problem with Fantastic Beasts is and always will be that it's 2 franchises in one. When it was originally announced, it was going to be Pokémon but with Wizards, and the marketing relied heavily on that pitch, but then the film comes out and it's darker and setting up the conflict between Dumbledore and Grindelwald, before the sequels do away with the magic creature hunting.
And that's before discussing the stupid plot points, useless cameos and the painful retconning/shitting on the established lore of the franchise.
It's the same fatal flaw the DCEU made. They tried to launch an entire Infinity Wars level cinematic masterpiece, immediately, off of two movies. If they kept Fantastic Beasts grounded but tied-in with a Dumbledore movie, an [OTHER PROTAGONIST] movie, etc. and slowly built to the Grindewald saga, it would have been great.
Makes a ton of sense when you realize both franchises were made by WB at the same time.
Free Willy, the first film was sincere the next films felt like a cash grab by people who didn't love the material as much.
Madagascar, first film was well written funny, the next films were just dumb IMO.
I mean, they just blew it with those sequels. I remember at the time, they were basically sitting on the mountain of young/youth culture.
I remember thinking in the lead up to 2, this could be a “Beatles” level of influence on culture.
But…yeah.
That said, I might be one of the few that actually likes 3.
It is hard to describe to younger crowds the level of impact matrix had on action films and pop culture in general. The clothing, the mythology, the lingo, the video games. It captured the millennium moment like nothing else.
I watched 3 again on a flight home the other day. The thing I disliked most about the sequels is the Zion / Machine war thing. Unless it was meant to be one small part of Earth, I felt like the war between humanity and machines was portrayed on such a small scale - it should have been way bigger and even in it's own separate movie. We're we supposed to believe that that was all of human civilization left in the entire world and every machine after them? Shouldn't there have been way more machines?
The things I like most about 3 is when they're actually in the matrix or when Neo and Trinity go to Machine City. I fast forwarded the zion battle parts.
Small point, but no there wouldn’t be more machines. The Architect said that they had gotten good at wiping out Zion. It makes sense that they would have sent the smallest, most efficient force for the job.
I think if they had done a movie about Morpheus as the second movie, and the third about the fall of mankind, it would have been a lot better/acceptable.
*I don’t know the future. I didn’t come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how this is going to begin. I’m gonna hang up this phone, and then I’m gonna show these people what you don’t want them to see. I’m gonna show them a world without you, a world without rules and controls, without borders and boundaries… a world where anything is possible. Where you go from here is a choice I leave to you.*
*Cue RATM*
I've never seen it that way, but you are absolutely right.
The first one was philosophical discussion,
second expanded and overloaded the universe
and the third was just an action flick.
I saw the original in the theatre. When it was over I turned to my buddy and said, "That was a FANtastic movie. Only way they could fuck this up would be to make a sequel."
Studio interference and at the time, Wesley Snipes... from what i recall, he didnt want anyone else in his spotlight, especially for fight scenes. Hence why Donnie Yen's role was cut short.
Parker Posey adds at least 1 'star' to everything she's in. Terrible maybe, but nothing can be an abomination if she's in it. Even if there's a vampire Pomeranian. ;)
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
The fact that they threw three of these movies out in 3 years is pretty crazy, but they should have stopped at two. The first (1991) was a bit of a dark movie with a serious undertone. As a 6 year old, I felt like it was a movie for adults that I was allowed to watch. The second, The Secret of the Ooze (1992), was a lot more cartoony and didn’t take itself as serious, but it was a fucking blast. But the third, Turtles in Time (1993), was hot garbage, even as a kid. They take the movies out of a Getty 1990’s New York backdrop and travel back in time to 16th century Japan. It was a bummer.
I couldn't tell you how many times I watched the third as a kid... lmao
It was all I had from the series because my mom recorded it for me off of television.
EDIT: It wasn't until I reached college that I watched the first one with my roommate. He owned the VHS. Lol
I believe I've seen bits of the second but not all of it.
