Movies and sequels:When is enough, enough?

[mudtiger]

Re: Movies and sequels:When is enough, enough?

So I guess RETURN OF THE JEDI was done just for money eh?

I meant every prequel/sequel after the 2nd prequel/sequel made, but with regards to ROTJ, definitely the worst of the first 3. Ewoks set the stage for the crapdom to follow in the prequels.

[elicoleman]

Re: Movies and sequels:When is enough, enough?

Home Alone should've stopped after 2.

American Pie should've stopped after 3, no spin off band camps. Atleast go under a different name.

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: Movies and sequels:When is enough, enough?

Anytime a movie that is a fantastic on its own, but doesn't set up a continuing story-arc for more films, should not have any conceivable sequels/prequels. Also, anytime a movie/series is 15+ years old,
no new movies should be mad.

[The C]

Re: Movies and sequels:When is enough, enough?

I was watching Signs earlier when the Cavs game was on break, and I thought this movie could use a sequel.

Maybe do the story, but with a different family. Those are the kind of sequels I like. Start something new with it. I kind of hope that if they make a Cloverfield 2, that it has a different protagonist (maybe more hot chicks?).

[davin]

Re: Movies and sequels:When is enough, enough?

Hopefully the new Indiana Jones movie won't fall in this thread next week.

I hope it won't show up here either. I think the good thing about the Indy movies is that they are almost completely independent of eachother. You do not need to see Raiders of the Lost Ark to understand Temple of Doom. However it helps when you have a superb cast and superb people making the film. For some reason I just don't see a bomb coming from Spielberg and the rest. Now if this was being made by some other random guy, I would be concerned.

[Emjay]

Re: Movies and sequels:When is enough, enough?

[quote=MizzouBravesFan;2038362214]without Michael Myers, he was brought back and the Akkads milked every cent he could out of the character and the franchise.

Halloween really should've just been a one off movie...the premise was brilliant and it lent itself to just being a spooky movie that didn't need sequels or rhyme or reason or anything...even the ending would've been great for one movie as well. Of course, $$$ talks and that's when Michael became Laurie's brother, The Thorn was introduced, and all kinds of whacky stuff went on.[/quote]

Tell me about it. One the one after H20. They had to do a whole explanation where he had this elaborate plan, just so you know how he survived the last movie. I guess that was easier than him picking up his head and putting it back on.:wink:
Jamie Lee Curtis probably said enough is enough too.

[greatwhite33]

Re: Movies and sequels:When is enough, enough?

It all starts and ends with Jason and Friday the 13th. I don't know about youguys but that last one jason X was so horrible I could only see like the first 5 minutes and it was over. Not tosay there were others in the series that were bad cause there were but some of them were passable. This series to me more than any other resembles making movies for the "buck" Other series that cross that threshold are:

Nightmare on Elm Street
Alien (last one sucked)
I know what you did last summer
Scream
SAW (I loved the first one)

I mean there's so many more but some of these should have been one, maybe two in the series and done, but you know if a low budget film like many of these, become successful in their launch then inneviatably a sequel comes out most times.

[Blzer]

Re: Movies and sequels:When is enough, enough?

If anyone knows me enough, then you know that I am appalled that they extended Saw past a trilogy. Even after seeing the first Saw II TV spot, I was very disappointed. The theatrical trailer and the movie itself made up for it, though. I'm very satisfied with the trilogy. Though I know that Saw was a standalone film on its own... if they ever decide to remake the movie in 15 - 20 years and do sequels, I would like to see a different route with them. Anyway, I despised IV, but I am hoping to get a lot out of V and VI. I'm still disappointed, though.

I think that there are some movies where, because of how they've constructed what the sequels have done with the movies so far, they can keep going. Instances of this are Final Destination, Jurassic Park, and The Fast and the Furious. I hope, however (for the power of the trilogy's sake), they quit at three with Bourne and Spider-Man.

[Beantown]

Re: Movies and sequels:When is enough, enough?

. Anyway, I despised IV, but I am hoping to get a lot out of V and VI. I'm still disappointed, though.

I hope, however (for the power of the trilogy's sake), they quit at three with Bourne and Spider-Man.

I thought Saw IV was a LOT better than 2 and 3. But that is also because I thought 2 and 3 were absolutely terrible (well, more-so 2, 3 was just bad, not terrible). 4 was actually good, though no where near 1.

I have to ask, though...what is everyone's big obsession with trilogy's these days? In response to the Bourne series, they are making a 4th one and Greengrass and Damon have signed on. If the cast is still good, if the script is still good, if the movie is still going to be good, why should they stop at 3 just to preserve a trilogy, when a 4th movie could be just as good?

