Movies and sequels:When is enough, enough?

[SPTO]

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

I'd add Back to the Future III in the 2nd category. Maybe it wasn't TRASH but it was not neccessary.

[Blzer]

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.

I think it's more like... if I (and they) had known they were going to go past three movies, then they should have done something different with the third movie, where they could have made it better, rather than making it an ending. Most of the time, a third movie in a trilogy does not work well as a standalone film. The first does, the second may (though needs character backbone and recognition from the first), but the third is normally a direct continuation of the second (Saw, The Matrix, Bourne...) and is only given its impact because of what it tends to tie together and ends what had begun in the first one.

For instance, I know there are many other things they could have done with Saw III if they weren't "done" with the franchise. Instead, they made it very dark, and completely focused it not only on death itself, but it was an adaption of what the first one told us and was a continuation of the second one. Alone, it's not a very good movie. Together with the other two, it is given some life. I'd rather they make a third movie of a non-trilogy a standalone kind of film, much like the movies I mentioned before (Jurassic Park, Final Destination, The Fast and the Furious). And that's why I think those movies can have sequels.

[Emjay]

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

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?[/quote]


It all depends on what the 4th movie brings to the table, Take Friday the 13th for instance, the 4th movie was pretty good, it took place the day after the 3rd part and it supposed to had ended there. But as we all know antother 6 parts, (7 couting Freddy vs. Jason) and ruined the whole thing.

Lethal Weapon 4 was good IMO. But some movies when it comes to storyline consistency lose it with the more sequels that they tack on. In part 1 Danny Glover has touches of gray hair and calling Mel Gibson "kid" by the fourth part, they both look the same age.

Oh and after Spiderman 3, they need to have a make a another sequel, just as a make good to fans. Same goes for X-Men.

[jmood88]

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

You forgot X-Men 3.

The only reason X-Men 3 was bad was because of Brett Ratner. There needs to be a redo of that movie.

[greatwhite33]

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 agree that 4 was better than 3 but in all honesty I really liked the villain and with him gone, or just showing up in little cameos showing his past it's not really the same anymore, and they are starting to take the series in the wrong direction in my opinion, the first one had a few twists here and there, but really good ones. 4 has too many twists and they just don't seem very well done compared to how the first one was done. Now as for Bourne, I have loved all 3 movies extremely well done, and if a 4th comes along and is just as great then I have absolutely no problem with that. For eample I watched Die Hard 4 and I enjoyed it, it was a good action flick. I applaud Eli Roth & Quentin Tarantino of the hostel series, because they said part 2 was the end of it...now who knows if in the future they change their minds but they said they were not planning on making it a running series. It was two decent movies and done...some of these other movie franchises should adopt this strategy.

[marshallfever]

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

Reading this thread, it reminded me alot of this other thread on this other site:

Videogame Sequels > Movie Sequels – How Come?

How is it that videogames have the ability to have great sequels after the third version, but movies tend to lose their touch?

I know of very few movies that are actually good after the 3rd sequel. Yes, there are some great trilogies and movies that have been just as successful as the first movie in the series, but there are not that many (Starwars and Batman comes to mind). I can think of a lot of movies that had three versions and all did well (Matrix, Spiderman, Bourne Conspiracy, Pirates of the Caribbean), but very few come to mind with a 4th, 5th etc.

Thinking of great sequels that have reached high numbers (4 and above):

GTA IV
Metal Gear 4
Final Fantasy XIII
Nintendo Franchises (Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc)
Call of Duty 4
SOCOM

Movie and videogame budgets are in the millions of dollars, I would assume there is a slight edge to movie production costs. I just can’t put my finger on what is it about movies that doesn’t allow them to retain a following like videogames do for such a period of time. Both are popular media, yet one seems to have more of a ability to be fresh each time

A great question indeed

[Husker_OS]

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

Scary Movie should've stopped after the first one. The first one was funny, but 2 was horrible and 3 I didn't even bother with.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre should've stopped with the original plus the remake. No need for anything else.

Major League should've stopped after 2.


And yeah, American Pie sucked after the 2nd one.

[The C]

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

Reading this thread, it reminded me alot of this other thread on this other site:

A great question indeed

Simple, videogames involve the viewer. The story isn't as important as the gameplay. Usually games that get sequels have very solid gameplay, with an okay story.

A movie needs to have a great story for the first release; and then usually an equal or greater for the second to not be **** on.

[ZB9]

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

Should have stopped after the 2nd movie

Matrix

a lot of people feel that way

i guess im in the minority, because i felt all three of the Matrix movies were really good.

[Blzer]

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

a lot of people feel that way

i guess im in the minority, because i felt all three of the Matrix movies were really good.

I'm in that same minority, and in fact really love the third one. Reason? Because of the emphasis of the end... death.

I know that really does sound corny, jmood... but that really is a reason I like the third movie of trilogies, and that's what makes trilogies so great. Believe me when I say that if they intended on making a fourth Matrix movie before thinking up what to do with the third one, they wouldn't have done what they did for the third one. They would have made it more like a second sequel, just like Reloaded. If they decided to make a fourth one now, I wouldn't like the third one as much, only because I know they could have done something better with the movie if they weren't trying to conclude the franchise.

[Emjay]

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

"I'm in that same minority, and in fact really love the third one. Reason? Because of the emphasis of the end... death."

Too bad that doesn't apply to horror movies. Michael Myers got shot SIX times, stabbed and his eye gouged in the first one and he was all good for the sequels.

I won't even mention Jason, I'm still trying to figure out how he dug himself out the grave in Freddy vs. Jason.

[LetsGoPitt]

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

I'd add Back to the Future III in the 2nd category. Maybe it wasn't TRASH but it was not neccessary.

But...BTTF II and III were essentially one movie. I agree that they weren't on par with the original, but you need the third one if you have the second one.

[jfsolo]

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

The only reason X-Men 3 was bad was because of Brett Ratner. There needs to be a redo of that movie.

Directors are like Quarterbacks, they get too much credit and too much blame. The thing that killed X3 is the script. The storylines for Rogue, Angel, Cyclops, just to name a few, were unbelievably bad. No director could have saved the film with that poor writing.

Look at Superman returns, I thought Brandon Routh was an excellent Superman and Clark Kent, and we know what Brian Singer can do, but they both came off looking bad because the plot was trash.

Ratner is no Christopher Nolan, but he had nothing to work with.

[jmood88]

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

But how is it that the first two were really good while the third completely changed as soon as Ratner signed on? It wasn't just the bad script, the whole tone was different from the first two.

[LetsGoPitt]

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

But how is it that the first two were really good while the third completely changed as soon as Ratner signed on? It wasn't just the bad script, the whole tone was different from the first two.

It's all about the script...I mean, when you get the writers of Elektra and The Fantastic Four (Zak Penn) and XXX:State of the Union (Simon Kinberg) to team up, you're almost guaranteed a crapfest.