Terrible sequels that taint the original....

T

Taz2angel

New member
I've tried so hard to stick it but I just can't.....I'm finding Pirates of the Carribean: At World's End' just unbearable to watch, so boring.They have everything, a great cast, enough money to make brilliant special effects but must have skimped on the scriptwriters....:( I'm off to iPlayer Doctor Who.

Yet the original was so brilliant yet when I think of this series of films now, like The Matrix, I think of its terrible sequels....can anyone else think of sequels that are so disappointing they taint the original?
 
I adore Kill Bill Vol 1, it is so creative and well-paced. But Kill Bill Vol 2 I found to be boring as hell. It's so uneven and complicated. When she's shot, dumped in the coffin and then buried it takes her forever to get out. Instead we have to suffer the long tedious tale of her visiting that unpleasant Pai Mei. Then the end bit could have been so much better than the pathetic soap opera it turned into. And that Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique thingy was rubbish.

But maybe that's just a personal thing as I've found some people that prefer Vol 2 as they think Vol 1 is too arty-farty and pretentious.


The Matrix sequels are awful. The trilogy is called The Matrix, and the first film makes good use of it, but from then on it becomes this predictable War of the WorlRAB type of story. I felt like I'd seen it all before.
 
It's only a matter of time until someone says Exorcist 2, but I think it's quite a fun film on it's own terms (especially if you're a bit pizzled).
 
I actually liked the 2nd/3rd Pirates of the Caribbean films more than the first. I know LOARAB of people who hate them though - cause they're apparently too difficult to follow?
Didn't mind 2nd/3rd Matrix movies either, but I wasn't overly keen on the first one. So I guess it might just be that I wasn't expecting too much of them, so wasn't exactly disappointed.

I think the Shrek sequels are the worst things ever, though. I thought the first one was alright - was something I could watch with the cousins and still enjoy myself. The second one was only slightly rubbish, the third one was absolutely dire though, imo.
 
The SATC film tainted the series for me...I liked the films, but have to watch it as a separate thing from the series..which is stupid I know!!

As regarRAB the poster above with the Back to the Future 3 comment...I love the third film, but can relate to what you're saying. Again it is sometimes easier to detach from a franchise!!
 
The Aliens vs Predator films are a disgrace to both film series

Rocky V

Bridget Jones 2

Madagascar 2 is a good call too

Princess Diaries 2 *Hangs my head that I have seen either, and that I actually enjoyed the first*

Transformers 2

and of course the big one:

Star Wars episodes 1-3
 
Death Wish 2. Such an ugly, exploitive piece of shit that is quite possibly the worst mainstream movie ever made. Michael Winner should have been thoroughly ashamed, but then he went on to direct Dirty Weekend so cleary wasn't.

Nightmare on Elm St 2. We usually just forget this one happened.

Jaws 4. Achieved the mean feat of making Jaws 3 look good, which in turn improved Jaws 2.

Anthing with the word "Amityville" in it, except part 2, which was strangely better than part 1, despite being total shite.

The Star Wars prequels. If any proof were needed that George Lucas can't write scripts, these were it. A New Hope wasn't brilliant either, you struggle through it for the pay of, which is the Empire Strikes Back.

Exorcist 2. Actually laughably bad, like much of Richard Burton's resume. Part 3 was good though.

Any of the Halloweens after Part 3, especially Resurrection, which was just terrible beyond worRAB.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, nothing worse than comedy horror, and Part 4, which would have been utter utter shit even if it didn't star Renee Zellweger and Matthew McConaghey. Part 3 was okay though.
 
If your assessment skills are sound, no film should 'taint' another.

One of the features of sequels is that they come with an extra level of expectation...and one of the reasons why people judge badly is because too often they give undue weight to unreasonable expectation.
 
True - if the original movie is a good movie, how does it somehow become a bad movie because the sequel was bad?

And I also agree about the expextation level. You always expect more and better, and indeed are led to believe that is what you will be getting.

For almost as long as sequels have been made, the publicity machine has always used phrases like 'Twice the action, twice the thrills' etc to lure people in.

And essentially what you get is more of the same, and it seems somehow stale because you have seen it all before.

You cannot sustain that newness, that 'magic' over successive movies, that's as true with the Star Wars movies as it is with the Matrix sequels.

And I also think we tire of things quickly, and we grow up. When the Matrix forst came along, it seemed revolutionary, the bullet-time photography etc. Then when the ssecond one came along, the style, the effects and similar stories had been done in other movies and on tv so it didn't have the same appeal. And by the time of the third movie it had all been parodied to death, and frankly we were tired of it.

So are the sequels truly as bad as people say, or is it just our own fickle nature? We demanded more, they gave us what we wanted, but is it a case of us simply tiring of the genre, rather than the sequels being bad?
 
Back
Top