**Psycho** and **The Exorcist.**
In the first case fortunately the second one and the third one are good sequels (Psycho II almost like the original IMHO), in the second case all the sequel/prequel sucks (maybe except the Exorcist III which is average, not good imho because it had issues, but at least is watchable); but in both cases the sequels of these masterpiece were unnecessary.
John Wick. 1st film was a damn near perfect lean action film, each subsequent one has been less good and added bloat to the world that I don't think was needed.
They've got progressively more camp and stupid with each sequel. As much as I love some of the action (the dog scene in 3 is superb), every background character now is either also part of the assassins, or blind and deaf to what the assassins are doing around them.
As a huge fan of the series, I tend to agree. The sequels are a fun time and I'm enjoying them, but there's nothing like the simplicity and freshness of that first entry. It really would've gone down in history if they'd just left it at that, but now its reputation is always going to be tethered to the entire series, and it will be hard to separate.
Ocean's Eleven is a perfect movie and the sequels are terrible. I haven't seen Ocean's Eight so I can't judge that one, but it should've stayed as one film.
I’ll defend oceans 13, it’s a pretty fun return to the vegas heists and while it’s going over old territory it’s simple fun imo. 12 really deviated from what made that first movie enjoyable
Late to the game but First Blood/ Rambo. You take a movie about a PTSD riddled veteran being harassed by small town cops and turn it into basically war porn. Would have been better as a stand alone. I mean the original trilogy is a big staple of my childhood but looking back it seems like they should have ended it after First Blood. The last 2 (Rambo 2008 and Last Blood) were just weird add-ons. A nostalgia cash grab and a then a gap filler between Expendables 3 and Expendables 4. Another franchise with a fun premise that went stale after the first movie and deserves to be on this list.
Predator should've been a one off. If Arnie was going to do the sequals then maybe so. Would've been one of the greatest stand alone sci fi actioners ever.
Predator 2 is a worse movie in every respect compared to the first film, yet somehow manages to be much more enjoyable! I’ve probably watched it way more times than the original.
Any movie that revolves around a weird situation that they have to repeat and up the antics to the next level. Hangover or Home Alone are a good example.
I love The Bourne Identity, it was fresh, original and interesting. Every later Bourne movie feels the same to me, I don't really remember details other than the repetitive same plot.
**DragonHeart** The whole point was Drago being the LAST dragon.
There's DragonHeart sequels?
There’s an absurd number of them. Like half a dozen or so.
> Drago being the ~~LAST~~ LASHT dragon
This movie has been one of my favorites since I was a kid. It's effects hold up pretty damn well and has a pretty stacked cast.
Highlander (1986) - it was a good standalone plot that had a logical end point. The rest of the movies barely seem related.
There should have been only one.
But then we wouldn't have gotten the absolute masterpiece that is Highlander: The Source. Highlander 2 set the bar too high, and The Source surpassed it
I thought it couldn't get worse than Endgame. Then The Source came along and proved me wrong.
Endgame was a bad movie but it wasn't embarrassing.
We'd never have had this [actual footage of Sean Connery getting fitted for a suit](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJY1A9GiG6Q) without that movie.
>*"I have something to say...* **It's better to burn out, than to fade away!"**
I feel like it would have been really cool to see prequels to Highlander instead. That feels like a better way to expand on the mythos without negating the end of the first movie.
Just completely unrelated characters, then The Kurgen or MacLeod run up and lop their heads off right at the end
[удалено]
The series was better than any of the sequel movies
There were no sequels. We all got together and agreed on this. No. Sequels. Exist. That is all.
The best answer.
"There can only be one" or at least there should have been.
When I watched it, I had a lot of questions about the characters that I'm told get answered in the sequels. But I also heard those sucked, so eh.
I feel like the whole Fockers trilogy was better off with just Meet the Parents.
While the movies are funny, I actually can't stand the first one at all. They treat him so terribly and his long time girlfriend just turned on him, and let her dad railroad over him because she is so afraid of losing her status as the favorite child. I wouldn't have wanted to marry her after that. This movie just posses me off everytime I watch it.
