Okay - here's an unusual question

[stypee]

Now, think about this...

Lets say, about 98% of all movie sequels are completely irrelevant cash cows. There was no reason to even bother but, because they made a ton of money, we need to milk the cow some more..

Now...

Think of a film or even a film YOU would make that is clearly an unnecessary and for ANY reason at all to create a sequel for.

So, the question goes either way - what are a few sequels you can think of that are just POINTLESS and had no need for another movie because the first one tied up the ending giving it no possibility to move further. This doesn't count sequels only in name, i.e. Halloween III, which was sort of fun in a way, as unnecessary as it was.

Or, what could you come up with? The movie doesn't even have to be at all succesful..

Yeah, the topic is even more irrelevant but I just thought it be kind of fun..

[mkiker2089]

I would say the sequel to Pitch Black didn't work. The original was a contained story, the sequel wasn't even close in feel or scope.

I think Lethal Weapon 4 counts as the second most obvious un-needed sequel as the third summed everything up.
The most obvious is Son of the Mask.

Actually the worst possible sequel is probably going to be the ID4 sequels.

[Dan Mancini]

Much as I loved them as a kid, the Planet of the Apes sequels are entirely useless. They only undermine the memorable ending of the original.

[mavrach]

The Exorcist II immediately springs to mind. An attempted backstory is forced upon the first movie that became so huge but wrapped itself up fine. Credible actors got involved and they tried their darndest to expand this story, but the result is an awkward sequel that hangs off the original. I saw it once about a year ago and I can still remember the oddball music.

Ocean's Twelve - See what I wrote in the Watching thread.


This list would apply to any movie that was perfectly self-contained, then the studio tried to milk money out of it. These are probably surprise hits. Nowadays a lot of expected hits leave open threads so they can make a sequel out of it.

[mavrach]

There are a lot of self-contained hits with later sequels made in pairs, that together form some sort of super-sequel with a cliffhanger between - Back to the Future, The Matrix. I haven't seen the Pirates of the Carribean sequels, did they do this too? The recent news of 2 Independence Day sequels stinks of this too.


Terminator - The first one would've been amazing itself, ending with Sarah driving to the stormy sunset with an uncertain future. T2 rocks but it's a big jump, and the others are superfluous.


Some sequels that rely on insane coincidences -

The Jaws series. I used to like the second one, but it'd highly strange that another crazy shark would attack that same town again.

Die Hard - I've said this before, but Die Hard 2 is defined by the line "how can the same thing happen to the same guy twice," and the other two sequels are just random action movies that are Die Hard in name only.

[Attrage]

Paranormal Activity 2 - they just basically took the first one, and made it a family instead of a couple. Now I hear that a third one is on the way, which judging by the trailer on YouTube looks like it will be more of a comedy than a horror film.

[stypee]

You guys mentioned some great examples thus far.

Yeah, Exorcist II - oh man, what a mess. There is an interesting back story on how that movie ended up the way it did. I think there was a different director attached and than Boorman came in and made a bigger mess. His first "final" cut was so made that it had to be removed from theatres because people were booing at the screen.. The music was kinda cool and sticks in your head.

I think the worst of all has to be JAWS THE REVENGE - Seriously? I'm supposed to believe that this pissed off shark decides to travel all the way out from one location to another so it can take "revenge" on the family again? Really? I thought they blew the shark up in all the other sequels... how much of an offspring does this shark have? Are there shark street gangs? Another story with a weird ass back story: Seems like one of the reasons why the movie was made was because it was supposed to be a showcase for the female lead (whatever the crap her name was, the one that played the mom) she was married to the head of the studio and he basically made it to showcase her..

The Parnormal Activity 2 - oh man, I never thought it possible for a horror movie to literally make me so bored I'd get sleepy.. NOTHING - Seriously NOTHING happens until the very last 10 minutes - its literally watching a bunch of idiots fart around with a video camera - a famous expression one of my film profs. used when critiquing a student's final project he said "this is shit, its just a bunch of people farting around with the dam camera" - and to think, they had to pay for film in them days!

Oh I can go on... this is kinda' fun..


on

[mavrach]

I think it was Siskel & Ebert's review of Jaws: The Revenge and Ebert said "Why don't they just move away from that stupid town?"

