• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Movies that shouldn't have sequels, but do (and vice versa).

John Crichton said:
Office Space - This concept needs more milking. :)
Hmm yeah. If you could have a concept outline for that on my desk by tomorrow morning, that'd be greaatt. Oh, and did you get the memo about the TPS reports?

The IMDb page for the movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0151804/combined) reports that they tried to get Mike Judge to make a sequel after Office Space became such a hit on DVD, but there were so many problems in the making of the first one that he didn't want to go back to it. You're not the first person to think of a sequel there.

Oh yes, and let me second the idea that Terminator 3 was one sequel too far. They should have gone with the "happy end" to T2 set in the future (on the DVD) where Sarah notes that Judgement Day never happened and John grew up to be a Senator.
 

log in or register to remove this ad




Movies that should not have sequels:

1. Highlander - I think you people are confused. *waves hand* There were no sequels. Go on about your business. ;)

2. Lethal Weapon - After the second movie.

3. Superman - Again, after the second movie.

Movies that should (and did) have sequels:

1. The Matrix - Sorry guys, but I have to disagree. I thought the trilogy rocked. :D

2. Hellboy

3. Constantine

4. Underworld - Again, loved the movie and I hope the sequel is just as good.
 

I'm going to go on record as saying I loved T3. The chases, gun battles, Terminator fights, Arnold with the pink & rhinestone sunglasses. It was great. Everything a Terminator movie should have been.

I liked Predator 2 as well - it was better than Predator in many ways.

And how could I have forgotten Pitch Black?! It was the only sequel that came close to Highlander 2: The Quickening for suckitude.
 

Silver Moon said:
It's been done - Return to Oz, Disney I believe, late 70's or early 80's, bombed at the Box Office.
Return to Oz was a (very strange) part of my childhood. While I understand now that it was not a good movie, I really enjoyed it when I was a kid. Scared the heck out of me, though.
 

I didn't think T3 was an awful movie, but it certainly didn't stack up to the first 2. That said, don't you think the next sequel could be a really good one? The world is in ruins, humanity has to fight back against the Cyberdine machines, essentially building up forces from scratch. Heck, you wouldn't even need Ahnold in it, unless at the very end when the 'new' Terminator series is developed....
 

If anything, I think this thread confirms that sequels are rarely a good idea. How many really good sequels are out there, even? Still, if you gotta make one...destroying the first movie (Often by arbritarily killing off the previous cast, or morphing the story/setting into something completely different) to set up a crummy sequel is obviously not the way to go, and yet seems to be one page one of the official handbook of lousy sequels, in large, bold print...

The second crappy sequel demon (page 2) is to remake the first movie over and over again, except for changing enough details to "scratch off the serial numbers", inevitibly for the worst. Thus horribly formulaic sequels like Nightmare on 13th street, Jaws, Rocky, Lady Dragon, about a zillion other bad martial art movies, (Who can't afford the original star, but make up for it be recycling the villian over and over again.) and other films.
 


Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top