Films you wish there wasn't a sequel to

Shrek should have never had sequals.
Saw should have stopped after number 3, when Jigsaw died.
Are We There Yet? was an okay film considering the plotline, but for some reason I saw the sequal-- and predictably, it was bloody awful.
Grease, what were they thinking?!
 
Starship Troopers 2. I'm a highly uncritical person and can enjoy some utter tosh, but this made me get off the sofa and onto my PC, which is a seriously bad sign.
 
Yep.. Very much so.

I genuinely liked the story of T3, especially how it ended. It's a shame the execution failed so horribly.

Moving back to topic, the Crow sequels were pretty ill advised. I mean, not 'Highlander sequels' bad, but still remarkably floppy.
 
A resolution which negates James Cameron's intentions as demonstrated by this quote concerning T2: "If the future is changeable, then the battle is something that has to be fought continuously."

If Judgement Day wasn't set in stone for Cameron then it certainly isn't set in stone for me.
 
Indeed they did. Escape from the Planet of the Apes is actually much closer in feel to the original book (although the roles are reversed).
 
I disagree with Indy 4. I waited a long time for that film to come and when it did I wasn't dissapointed. Definately getting the DVD (possibly I think for Christmas). It might not have been the best Indy film ever made (sequels rarely are) but it worked well and a lot of the old chemistry was there.
 
That is arrant nonsense, and translates as I didn't like it, therefore it is wrong.

If Judgement Day occurring isn't set in stone then neither can Judgement Day not occurring be set in stone.

The very concept of the second trilogy means that Judgement Day happened, so if you believe T3 to be non-canon then so is the second trilogy
 
The entire cast & director of T3 have been binned so T4 can be viewed as existing prior to The Terminator in terms of chronology.

Paradox intact, abortion of a movie conveniently forgotten about.
 
Indy 4. It was horrible.

I think i must be one of the few people who actually really liked T3. I felt it was a good conclusion to the series.
 
The cast and crew are different (as they were for T3), the continuity is not. I'm not sure where you got the idea that it overwrites T3? It is set after the events of T3 (in 2018) - the re-casting (according to Warner Bros) was because the film is set quite a long time after T3.

Are you thnking of Sarah Connor Chronicles? That does ignore T3 (or at least give a different timeline).
 
Well you are the one saying the non-James Cameron 2nd trilogy is canon whilst using exactly the same reason to say that the non-James Cameron T3 is non-canon :rolleyes:

You are not the one to say what is and what isn't canon - and these days neither is James Cameron!

In fact isn't the unwritten rule for films and tv that if it appears on screen it's canon?
 
So artistic vision counts for nothing?

Blimey the hoops people will jump through to defend the canonicity of a flick that only existed to increase Ahnuld's already substantial bank balance. ;)
 
Back
Top