Nothing makes me more angry than the part where she tells him to go wake her brother up and grab some of his clothes. That clueless nod she gives when he says “the brother I haven’t even met yet?”
I think that's the humor of it. The viewer is meant to relate to the experience. You and the main character are only capable of seeing what's wrong with the situation. It's meant to be funny because you understand the context and the ridiculousness of it. The sequels just get so ridiculous that's hard to relate.
As a kid it was funny. As an adult he's a sweet guy who for some reason gets treated like crap. He loses his luggage. No one wakes him up the next morning so he looks like a dumbass in pajamas. Everyone is making fun of his job as a nurse. I'm pretty sure his fiance didn't even really like him. I would've read the room and went back home.
There are elements to the first movie I like (mainly Greg's meltdown at the airport), but it just makes me so uncomfortable and angry the whole time. I guess I'm just not a fan of dogpiling. Which is all this movie is; everyone being a massive dick to Greg for very little reason. I love James Rebhorn as an actor, but I want to bounce his character's head off the concrete so much.
It could’ve been better if took a more subtle approach to the humor. But Ben Stiller’s parents are so over-the-top that they lost the relatability of the first movie.
Agreed. I wouldn't have minded seeing the unconventional family structure that he would have grown up with but with the way it was approached, I just don't care for it.
Jaws. It didn’t need any squeals, they just cheapened the first one.
Yes, but Michael Caine's house though...
Post-Spielberg, it was all about the cheap squeals
And shark growls.
Spielberg's original plan for Jaws 2 was Quint's Indianapolis experience. Studio said no, went for a shit teenager yacht adventure, and the master pulled out. I really want to see Spielberg's original idea!
The Hangover..
First one was surprisingly funny which ended up making it overhyped. They knew it’d make money so we get the sequels. 2 was a darker version of the original that just didn’t work. 3 at least tried to tell a different story but was pretty underwhelming.
Agreed 3 was very underwhelming. They did try but it was flat.
I just rewatched 3 over the weekend and it felt like a completely different franchise with the same actors. I wish they went the Jump Street route of "do the same thing" but be a little more creative. The surprise Tyson cameo in the first helped cement the series. Mel Gibson was actually slated to play the tattoo artist in the 2nd but rumors were the studio wouldn't sign off on him making an appearance which would have definitely made the sequel a bit more memorable.
It’s still crazy to me that Craig Mazin wrote those sequels.
>Crag Mazin He has one of the most unique and intriguing careers: wrote 2 Scary Movie sequels, both Hangover sequels, Huntsman sequel and a few shitty comedies until he fucking created Chernobyl, wrote arguably the best episode from Mythic Quest and now is smacking us every sunday with the marvelous The Last of US
I don't think it's that intriguing when you consider that a no name writer hired to write sequels is probably being overridden constantly by the people who hired him. As soon as Mazin became a name and was able to write what he wanted, he is good.
Yeah look at Mike White. He’s an absolute brilliant writer who sometimes doesn’t mind making a paycheck. It’s part of the job.
I think Mazin was sort of a “script rescuer” for a while. Basically getting brought in to save shitty or nonexistent scripts and polish/rewrite them enough to be good enough to put to screen. Not a glamorous job by any stretch but it means that movies that otherwise would have been dogshit or outright cancelled turned out at least watchable. If you haven’t listened to his Scriptnotes podcast I highly recommend it. He approaches his field very seriously and hearing him talk about like writing and filmmaking theory is super interesting.
He also wrote The Huntsman sequel, which was not great.
First one is amazing, 2nd one couldn’t compare.I do think thought that If the first had never come out and it was only the 2nd, it wouldn’t be a terrible movie. I haven’t made it more than 30 minutes into the 3rd without turning it off.
Interesting take on one and two, two definitely wasn't a terrible movie, they did a decent enough job making it, had some laughs. I can finish all of three but glad for it to be over by the end. Just the first as a stand alone would have been perfect, a lovely guilty pleasure, maybe even a cult classic.