[stypee]

I think it was Siskel & Ebert's review of Jaws: The Revenge and Ebert said "Why don't they just move away from that stupid town?"

That's what makes it so badly funny. They did move away, far away from the stupid town tis' be the shark that followed them!

[Andrew Forbes]

Much as I loved them as a kid, the Planet of the Apes sequels are entirely useless. They only undermine the memorable ending of the original.

I'll always have a soft spot for Conquest. It's certainly not necessary, but I love that movie.

[azul017]

Cars 2
Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie
Godfather III
Iron Man 2
Star Wars Episode II and III
Fright Night II
The Hills Have Eyes II (both versions)

[stypee]

Cars 2
Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie
Godfather III
Iron Man 2
Star Wars Episode II and III
Fright Night II
The Hills Have Eyes II (both versions)

Can't agree with you more on Godfather III - I give Coppola credit, he has directed some of the greatest films ever but that still doesn't give him license to be such a prick. Oh yeah, and that sequel, what a turd that wasn't flushed in a public restroom and made it really smelly.

and what's this about a sequel to The Power Rangers Movie? I don't remember that.. I really had so many questions after the first one. Did they finally wrap it all up? I do hope so, I mean that would be silly, a film made that clearly says "bomb" all over it and leaving the audience hanging all like that, ha, seriously now how often does that happen? I mean especially on television, when its actually good.

[Dan Mancini]

Much as I loved them as a kid, the Planet of the Apes sequels are entirely useless. They only undermine the memorable ending of the original.

I'll always have a soft spot for Conquest. It's certainly not necessary, but I love that movie.

It's definitely the best of the sequels. Also, Ricardo Montalban.

[Dan Mancini]

Can't agree with you more on Godfather III - I give Coppola credit, he has directed some of the greatest films ever but that still doesn't give him license to be such a prick. Oh yeah, and that sequel, what a turd that wasn't flushed in a public restroom and made it really smelly.

Despite its many flaws, the movie isn't nearly that bad. It was undone by three things:

1. Paramount rushed the schedule.
2. Paramount skimped on the budget.
3. Coppola was never all that interested in pushing forward with a story he believed was finished with Part II.

I don't see how Coppola's the bad guy. Of those three major flaws, he's responsible for one. He's always agreed that the studio should've played ball with Duvall, and that the movie is fatally flawed because of his absence. And even without Duvall, it would probably be a significantly better picture if Coppola had been given more than 6 weeks to write the script and only a few months to shoot it.

[mkiker2089]

the tough thing about this is that if the sequel is good usually we won't see it as unnecessary. It's hard to judge movies we love as unneeded. A few possible ones would be

Rush Hour 2 - it was well received but was it needed? The first one summed up nicely.
Lethal Weapon 2&3 - the first was designed to be a single movie ending bleakly. Once they lightened the ending I suppose it opened the door for sequels. The second also summed things up, but in that one they bleaked the ending a bit if I recall by killing off the love interest. This time making the ending darker seemed to open the door a bit to me. If Riggs were happy then we would have assumed the "happily ever after" and not expected a third.
Indiana Jones (any) - well this one I'm not sure of. The movies all stand on their own but the inspiration was serialized heroes, so sequels probably were a prerequisite.
Dawn of the Dead - the first one ended with the world returning to normal. Why are the zombies still walking the earth? Then again Romero never explained any of it as I recall. He doesn't even use the word zombie in the movies, well not much anyway. I think I heard it in 2 and 4.

[mavrach]

A lot of the action sequels are episodic, so each individual movie ties itself up nicely, but then a new adventure onfolds that is another self-contained story. Mkiker has a good point that if they're well done then it might not be considered to be unnecessary. When this happens I think they have to see what kind of story the first movie is and if it works to put the same characters in similar stories going forward.

So this works for James Bond, superheroes, or someone like Indiana Jones who'd actively seek out new adventures. You can make endless sequels, each about a new adventure. They'd hardly be necessary, but they'd work and they wouldn't have to eat the tablescraps left over from the first movie.

But it's awkward for something like Die Hard, which was about a normal cop stuck in an office building on the other side of the country from where he works. His further adventures include issuing speeding tickets. So they have to base their sequels off coincidences. That can still be a load of fun, but it feels forced.



