NationStates Jolt Archive

What's the worst sequel to a decent movie you've seen? I'd have to say both The Excorcist II and 2010: The Year we Make Contact are right up there.

TERMINATOR 3

The Terminator movies were respectable action romps with a touch of philosophy... They had some plot

Terminator 3 was a sad excuse for a movie... Random explosions, unbeliveable events, ridiculous acting, nonsensical plot, and lacked any originality...

Matrix: Reloaded
Batman Forever

Ace Ventura! AV2 sucked big time but AV1 was kick-ass!

Blade 2.

And Starwars Ep: 1 & 2

The Godfather III springs painfully to mind, and Jurassic Park's sequel also blew.

Matrix 2 and 3.

The Godfather III springs painfully to mind, and Jurassic Park's sequel also blew.
oh yeah Jurassic Park 3, did that even have a plot? Jurassic Park 2 was pretty damn crappy too

Matrix: Reloaded
Batman Forever
Yeah, I almost mentioned Matrix: Reloaded too, but then remembered that I don't really like the first Matrix movie all that much anyway. Still, it was a MAJOR disappointment.

The Godfather III springs painfully to mind, and Jurassic Park's sequel also blew.
You have point... but that only because of little Miss Coppola being painfully inserted... into an ok sequel...

And... Lost World wasn't too bad... However Jurrasic Park 3 once again is something they shat onto film to profit from the name.

Oh, and Baby Geniuses 2! Truthfully I've seen neither, but just watching the previews guarantees... worst. movies. ever.

Oh, wait. Bad sequels to GOOD movies. Nevermind.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban as i hear it also

does the remake of the Thunderbirds, Go! count. i havnt seen it but its not puppetry so it ruins the thunderbirds good name.

Superman IV. Why not II and III? Well, II had supervillians, bonus. III had Richard Pryor, which for some reason I'll watch do anything. Don't test me, you don't want to know how many times I saw The Toy.....

On the theme of superheroes....Batman and Robin...how did they go from Frank Miller-esque to Adam West?

You have point... but that only because of little Miss Coppola being painfully inserted... into an ok sequel...

And... Lost World wasn't too bad... However Jurrasic Park 3 once again is something they shat onto film to profit from the name.
Lost World was okay until it turned into a Godzilla movie, and then it angered me so much that I lost all respect for it.

Superman IV. Why not II and III? Well, II had supervillians, bonus. III had Richard Pryor, which for some reason I'll watch do anything. Don't test me, you don't want to know how many times I saw The Toy.....

On the theme of superheroes....Batman and Robin...how did they go from Frank Miller-esque to Adam West?
Not to mention the nippled batsuit.

Adam West, however, has done his finest work ever as the Mayor on the Family Guy.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban as i hear it also

does the remake of the Thunderbirds, Go! count. i havnt seen it but its not puppetry so it ruins the thunderbirds good name.
It's weird that a super-marionette movie is actually coming out around the same time as a live action Thunderbirds.

I don't think it would count as a bad sequel, but a bad whoring...

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban as i hear it also

does the remake of the Thunderbirds, Go! count. i havnt seen it but its not puppetry so it ruins the thunderbirds good name.
Actually, Azkaban is the best Harry Potter they have made, IMHO, but they need new actors, seeing how the ones they have now look a little too grown-up now.

I saw 2010 being mentioned. I thought it was decent, and easier to follow than 2001. Having said that, it comes nowhere close to the quality of 2001.

Not to mention the nippled batsuit.

Adam West, however, has done his finest work ever as the Mayor on the Family Guy.
Scaring. But I have to agree about the Mayor thing. (West will also voice the mayor in the new Batman cartoon coming out this fall. Confuse the audience? Yeah, a little.)

OOOOHHHHH!!! I have an entry for my thread, be back!!!

Lost World was okay until it turned into a Godzilla movie, and then it angered me so much that I lost all respect for it.
The 1999 Godzilla movie, with what's-his-name...for some God-forsaken reason, they used P. Diddy (or Puff Daddy or whatever-his-latest-name-is) for the soundtrack, instead of the natural choice of Blue Oyster Cult. And the acting was simply horrific, though the old Japanese dude at the start saying "Gojirra" was actually good...too bad that was his only line.

Actually, Azkaban is the best Harry Potter they have made, IMHO, but they need new actors, seeing how the ones they have now look a little too grown-up now.

I saw 2010 being mentioned. I thought it was decent, and easier to follow than 2001. Having said that, it comes nowhere close to the quality of 2001.
a little too grown up? you do realise every time they are at hogwarts it has progressed a full year?

and i heard the guy completely RAPED the story line and seeing as how i watched the other 2 they followed the books PERFECTLY. and i do believe the guy raped the 3rd one seeing as how he admitted he had barely even heard of harry potter before being asked to direct it and he is known for his dark horror films. i wouldnt have let him anywhere near the script when he said he hadnt heard of it

a little too grown up? you do realise every time they are at hogwarts it has progressed a full year?

and i heard the guy completely RAPED the story line and seeing as how i watched the other 2 they followed the books PERFECTLY. and i do believe the guy raped the 3rd one seeing as how he admitted he had barely even heard of harry potter before being asked to direct it and he is known for his dark horror films. i wouldnt have let him anywhere near the script when he said he hadnt heard of it
You really ought to see it before complaining about it. Of course there are differences between the book and the film--the book was the longest in the series when it came out, and the other films that followed the books loyally were already 3 hours long. You can't make a 4 hour children's movie--it won't sell. So things have to be sacrificed, but as long as the spirit is the same, it'll be okay, and Cuaron certainly got the darkness of the film right. It's a much more mature film than the first two, which is no surprise when you look at the filmographies of Cuaron as compared to Chris Columbus, who directed the first two.