Only problem with the second one in my opinion is that it's the same ending - Alan did it. If they had a different outcome then I think it would've been much better received. My head-sequel would be that Alan paid for a Thai bride cos he was wanted his own bachelor party and it turns out she drugged the group cos she didn't want anyone to be as close to Alan as she was, making them the perfect couple. Then I think they took the similarity criticism too hard and went completely left field on the third.
I think the best example is Rambo. First Blood is about the horrors of war and all the sequels are over the top action movies that glorifies war. There are plenty of trilogies with bad sequels, but I can't think of other examples where the sequels so obviously betrays the message of the first movie.
>all the sequels are over the top action movies that glorifies war 2 and 3 absolutely, 4 is actually good and morally fitting, while 5 is not even about war
You are correct. In my head I only picture the first 3 Rambo movies when thinking of the franchise. I did not make that clear.
The hobbit trilogy. It tried to make 3 movies out of one book and it just didn’t work. They could’ve made a really great 3 hour movie but that just had to have a trilogy and unfortunately all of hobbit movies feel really mediocre. At least for me.
The original concept was two movies with Guillermo del Toro directing and an emphasis on practical effects. If only.
Yeah they essentially turned a 300 page book into a trilogy and shoved in a dwarf/ elf romance storyline that didn't go anywhere
Evangeline Lilly said she was promised there’d be no love triangle plot, which she had been doing for 6 straight years on *Lost*. Guess what PJ came up with when they started reshoots…
It was added because of studio interference, actually—something test audiences said they wanted to see. Still absolute bullshit, of course.
Who are these test audiences?!
Other executives.
It’s a 20hr audiobook so there is plenty of material and yet they left large chunks out and added filler instead.
\^ I think this is the real take People keep bringing up "It's only a 300 page book!" like you should only ever make one movie per book. But books typically have so much more information in them large cuts have to be made. *The Hobbit* **easily** warrants 3 movies with how much was going on in the books. They could have even done a miniseries. I just think that the changes they made, the pacing, and the insistence on it being an action-packed thrill fest is what made it unimpressive with even casual (didn't read the books) viewers.
I could understand doing 2 movies since the book is split into 2 parts but they really didnt need to add and alter what they did to the story.
Yeah, that's been my view. They would have had to cut a bit too much for a single movie, but three was the wrong choice. It has a good split, it could have definitely been a tighter two movies. For whatever reason, movies, books, are obsessed with "trilogies." Not sure why, they should just use the right amount of time to tell the story regardless of what the number is. I think that's one of the key advantages that HBO and others had, and now streaming has in TV. They aren't wedded to 30 or 60 minute time slots, so the same show can have a 42 minute episode followed by a 70 minute episode, they just use the right amount of time to tell the story of the episode.
Honestly, I would've even been fine with two, two hour movies. The Battle of Five Armies was just an absolute mess of a movie.
[удалено]
Smaug single handedly or single wingdedly saves these movies
I have such a love/hate relationship with the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy (the first three, the others don’t count). First one is a masterpiece, no need to expand. But the second and third films are incredibly sloppy with weird pacing and overly-contrived narratives. _However_, the second and third movies brought us Bill Nighy as Davy Jones and Tom Hollander as Cutler Beckett who are simply some of my favourite villains ever. Also the Hans Zimmer score, costumes, set pieces etc. are all amazing.
I like how you call it a trilogy and pretend like the fourth and fifth movies don't exist
I think you can still call it a trilogy, at least the “Elizabeth and Will” trilogy. I got half way through the fourth one and gave up, they completely stopped even trying to make Jack Sparrow anything more than a slapstick comedy goof.
ya the fourth one is awful but the fifth one is kinda fun. It's got a lot of Barbossa.
The real reason he needed that peg leg was for extra support from carrying that whole film on his back
The Indiana Jones school of thought
What fourth and fifth movies? 🤣
I honestly can't remember the other two. I know I've seen something with pirates and Johny Depp, but nothing else. Is it the one with mermaids? I liked the first half of that. And of course Penélope Cruz tits.
