Which movies do you believe didn't deserve the sequel they got or the franchise that it became?

Submitted by Imposingtitle t3_z2y9ru in movies

Honestly their are too many for me to list so here are just some criteria that makes them unworthy of a sequel, threequel or franchise. (not an exhaustive list so go ahead and share your own.)

  1. Some sequels that didn't need to be made but because of the greed of the company they made them.
  2. Some movies were contractually obligated to make a sequel or lose money.
  3. Some studios get lazy on the 3rd installment and make a subpar movie compared to the first 2. (ie. The Godfather 1 & 2, The Terminator 1 & 2, TMNT 1&2 They all had 2 great first installments but the third felt forced or unnecessarily lazy.)

Also they just made a sequel to RIPD which was a horrible train wreck and no one asked for a sequel. Seems like a contractual obligation movies to me so they wouldn't lose more money or whatever.

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

flights_not_feelings t1_ixiug5z wrote

Jurassic World! They could have made dominion so much better. Like why advertise dinosaurs living amongst humans in the trailers and then barely show that in the movie?! And the T-Rex at the Drive in scene… Hello where was that??

8

kingzilch t1_ixiv73d wrote

First Blood was a chilling story of how veterans of the Vietnam war were abandoned by the government that sent them to war, and abused by people back home. Rambo: First Blood Part 2 was a revenge fantasy for baby boomers whose ego couldn't handle the US losing the war.

24

VladtheInhaler999 t1_ixiv7hi wrote

Paranormal Activity. I felt it could have experienced the same cultural phenomena as The Blair Witch Project but sequels released consecutively every year really killed it.

9

bcraig8870 t1_ixiye3u wrote

I can’t even begin to make that list. It would be in the hundreds. And not the low hundreds.

1

RudigherJones t1_ixiyedr wrote

The Matrix was perfect as a standalone film.

39

graceyfloo t1_ixj0csr wrote

Despite some great moments over the years, Halloween would have been better off as a standalone film than the total mess it has become, with three separate timelines, a completely unrelated sequel, and whatever the hell ENDS was. An argument could be made for certain other popular horror franchises, but this one wins first prize for completely bastardizing something that was truly great.

Also Darko, but no one really paid to see that so I'll let it go.

0

Justme100001 t1_ixj0g22 wrote

Most of the time the only sequels that make sense is when the movie is too long for one part (LOTR, Hunger Games). So many sequels are just cashing in on the first movie....

1

00collector t1_ixj0vxo wrote

Fast and the Furious

The first was a mediocre crime story at best.

3

Jedi_Metal t1_ixj0vzu wrote

Sicario, though I liked the sequel it didn't hold up to the first imo. The sequel had a few plot holes, it never needed a sequel. Maybe an anthology series?

One thing I noticed, the horrors in the first Sicario were present. The gory details, the anxiety, and that haunting song call "The Beast" from the movie's score.

2nd movie felt like a live action of Ghost Recon Wildlands.

3

Reelplayer t1_ixj1a0t wrote

But in the case of Godfather or Terminator, they did deserve a sequel, both after the first one and the second one. It's just that the second sequel didn't deliver. I believe a better example would be Taken. It's a fun movie, but nowhere near interesting enough to continue the storyline. Jaws is another good example.

5

momohatch t1_ixj1iu1 wrote

Pacific Rim. The first was a fantastic mecha kaiju anime come to life. The second was a steaming pile of kaiju sh*t.

14

Maddie215 t1_ixj1pi0 wrote

Shrek. Unpopular opinion I know but I didn't like the first one.

0

FiremanPCT2016 t1_ixj2gxv wrote

Replying to 00collector (#637,638)

I like how realistic the series remained over time. It follows a logical trajectory starting with plots to steal DVD players and ending with launching a car into space to ram into a satellite. /s

6

SWHLuke t1_ixj3avf wrote

The Hangover, Dumb and Dumber, Hot Tub Time Machine

2

Buhos_En_Pantelones t1_ixj5qks wrote

The most basic of basic answers: Jurassic Park.

It was a great premise for a great (book) movie. Where do you go with this idea? Apparently nowhere except for the same tired retread of the first one. Dinosaurs get out, people run away from them. Rinse and repeat.

The worst part is, they could've actually gone in some interesting directions with this franchise, but alas...

3

Imposingtitle OP t1_ixj7au9 wrote

Replying to RudigherJones (#637,422)

Wholeheartedly agree. I wanted the sequels or anything that tied in so bad and am glad we got them but they completely ruined the first one in retrospect. Thus in hindsight the dream was better than the reality of what we got. I heard the creators stole the story and that is also why the sequels did not do so well since they actually lack the creativity to make something on their own. but i dont know i just wish the sequels stood up. The action was great but that also was taken from animes.

2

rhyd1978 t1_ixja3ux wrote

Robocop did not need sequels

5

WhyWorryAboutThat t1_ixjdupm wrote

Replying to momohatch (#637,701)

This is a good answer because the second one sucked because of how they tried to turn it into a franchise. They killed off a fan favorite Japanese character to replace her with Jing Tian, whose whole Hollywood career is just being fit uselessly into movies so they can advertise a Chinese actress to the huge Chinese film market. They did a time skip so they could replace the rest of the cast with young adults and teenagers who could easily be locked into multi-film contracts. They did away with the heavy, slow moving powerful robots to turn them all into weightless superheroes. And instead of the movie being full of badass kaiju battles, there's just one at the end but it's bigger. Total crap.