For the Romero Dead series, those could just as easily be individual movies. They share no characters, and we just assume that each movie's apocalypses are all the same one. That's how you get an unofficial sequel like Zombi 2 and have it still work.

[stypee]

Can't agree with you more on Godfather III - I give Coppola credit, he has directed some of the greatest films ever but that still doesn't give him license to be such a prick. Oh yeah, and that sequel, what a turd that wasn't flushed in a public restroom and made it really smelly.

Despite its many flaws, the movie isn't nearly that bad. It was undone by three things:

1. Paramount rushed the schedule.
2. Paramount skimped on the budget.
3. Coppola was never all that interested in pushing forward with a story he believed was finished with Part II.

I don't see how Coppola's the bad guy. Of those three major flaws, he's responsible for one. He's always agreed that the studio should've played ball with Duvall, and that the movie is fatally flawed because of his absence. And even without Duvall, it would probably be a significantly better picture if Coppola had been given more than 6 weeks to write the script and only a few months to shoot it.

Actually, I was just referring to Coppola as a person, he just comes off like such a pretentious jerk. He also stuck his foot in his mouth at the end of "Hearts Of Darkness" (a comment I've always found offensive) he said something in reference to young people and making movies using the words "some fat girl somewhere will make the next Oscar movie" - again, something like that. I suppose his daughter was that fat girl..

[Dan Mancini]

Can't agree with you more on Godfather III - I give Coppola credit, he has directed some of the greatest films ever but that still doesn't give him license to be such a prick. Oh yeah, and that sequel, what a turd that wasn't flushed in a public restroom and made it really smelly.

Despite its many flaws, the movie isn't nearly that bad. It was undone by three things:

1. Paramount rushed the schedule.
2. Paramount skimped on the budget.
3. Coppola was never all that interested in pushing forward with a story he believed was finished with Part II.

I don't see how Coppola's the bad guy. Of those three major flaws, he's responsible for one. He's always agreed that the studio should've played ball with Duvall, and that the movie is fatally flawed because of his absence. And even without Duvall, it would probably be a significantly better picture if Coppola had been given more than 6 weeks to write the script and only a few months to shoot it.

Actually, I was just referring to Coppola as a person, he just comes off like such a pretentious jerk. He also stuck his foot in his mouth at the end of "Hearts Of Darkness" (a comment I've always found offensive) he said something in reference to young people and making movies using the words "some fat girl somewhere will make the next Oscar movie" - again, something like that. I suppose his daughter was that fat girl..

He doesn't come across negatively to me at all. In fact, he's one of the few filmmakers who seems to have a realistic understanding of his own artisitic strengths and weaknesses, and who is willing to talk with total candor about the shortcomings of his own work. When he lambasts Hollywood's corporate mentality, it carries more weight precisely because he admits that some of his movies suck and that he only took on some projects because he needed to make a few bucks. Coppola is many things, but a prima donna he ain't.

His statement about the fat girl from Ohio being the next Mozart is the opposite of offensive. His point was that technology was democratizing filmmaking, and that eventually someone on the margins -- the kind of person Hollywood studios normally ignore -- would prove to be a game-changing genius.

[stypee]

Can't agree with you more on Godfather III - I give Coppola credit, he has directed some of the greatest films ever but that still doesn't give him license to be such a prick. Oh yeah, and that sequel, what a turd that wasn't flushed in a public restroom and made it really smelly.

Despite its many flaws, the movie isn't nearly that bad. It was undone by three things:

1. Paramount rushed the schedule.
2. Paramount skimped on the budget.
3. Coppola was never all that interested in pushing forward with a story he believed was finished with Part II.

I don't see how Coppola's the bad guy. Of those three major flaws, he's responsible for one. He's always agreed that the studio should've played ball with Duvall, and that the movie is fatally flawed because of his absence. And even without Duvall, it would probably be a significantly better picture if Coppola had been given more than 6 weeks to write the script and only a few months to shoot it.

Actually, I was just referring to Coppola as a person, he just comes off like such a pretentious jerk. He also stuck his foot in his mouth at the end of "Hearts Of Darkness" (a comment I've always found offensive) he said something in reference to young people and making movies using the words "some fat girl somewhere will make the next Oscar movie" - again, something like that. I suppose his daughter was that fat girl..