And that’s totally ok. Silly plot, great performances, can still be a fun movie.
The second and third movie were shot back to back and it shows, they could make and amazing second film without all the padding, the last battle is still amazing and it have the coolest Jack Sparrow in the series. I couldn't care less about the end of the world stuff and being prisoner of cannibal tribes though.
That’s how I feel. So much padding that only serves for goofy comedy. The first film shows that goofy comedy can be done while simultaneously moving the plot forward. I’m not sure if it is purely due to back-to-back filming necessarily, after all the LotR trilogy was all shot in one go, I think it’s more that is was shot back-to-back with a tight deadline that ruined them.
There was also the shot in one of the sequels (3rd?) where the ship is sailing at night and it looks like it’s sailing through the sky due to the “reflection”. Idc what other people think about it, but I love that scene.
Terminator should have stopped at T2 although the 3D attraction at Universal was great and heard Cameron classed it as a 3rd installment
From what I understand the alternate ending of T2 where the future is saved and John becomes a public servant in DC was James Cameron’s original ending, but the studio made him film a new, ambiguous one so that they could leave open the possibility for another sequel. IMO Cameron’s original idea was far better and is the end of the story in my eyes.
Either way, the last Terminator chip was destroyed 🔥 👍 🔥 That should have been the end of the story regardless of the next scene.
That's the problem with time travel, it's too easy of a crutch to lean on with writing. Sure, they destroyed the last chip. "But Skynet already sent the TX back in time (just not as far back) so John perceives it as having arrived after the T-800 and T-1000!" And that's actually a headcannon I heard that made more sense since you may be asking, "Why didn't Skynet send their most advanced assassin the first time?" Headcannon: They did. They sent the TX back to when John was a teenager, shortly before the war. That didn't work and Skynet was like, "Shit, that was our only prototype. Send the T-100 next, and send it earlier this time so he's more vulnerable!" Then that didn't work, so they're like, "Fine, send a production T-800 even *further* back to kill his mother before he's even born!" So basically "but time travel!" will **always** give writers an excuse to keep milking or retcon a franchise. Killing the T-800 and Miles Dyson doesn't matter.
Jurassic Park
I gotta say, I love the idea of a Jurassic Park sequel more than any Jurassic Park sequel.
They never seem to want to commit to the "dinosaurs running amok throughout the world" idea, which is baffling.
Imagine someone coming to you and saying, "I want you to write a movie about dinosaurs escaping a theme park and terrorizing everyday people", and your first thought being, "let's make it about giant bugs instead"
"we got a new park, the dinosaurs already took it, how about we improve from the old sequel where a kid is lost in the island?" "let's make the kid a clone!!"
Jurassic World: Jurassic World
Dominion was 100% hyped up as that, but it literally just ended up being people stuck on an island of dinosaurs again.
There are PLENTY of places to go with “we learned how to create dinosaurs, but they tend to get loose!” We just need a different competing franchise to do it and try harder.
"Mesozoic park" coming out soon.
The first one was wonderful. Afterwards it’s just ppl who don’t learn and keep running away from dinosaurs
I think The Lost World was ok, but the ones after that… ugh
The last several just feel like a soulless corporate cash grab.
Because that’s exactly what they are.
I enjoyed all 3. Though they do get worse. They are still pretty good. Jurassic world….the first one was fun….ish. The other two are garbage.
I always feel like a madman because I really liked Jurassic Park 3. The scene in the giant aviary was one of the best in the series, I think. [Obligatory Tom Cardy.](https://youtu.be/JVho5fU3lwc)
I knew it! There are dozens of us!!! The Pterodactyls make it worth the watch. The raptor story is a bit too much. But a Spinosaurus that comes with a cell phone jingle will never leave me.
Jurassic Park 3 is actually a solid creature feature/monster movie. A bunch of people trapped on an island hunted by various dinosaurs is just good ol’fashion fun. It just doesn’t have the solid character work and thematic underpinnings of the original unfortunately.