[jmood88]

Re: Movies and sequels:When is enough, enough?

I thought Saw IV was a LOT better than 2 and 3. But that is also because I thought 2 and 3 were absolutely terrible (well, more-so 2, 3 was just bad, not terrible). 4 was actually good, though no where near 1.

I have to ask, though...what is everyone's big obsession with trilogy's these days? In response to the Bourne series, they are making a 4th one and Greengrass and Damon have signed on. If the cast is still good, if the script is still good, if the movie is still going to be good, why should they stop at 3 just to preserve a trilogy, when a 4th movie could be just as good?

I don't get that either.

[Blzer]

Re: Movies and sequels:When is enough, enough?

I once gave an answer in another thread (maybe it was for Bourne, I forget)... but really, it's not only that it's three movies. However, three certainly means something, and the ways they set it up is specifically for three movies. Beginning, middle, end. Birth, life, death. Introduction, climax, conclusion. You see this evolve throughout one movie, let alone having it be the structure of three tying into one.

Not only that, but when creators of movies plan on trilogies, and then break it, they are essentially "killing" the end that they had and adding onto it, demoralizing it, giving it less power.




For instance (spoilers below):



- In Saw III, there was nothing about that movie that was light and all about adding more story and juice for sequels until they decided to add cliffhangers in the end (which were very minor and unnecessary, and the movie could have survived without them). I predicted that everybody would die, as that's what trilogies tend to do. Low and behold, both villains die. But wait... now they're going to make three more movies, without the main villain? John Kramer is dead and we can only see him in flashbacks?

- Very small, but from Jason Bourne telling Landy: "This is where it started for me.. .this is where it ends." in The Bourne Ultimatum, leading up to him finding out everything about himself and why he was who he was and what he did, and the music when they intrude and he ends up on the roof... all of that is leading up to a big ending, a major conclusion for the franchise, representing Bourne's potential death (when we believed he was left to die). It concluded just fine, we found out everything.

The thing is, they could add more to these movies, but then it makes the third movies really poor in comparison to what they used to be. What I mean is they could have just made it a second sequel as opposed to a concluding chapter. Here we're left with so much power at the end of the movie, but it is now all tarnished because it wasn't all that it was hyped up to be because it wasn't actually the end. This is where I think Saw failed and why I want their remake to go a different direction, because I want to make sure that they don't kill off important characters until they decide when to kill off the franchise. They could have done so much more than already putting John on his death bed in Saw III. He could have still been alive and kicking through six movies if they chose to early on. Instead, they kill what Saw III was ever good for (wrapping up a trilogy), and now that it's just another sequel with another sequel added onto it, it loses its power and greatness. That's why I only own the first three and not the fourth. I don't want to remind myself that it is no longer a trilogy.

You don't have to agree with me. I just want you to understand where I'm coming from. For instance, the movies I listed earlier (Fast/Furious, Jurassic Park, Final Destination) don't have any big beginning/middle/end thing in their three movies that makes it so they should conclude it at three. They can keep going. It's no big evolving thing unless they choose to make it so, where they can tie the last movie into something that we didn't know before even going into the first movie (Captain Webb choosing to work for the CIA in an effort to help America, Amanda working for John even since the bathroom in the first movie, etc.). Those aren't "trilogies" so to speak. Hope that makes sense.

[jmood88]

Re: Movies and sequels:When is enough, enough?

I still don't understand how one movie can ruin the others for you. If the fourth Bourne sucks then it'll suck, it has no impact on how good the others were. The fourth movie can't go back to the previous three and take anything out. I see what you're saying that it can take away from the feeling of a definite end from the third one but I just don't see how that can ruin how much you enjoy the other three.

[JayBee74]

Re: Movies and sequels:When is enough, enough?

Maybe Horror movies are the EA of the movie industry. They keep putting out the same thing and we keep paying to see them, so they keep making more.

I have to even give EA more credit than that. Horror movies are so cheap to make that any reasonable gross will give them a big profit. The original Halloween had a $325,000 budget but grossed $71 million worldwide.

[GAMEC0CK2002]

Re: Movies and sequels:When is enough, enough?

Should have stopped after the 2nd movie
Saw
American Pie
Scream
I know what you did last summer
Matrix

Maybe didn't need to stop at #2, but 3 was trash
Spiderman

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: Movies and sequels:When is enough, enough?

Should have stopped after the 2nd movie
Saw
American Pie
Scream
I know what you did last summer
Matrix

Maybe didn't need to stop at #2, but 3 was trash
Spiderman

You forgot X-Men 3.