4

ShallowUnicorn t1_ixjmcpz wrote

Mortal Kombat I feel they has a pretty decent cast and even though the CGI wasn’t great in the first one I liked it but the sequel was garbage and I didn’t care for the reboot

4

kaluanabanana t1_ixjn97t wrote

Pirates of the Caribbean The first film was fun and entertaining, but then it got worse and worse with every further movie

2

dasch63 t1_ixjoaq8 wrote

Anything made by tyler perry

1

Moffee t1_ixjrdyd wrote

Saw.

It works so well as a one and done but in true fashion the show must go on with progressively worse entries, with y really only the tantalising threat of a last minute twist which could never match one. Plus there's the endless mystery plot devices and questions that are only answered the sequel after.

It's bananas. And the twist to the last one was just annoying, though I didn't see Spiral...

1

JohnCavil01 t1_ixjv8vd wrote

Replying to mikeyfreshh (#637,426)

Yes both Blair Witch sequels are not fantastic BUT I will at least give the 2000 one credit for having a really really interesting and ambitious premise for what would usually have just been a cynical cash-grab.

It’s a shame the execution left so much to be desired. But the idea of a fictional movie about events in the real world happening in the wake of the Blair Witch Project movie phenomenon is a really ambitious idea.

I’ll also give the director some credit - the editing was heavy altered by the studio and if the editing/sequence of events had been presented as originally intended it would definitely be a better movie….hiring better actors and having less ridiculous comedy might have also helped haha.

5

JohnCavil01 t1_ixjvkxk wrote

Replying to Reelplayer (#637,679)

Actually, I think that while The Godfather II is obviously a very well made movie it feels really redundant and just treads the same themes and essentially the same character arc as the first one.

1

JohnCavil01 t1_ixjw58q wrote

Replying to graceyfloo (#637,593)

I will hear no slander against Halloween 3: Season of the Witch!

The Halloween franchise should have been the anthology it was intended to be all along and Halloween 3 demonstrates exactly why. It’s totally different, it’s spooky, there are some genuinely horrifying things in it, and it’s a self-contained story.

Imagine if instead of having 16 Michael Meyers movies and 1 movie that does literally anything else we could have had a series of half a dozen or so, maybe more, Halloween movies that you could select from during the season.

3

Flat_Cockroach2876 t1_ixjxcla wrote

Lethal weapon, the first one is a dark movie about a cop wanting to die and the rest are just comedies.

1

The_Stank__ t1_ixjys65 wrote

Replying to JohnCavil01 (#640,909)

Because it’s an inherent parody. WB was going to move along without them and Lana basically said nope, I’ll do it.

And instead of continuing the story thoughtfully she made a parody on reboots and remakes. I like that it was kind of an unintended nail in the coffin for the series.

1

McDummy t1_ixjzc1o wrote

Aliens, Batman returns, most of the direct to video hellraiser movies…if you added remakes,reboots, and prequels….woof.

1

JohnCavil01 t1_ixjzpl3 wrote

Replying to The_Stank__ (#641,360)

Yeah but just because something’s a parody doesn’t mean the performances have to be terrible.

I hear this argument a lot and it just feels like covering for the fact that Lana Wachowski made a bad movie. In terms of satire and parody it’s about as subtle as sledgehammer and worst of all it’s just plain boring. If she didn’t have an idea but knew the movie was going to get made anyway rather than making a half-asses movie that people were going to pay $15-20 a pop to see she could have just let somebody else do it on the off chance they actually had a good idea for a sequel.

Which isn’t so much to ask since the Wachowskis demonstrated twice that they didn’t really have an idea for sequels before.

3

IceLord86 t1_ixjzsba wrote

Replying to The_Stank__ (#641,360)

It wasn't a good parody though. If that's what they wanted then fine, but it wasn't well done and was an unfocused mess that wanted to have it both ways and IMO failed at both.

3

WatchMoreMovies t1_ixkh81p wrote

The one that blows my mind is Jarhead. Because the original is a pretty cynical, autobiographical war story and it somehow has 2 sequels that are generic Rambo ripoffs featuring made up people in no way connected to the first film.

1

AmeriChimera t1_ixkhdyt wrote

Replying to kaluanabanana (#640,043)

I kind of respect the series as a trilogy (Elizabeth Swan has a pretty good growth arc), but I really wished they had let it go there.

My dad quoted Barbosa like the typical goofy dad he is for a decade after the first film, but I apologized for taking him to see the latest one lol.

2

JasonKruegerCrowley t1_ixl5v4t wrote

Replying to flights_not_feelings (#645,257)

Yeah, the theatrical was butchered for a shorter run time and you can tell. Like the scene when Ellie sees the devastation of the crops and says "I hear you caught a live one"? It just cuts away in the theatrical to Alan but in the extended, you follow her into the house. Tons of new scenes, extended scenes, dino action, it's the definitive cut and actually changed it's ranking in the series for the better!

1

barbie_turik t1_ixlgb44 wrote

Someone already mentioned the sequel to Donnie Darko, so I'm bringing up two other very left field sequels that I don't think anyone asked for: Staying Alive (Saturday Night Fever 2), and Grease 2

1

loverofonion t1_ixmfq1u wrote

Whichever ones started off the comic book movie obsessions.

0

WhisperingSideways t1_ixnjhut wrote

Replying to rhyd1978 (#638,598)

I appreciate Robocop 2 the same way I appreciate Gremlins 2, as their own weird thing that exist separately from the original. And I just love that Irvin Kirschner directed The Empire Strikes Back 8 years prior to R2.

2