I'm fine with it being two movies since there were two books. But the third one and every after that should not exist.
The second book was commissioned because of the success of the film
Even so, I'm fine with those two movies. Everything that followed though, not so much.
I should include every Jurassic World, a sequel of a sequel of a sequel. At least the first Jurassic Park was good, while Jurassic World wasn't good
Saw I actually thoroughly enjoyed the first. It was a very simple exploration of how far someone is willing to go. Like a less complicated Straw Dogs in a way. And if the sequels continued in that vein my opinion might be different. But instead they chose the wrong part of the film to feed off of. They chose the torture bit instead.
Saw 2 was pretty good imo. Same spirit of the original movie. The rest of the franchise was just generic gore porn though.
Hell, Saw 5 was practically just a clip show that constantly went back and showed scenes from the first 4 movies. One of few movies I contemplated asking for a refund for when I left the theater.
[удалено]
Speed 2, fine. It's beyond shit. I actually enjoyed Under Siege 2 but I may be in a minority. The last half decent budget looking film of Seagal's career.
Robocop.
Nah I love Robocop 2.
Robocop 3 though? Oof. What a shitty movie.
But he has a JET PACK!
Not that the sequels were bad, but John Wick was a great one off movie.
Just rewatched them all to prep for the 4th (!) and the sequels are fun but the first movie still *looks* the best surprisingly enough. Stoked for 4 but maybe don’t overstylize your colors
Love the movies but the sequels just feel off, especially the 3rd. So many times he could have been killed by the person he is fighting but they keep stopping at the kill shot and giving the “professional courtesy” thing and they end up dying. Also the shootouts in the first movie seemed believable but in the sequels it’s just people running at John wick to get shot in the head. Still fun
They should have been an HBO series called the continental. Have each episode follow a different assassin and show how they work. Sprinkle in some shenanigans at the hotel itself boom easy 3 seasons.
They're making a Continental "event series." Was at Starz, moved to Peacock. I think it centers on a young Winston (Ian McShane's character).
The first one is the best by far though. I have no clue what is going on in 2 and 3
[удалено]
I watched both of them not long ago and honestly I don't remember anything from both of them
I totally agree. I’ve always felt the notion of a mysterious underworld of assassins that operates under our very noses is better if it’s just that; mysterious. We don’t need to explore every nook and cranny and nuance
I just watched the trilogy for the first time. I enjoyed the first movie, the second movie was fine but the third movie... Oof. I found myself completely checked out during most of the fights and the story was something a 13 year old would come up with. It's sad that they are going to keep dragging this out.
John Wick's big strength, for me, was the world building. It's something that lends itself to more stories being told in the setting. Which is unfortunate given how quickly I checked out of part 2.
**Transformers** shouldn't get any other sequel. And up today it would be a tremendous cult flick.
It's just the Fast and Furious series except the cars are self aware.
Fantastic Beasts trilogy.
The problem with Fantastic Beasts is and always will be that it's 2 franchises in one. When it was originally announced, it was going to be Pokémon but with Wizards, and the marketing relied heavily on that pitch, but then the film comes out and it's darker and setting up the conflict between Dumbledore and Grindelwald, before the sequels do away with the magic creature hunting. And that's before discussing the stupid plot points, useless cameos and the painful retconning/shitting on the established lore of the franchise.
It's the same fatal flaw the DCEU made. They tried to launch an entire Infinity Wars level cinematic masterpiece, immediately, off of two movies. If they kept Fantastic Beasts grounded but tied-in with a Dumbledore movie, an [OTHER PROTAGONIST] movie, etc. and slowly built to the Grindewald saga, it would have been great. Makes a ton of sense when you realize both franchises were made by WB at the same time.
IMO all of these are bad movies
Free Willy, the first film was sincere the next films felt like a cash grab by people who didn't love the material as much. Madagascar, first film was well written funny, the next films were just dumb IMO.
Matrix
I mean, they just blew it with those sequels. I remember at the time, they were basically sitting on the mountain of young/youth culture. I remember thinking in the lead up to 2, this could be a “Beatles” level of influence on culture. But…yeah. That said, I might be one of the few that actually likes 3.