If you're looking for a faithfull adaptation, you won't get it. But it's a good film, and it gets the important stuff right, I think.

The 1999 Godzilla movie, with what's-his-name...for some God-forsaken reason, they used P. Diddy (or Puff Daddy or whatever-his-latest-name-is) for the soundtrack, instead of the natural choice of Blue Oyster Cult. And the acting was simply horrific, though the old Japanese dude at the start saying "Gojirra" was actually good...too bad that was his only line.
This was a sore spot for me, being a hardcore Godzilla fan.

WHAT TRASH!!!!! Jurassic Park tried to be Godzilla and Godzilla tried to be Jurassic Park........dumbasses.......christ......

Interestingly enough, Toho's (the only people who have any right to make a Godzilla movie) Godzilla 2000 seemed to be a scathing commentary on the american Godzilla. Check it out-

An 'alien' invader shows up and starts draining japanese data, then takes a DNA sample from Godzilla to make it's own. That new cloned godzilla (that looked a lot like the Iguana Godzilla of the american film) then tries to CONSUME Godzilla, who of course isn't having it.

I think they made thier point, even if Godzilla 2000 didn't neccisarily play well here.

I saw 2010 being mentioned. I thought it was decent, and easier to follow than 2001. Having said that, it comes nowhere close to the quality of 2001.
That's sorta my problem with 2010. They took an (IMO) excellent movie, then, for the sequel, they basically did the same thing, only dumbed it down to the point that I felt my intelligence was being insulted. Of course, 2001 was directed by Stanley Kubrick, and 2010 wasn't, so I guess one can't really expect the same quality. I had the same problem with Exorcist II. Basically the same as the first one, only dumbed down a lot, and not insightful in the least.

That's sorta my problem with 2010. They took an (IMO) excellent movie, then, for the sequel, they basically did the same thing, only dumbed it down to the point that I felt my intelligence was being insulted. Of course, 2001 was directed by Stanley Kubrick, and 2010 wasn't, so I guess one can't really expect the same quality. I had the same problem with Exorcist II. Basically the same as the first one, only dumbed down a lot, and not insightful in the least.
Kubrick was the master of adaptation, and the movie and the book (2001) where developed together. That kind of combination is hard to follow.

How about anything after Star Trek II, the Wrath of Khan? Though, ironically, II was about a quadsquillion times better than I

How about anything after Star Trek II, the Wrath of Khan? Though, ironically, II was about a quadsquillion times better than IOh come on--Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country was a terrific sequel, and I have a soft spot in my heart (and potentially my head) for number IV, with the whales, even though it was more than a little silly in spots. (Can you tell us where to find the nuclear wessels? Noo-klee-er Wessels.)

Oh come on--Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country was a terrific sequel, and I have a soft spot in my heart (and potentially my head) for number IV, with the whales, even though it was more than a little silly in spots. (Can you tell us where to find the nuclear wessels? Noo-klee-er Wessels.)
Why does every iteration of Star Trek have to go back in time to the era it's being produced in?

And for that matter, in Star Trek you have logical races, war like races, merchant races, etc....why are humans the only mixed bag in the universe?

Sorry....(I like VI, I think it's popularly understood that with Star Trek movies its even good, odd bad, current...uh, did they really release a movie again????)

TERMINATOR 3

The Terminator movies were respectable action romps with a touch of philosophy... They had some plot

Terminator 3 was a sad excuse for a movie... Random explosions, unbeliveable events, ridiculous acting, nonsensical plot, and lacked any originality...

Yes, but do consider this: instead of Arnie's ass, we got to see Kristanna Loken's. I rate that as a huge improval.

They've released the Next Gen movies--Nemesis was the last one, and it was a mixed bag I think.

They've released the Next Gen movies--Nemesis was the last one, and it was a mixed bag I think.
I stopped watching at First Contact, which I liked. No, wait-that's not true, I saw the one where Data went nuts or something and there was a bunch of people who where old but looked young....don't remember what they called it......long episode......First Contact was cool though....

Yes, but do consider this: instead of Arnie's ass, we got to see Kristanna Loken's. I rate that as a huge improval.
I have to agree with a friend who said that movie should have started 45 minutes from when it ended and went from there. I won't say more to avoid spoilers....for whatever poor dumb bastard who hasn't seen it but for some reason still plans to...