He doesn't come across negatively to me at all. In fact, he's one of the few filmmakers who seems to have a realistic understanding of his own artisitic strengths and weaknesses, and who is willing to talk with total candor about the shortcomings of his own work. When he lambasts Hollywood's corporate mentality, it carries more weight precisely because he admits that some of his movies suck and that he only took on some projects because he needed to make a few bucks. Coppola is many things, but a prima donna he ain't.

His statement about the fat girl from Ohio being the next Mozart is the opposite of offensive. His point was that technology was democratizing filmmaking, and that eventually someone on the margins -- the kind of person Hollywood studios normally ignore -- would prove to be a game-changing genius.

You know what, I never really thought of it that way and I've found a new perspective on the man. He has always been very candor of his shrot-comings and he was behind the idea of the independent. I suppose I just stuck my foot in my own mouth..

[Mach6]

Highlander II, Highlander “The Final Dimension”, & Endgame: There was no room left for a sequel after the 1st Highlander. MacLeod won the prize; all the other immortals were killed, & he became mortal so he could live a normal life. On the Highlander II Special Edition DVD, (yeah, I know I’m legally insane for buying it), the producers admitted Highlander bombed in the U.S. but became a big hit overseas so there was a "big demand" ($$$) for a sequel. Christopher Lambert even admitted they were cornered in how they could make MacLeod immortal again & the whole Planet Zeist idea was ridiculous. I don't even know how The Final Dimension got greenlighted after the critical & production disaster of II.

[mkiker2089]

Well, half a point. I forgot about the robot animals meaning the earth had been messed up. However there are a lot of extinct animals now. Also space exploration doesn't mean anything, we explore space now and there are still parts of Montana that the government would give away if only someone would move there. Populations are dense because people like it that way. Maybe I just see it differently because here on the east coast of the US we have pretty much Blade Runner now. Cities overpopulated and polluted with high crime and green countryside less than an hours drive. Of course it all comes down to the viewer also. People bring as much to a movie as they ever take away.

As far as Deckard being a replicant the only thing I see is the unicorn origami and to me that just isn't enough. I don't really care either way, but it's just weird. If they guy kept making unicorns, or if he left a message saying "have you been seeing unicorns lately" then maybe. Maybe I'm just thick.

As far as sequels building on strange coincidences, I can think of quite a few shows like that. Scooby Doo, Murder She Wrote, Rosemary and Thyme, etc.. It works, but you have to ignore the oddness of it and let it work. I know that I for one would not live in Cabot Cove and I would have arrested Jessica Fletcher long ago. No one can be near that many murders in one lifetime and not have some sort of mob enforcer connections. The ladies bad news at the very least.

To me Highlander just never seemed like a good idea. Netflix says I'll love it however.

[Steve T Power]

Highlander II, Highlander “The Final Dimension”, & Endgame: There was no room left for a sequel after the 1st Highlander. MacLeod won the prize; all the other immortals were killed, & he became mortal so he could live a normal life. On the Highlander II Special Edition DVD, (yeah, I know I’m legally insane for buying it), the producers admitted Highlander bombed in the U.S. but became a big hit overseas so there was a "big demand" ($$$) for a sequel. Christopher Lambert even admitted they were cornered in how they could make MacLeod immortal again & the whole Planet Zeist idea was ridiculous. I don't even know how The Final Dimension got greenlighted after the critical & production disaster of II.

Highlander III was actually, sorta, kinda... watchable... It was a much more direct sequel (bordering on rehash) to the first, and at least thought up a plausible reason for the immortality (MacLeod never actually won the prize, it was just that the Kurgan's powers were redonkulous because of all of the past Immortals he'd killed). And some of the narrative touches were actually kind of well executed (MacLeod realikzing he's still immortal by suffering what should have been a fatal car accident - thus writing out his squeeze from the first film).

The only real weak point was Mario Van Peebles as the long buried "Kane", the other last immortal, and all the Nakano BS. With a better actor in the villian's seat, and less of the Rip Van Winkle stuff, this could have been a very worthy sequel. At least they had the sense to leave Connery dead.

The animated film, "The Search for Vengeance" is actually the best of the whole franchise.

[stypee]

I have a perverse fetish for robot animals.