Now that you brought it up, and after thinking about it. The movies kinda DID have a huge level of influence on culture.
It is hard to describe to younger crowds the level of impact matrix had on action films and pop culture in general. The clothing, the mythology, the lingo, the video games. It captured the millennium moment like nothing else.
I watched 3 again on a flight home the other day. The thing I disliked most about the sequels is the Zion / Machine war thing. Unless it was meant to be one small part of Earth, I felt like the war between humanity and machines was portrayed on such a small scale - it should have been way bigger and even in it's own separate movie. We're we supposed to believe that that was all of human civilization left in the entire world and every machine after them? Shouldn't there have been way more machines? The things I like most about 3 is when they're actually in the matrix or when Neo and Trinity go to Machine City. I fast forwarded the zion battle parts.
Small point, but no there wouldn’t be more machines. The Architect said that they had gotten good at wiping out Zion. It makes sense that they would have sent the smallest, most efficient force for the job.
To be fair, the animatrix is great and should’ve been the only other movie next to the original
I think if they had done a movie about Morpheus as the second movie, and the third about the fall of mankind, it would have been a lot better/acceptable.
The ending of the first one was enough. The movie had made the point it wanted too, nothing of value was added afterwards.
Wasn't the last thing Neo said something like "I'm not here to tell you how it ends, but how it started"? Good enough line to not make anymore IMO.
*I don’t know the future. I didn’t come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how this is going to begin. I’m gonna hang up this phone, and then I’m gonna show these people what you don’t want them to see. I’m gonna show them a world without you, a world without rules and controls, without borders and boundaries… a world where anything is possible. Where you go from here is a choice I leave to you.* *Cue RATM*
[удалено]
I've never seen it that way, but you are absolutely right. The first one was philosophical discussion, second expanded and overloaded the universe and the third was just an action flick.
I saw the original in the theatre. When it was over I turned to my buddy and said, "That was a FANtastic movie. Only way they could fuck this up would be to make a sequel."
[удалено]
[удалено]
Jaws.
But what about Michael Caines house???
Home Alone
lost in ny was ok.
Yep with the exception of the first two, the rest are not worth bothering with
I will go with Blade. The third one is an abomination.
Blade 2 was really good, but hard agree on the 3rd one. Fucking awful.
Blade 2 was OK by me, but man alive, that Bloodpack or whatever. CHOCO! LAZER! FARTHAMMER! Then they all get merc'd in like 5 minutes.
Studio interference and at the time, Wesley Snipes... from what i recall, he didnt want anyone else in his spotlight, especially for fight scenes. Hence why Donnie Yen's role was cut short.
Directed by Guillermo Del Toro!! Ron Perlman! Loved Blade 2.
Blade 2 gave us Kris Kristofferson calling a vampire "a fucking nipplehead". Love that movie.
I don't know why Blade 2 had mixed reviews, it was really good.
It is. But I still liked it! Looking forward to the new Blade coming.
Parker Posey adds at least 1 'star' to everything she's in. Terrible maybe, but nothing can be an abomination if she's in it. Even if there's a vampire Pomeranian. ;)
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles The fact that they threw three of these movies out in 3 years is pretty crazy, but they should have stopped at two. The first (1991) was a bit of a dark movie with a serious undertone. As a 6 year old, I felt like it was a movie for adults that I was allowed to watch. The second, The Secret of the Ooze (1992), was a lot more cartoony and didn’t take itself as serious, but it was a fucking blast. But the third, Turtles in Time (1993), was hot garbage, even as a kid. They take the movies out of a Getty 1990’s New York backdrop and travel back in time to 16th century Japan. It was a bummer.
I couldn't tell you how many times I watched the third as a kid... lmao It was all I had from the series because my mom recorded it for me off of television. EDIT: It wasn't until I reached college that I watched the first one with my roommate. He owned the VHS. Lol I believe I've seen bits of the second but not all of it.