Terminator 3 sucks AND blows.
But people keep putting down Matrix:Reloaded-yes it was disappointing,but compared to Matrix:Revolutions it was a masterpiece.What the hell was that all about?
Can someone explain who the indian girl at the end was supposed to be?

Speed 2: The only movie I've ever fallen asleep during (even the worst movies can keep me entertained enough to stay awake).

And no one has mentioned Highlander II: The Quickening? I admit, I would rather forget it was ever made... and I remember when it came out and talks of a third one were in production... Highlander fans the world over hoped for the third beginning with Macleod waking from the fitful nightmare that Highlander II was.

And who could forget Rambo 2 and 3?
The first one was a DRAMA,the two sequels were macho bullshit with no script.

Predator 2. Danny Glover should never be in an action movie.

Batman & Robin
Mortal Kombat 2
Jurassic Park 3

Actually, Azkaban is the best Harry Potter they have made, IMHO, but they need new actors, seeing how the ones they have now look a little too grown-up now.

I saw 2010 being mentioned. I thought it was decent, and easier to follow than 2001. Having said that, it comes nowhere close to the quality of 2001.

I thought the Prisoner of Azkaban was pretty good, but I disagree that they need knew actors. Harry, Hermione, and Ron are supposed to be older as the movies and books go on. In the PoA they were supposed to look 13-14 years old, and they did. Besides if they changed actors it would ruin the whole thing. Kind of like how they changed the part of the kid in Home Alone 3 and made the movie totally suck.

How about anything after Star Trek II, the Wrath of Khan? Though, ironically, II was about a quadsquillion times better than I
Yes, but it's rather the exception that proves the rule I think. Pretty much the only other sequels that are better than or equal to the original I can come up with are:
Aliens
Terminator
LOTR

That's it. Speed 2 must surely be up there for worst sequel award. And I find the other Star Trek movies are more just lomg TV episodes than anything else, which is disappointing as I'm paying quite a bit to see them.
I agree about the Matrix movies. I think they were made to see if it was possible to make a sequel so bad you would like the previous movie. I found the first one boring, but good compared to the second which sucked big time. Again this looked like Casablance compared to the tripe they served up for the third.

MiB:II.

Assuming, of course, you thought MiB was a good movie..

Bourne Supremacy

Terminator 3 sucks AND blows.
But people keep putting down Matrix:Reloaded-yes it was disappointing,but compared to Matrix:Revolutions it was a masterpiece.What the hell was that all about?
Can someone explain who the indian girl at the end was supposed to be?
Holy crap. Revolutions was even worse than Reloaded? Damn, I didn't think that was possible. I've been boycotting the trilogy ever since I saw Reloaded, it was that bad.

Bourne Supremacy
I didn't think Bourne Supremacy was that bad, although I did almost fall asleep during that car chase. Of course, I watched Anchorman that same week, so that lowered the bar quite a bit.

Yes, but it's rather the exception that proves the rule I think. Pretty much the only other sequels that are better than or equal to the original I can come up with are:
Aliens
Terminator
LOTR

That's it. Speed 2 must surely be up there for worst sequel award. And I find the other Star Trek movies are more just lomg TV episodes than anything else, which is disappointing as I'm paying quite a bit to see them.
I agree about the Matrix movies. I think they were made to see if it was possible to make a sequel so bad you would like the previous movie. I found the first one boring, but good compared to the second which sucked big time. Again this looked like Casablance compared to the tripe they served up for the third.

Toy Story 2 was as good, if not better than the original.

I have a multiple movie answer to that, but they all start with "Police Academy"

See, I can't comment on The Matrix thing. I only saw the first, since everyone told me the rest sucked. So for me, the movie was excellent. The game was so-so; it was a nice rent and time killer.

From what I've heard, Predetor vs Aliens is one hell of a crap movie :p

I'd say Return of the King.
I mean, The Two Towers had an open beginning (who knows what had happened before) and an open ending. No real beginning and no real end.
When I saw Return of the King I was just like so totally disappointed. I mean, the point where Frodo turns into the Slayer and dies, it's just so damn sad. I wish to [some imaginary god] I hadn't seen that terrible movie.

I'd say Return of the King.
I mean, The Two Towers had an open beginning (who knows what had happened before) and an open ending. No real beginning and no real end.
When I saw Return of the King I was just like so totally disappointed. I mean, the point where Frodo turns into the Slayer and dies, it's just so damn sad. I wish to [some imaginary god] I hadn't seen that terrible movie.

I loved that entire movie up until the 60 different endings. The theater I was in was completely packed and people were actually clapping when something cool happened. But when they got to the hundredth ending people in the audience actually groaned. But I still really like that movie, I own it on DVD, so I can just watch the scenes that I want.

And no one has mentioned Highlander II: The Quickening? I admit, I would rather forget it was ever made... and I remember when it came out and talks of a third one were in production... Highlander fans the world over hoped for the third beginning with Macleod waking from the fitful nightmare that Highlander II was.
Whew--I'd forgotten about that one. That one is indeed hard to top.

I loved ROTK, although the drawn out ending gets pretty tiresome. I especially loved the way they made the king of the dead look.

I'd have to agree with the sequel to The Exorcist