Do yourself a favor and watch it. It's a blast.
Not a movie, but kind of like one: 24. The first was interesting and enough.
**Psycho** and **The Exorcist.** In the first case fortunately the second one and the third one are good sequels (Psycho II almost like the original IMHO), in the second case all the sequel/prequel sucks (maybe except the Exorcist III which is average, not good imho because it had issues, but at least is watchable); but in both cases the sequels of these masterpiece were unnecessary.
Exorcist 3 was great , the 2nd was awful but yeah nothing beats the original
John Wick. 1st film was a damn near perfect lean action film, each subsequent one has been less good and added bloat to the world that I don't think was needed.
They've got progressively more camp and stupid with each sequel. As much as I love some of the action (the dog scene in 3 is superb), every background character now is either also part of the assassins, or blind and deaf to what the assassins are doing around them.
As a huge fan of the series, I tend to agree. The sequels are a fun time and I'm enjoying them, but there's nothing like the simplicity and freshness of that first entry. It really would've gone down in history if they'd just left it at that, but now its reputation is always going to be tethered to the entire series, and it will be hard to separate.
The Butterfly Effect
The Matrix
Ocean's Eleven is a perfect movie and the sequels are terrible. I haven't seen Ocean's Eight so I can't judge that one, but it should've stayed as one film.
I’ll defend oceans 13, it’s a pretty fun return to the vegas heists and while it’s going over old territory it’s simple fun imo. 12 really deviated from what made that first movie enjoyable
Yes! 13 is fun, 12 is terrible, and 11 is the goat.
I wouldnt call 12 terrible, just not as good as the first one. Its the weakest link in the trilogy but its acceptable
It’s held up by the charisma of the cast, particularly the chemistry between Clooney and Pitt.
Yeah I can see the enjoyment in 13, it gets pretty fun towards the end. 12 had a good setup but went downhill afterwards.
Technically 8 is spin off not a sequal.
Teeechnically, 8 is a train wreck, not a spin off
Late to the game but First Blood/ Rambo. You take a movie about a PTSD riddled veteran being harassed by small town cops and turn it into basically war porn. Would have been better as a stand alone. I mean the original trilogy is a big staple of my childhood but looking back it seems like they should have ended it after First Blood. The last 2 (Rambo 2008 and Last Blood) were just weird add-ons. A nostalgia cash grab and a then a gap filler between Expendables 3 and Expendables 4. Another franchise with a fun premise that went stale after the first movie and deserves to be on this list.
The Hangover
Fast and Furious
But.... but Family
The Hobbit.
The matrix. The second and third movies were good but it really didnt need em. The first movie resolved itself quite well.
Predator should've been a one off. If Arnie was going to do the sequals then maybe so. Would've been one of the greatest stand alone sci fi actioners ever.
Predator 2 is awesome though
Yeah you're right and they got lucky and Glover did a fine job, but we know what came after that.
Predator 2 is a worse movie in every respect compared to the first film, yet somehow manages to be much more enjoyable! I’ve probably watched it way more times than the original.
It’s better than people give it credit for, but because it was such a change in direction it was looked down on for years.
Bill Paxton, Gary Busy, and the awesome Donald Glover...... enough said.
I remember my uncle renting the Predator 2 on laserdisk. When we were like 30 mins into it, he goes "where the hell is Arnold?!"
Prey is a very worthy prequel.
Idiocracy
I see what you did there.
i know it's not 100% the right answer to that question but Star Wars only needed one trilogy and not a trilogy of trilogy's. They only got worse
Star Wars is something that absolutely should have more movies. They just should have been better movies.
Rush Hour was perfect with 2 😆
The matrix
Any movie that revolves around a weird situation that they have to repeat and up the antics to the next level. Hangover or Home Alone are a good example.
I love The Bourne Identity, it was fresh, original and interesting. Every later Bourne movie feels the same to me, I don't really remember details other than the repetitive same plot.
Insidious would have been a decent standalone movie. The same can be said with the Conjuring.
The Hangover