Worst Movie sequels.

[Kuraineko]

There are a lot of good movies that have been ruined by their terrible sequels. For example, The Santa Clause was a great movie, but I really didn't care much for it's sequel. Too childish really, and too much out of the first. :o Any you guys thought was bad and why?

[Gravy Train]

Jurassic Park 2

[Sol-Blade]

Revenge of the Nerds 2, 3, and pretty much 4 too. The first movie was hilarious, truly hit on many Animal House type jokes with uh...nerdness...involved. It was a great movie that was really a good plot for it's time. Eventually, the sequel came out...and it kinda sucked. Why? Because they rehashed the same old jokes...with the same characters...with practically the same 'badguys' as the first. Then, a third sequel came out, which I didn't even see but heard the also sucked. Then a fourth one came out, which was like the American Wedding of the genre, ending it but not before at least coming up with some decent material. ;)

[The Vampire: Ed]

[COLOR=Red][FONT=Comic Sans MS]I know a lot of people here probably won't like this, but I think the Matrix 2 and 3 were terrible sequels. They felt like cheap cash-ins to me, and repeated a lot of scenes from the first Matrix, obviously in different settings and stuff, but basically the same. Also, they just used too much familiar, but cheesy aspects of action anime cartoons such as the DBZ like flying in Matrix 3. Sure, the fight was kind of cool, but way too cheesy to me as it was a dead give away they were just ripping it off and doing it to trick people into thinking it was actually a good movie. Anyway, the plot just got way to convoluted, and confusing. It really just made no sense, and it kind of ruined how awesome the first Matrix was by making such lousy sequels. The first Matrix should have been the last, and that's my opinion. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[James]

[color=#B0251E]I suppose that most people will probably talk about the Matrix sequels, so I'll only say my bit during this post. Dismissing those movies for superficial things is entirely missing the point, especially if you see the production effort that went into 'em. More importantly, every single scene in those films has importance and several layers of symbolism and meaning -- yes, [i]even[/i] the rave sequence. But as I've said before, if you don't look, you won't find. Many people just brushed 'em off upon first viewing, because they seemed like convoluted train wrecks.

Obviously they probably had a hard time beating out the original in terms of providing something groundbreaking, effects-wise (though the car chase was groundbreaking, as were many other things -- it's just that they didn't have the same impact as bullet time when it was first revealed).

But those sequels don't suffer from being objectively bad; just misunderstood. It's a bit like Donnie Darko, a film that was almost universally canned by US critics but which is studied in British film classes. Very similar situation. It too was accused of being a convoluted train wreck -- that is, until people actually made an attempt to understand it. Really, if you know Matrix at all, you know that the story would be nothing (and not nearly as brilliant) without the second two films and The Animatrix.

With that out of the way...

I think that the worst sequel I've ever seen would have to be Jeepers Creepers 2. Even with films I don't at all like, I'll generally at least be prepared to sit and watch them. I watched all of JC2 simply because it was like watching something incredibly embarassing, lol.

The original film was pretty bad, but I have to wonder why they made a sequel. Did the original really do so well? I have no idea. But even among cheesy horror movies, it was poor. The sequel was even [i]worse[/i], if that can be believed.

Other than that, I'm not really sure of anything off the top of my head.

I'm tempted to say The Lost World. The movie itself was [i]okay[/i], but unfortunately it took big liberties with the source material. As a result, it wasn't nearly as strong as the first movie. I feel that if The Lost World had kept more true to the novel, it'd have been a much better film. I was disappointed that both Kelly [i]and[/i] Arbie weren't include as a duo...since that was a pretty major aspect of the novel. There were also a ton of other things going on in the novel that the movie didn't even attempt to consider.

Of course, that also happened with the first movie/novel. But I feel that The Lost World emphasized some things to the detriment of others -- there were plenty of ways in which the film could have taken better advantage of the source material.[/color]

[Brasil]

I'd say The Lost World ranks up there. Ignoring the campiness of it, the story behind it was...not totally possible. I'll make this post brief, but let's just say that "You're a writer. Fix it!" played a major part in Lost World's conception, because [spoiler]Hammond dies in JP1, and Malcom does, too (Malcom's death is stated explicitly)--yet Malcom's alive for Lost World.[/spoiler]

Such a great way to write in a sequel. :rolleyes:

[Zombie_Nosh]

[RIGHT][COLOR=DarkGreen][SIZE=3][FONT=Garamond]Batman Forever and Batman and Robin (except for Alicia Silverstone - yummy!)- both dire excuses for movies. It was a shame really, seeing as the other two were superb.

I suppose the studio realised that children would buy into the Batman franchise bigtime, so they had to tone them down and brighten them up.

Hopefully Batman Begins will rectify these problems. Out of intrest, what certificate is Batman Begins getting?

But - yeah, those films were really disappointing ![/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/RIGHT]

[DeathBug]

Hmmm...

JUst about every direct-to-video sequel Disney's ever made sucks. Lion King 2, Little Mermaid 2, Aladin 2...ugh.

Every Batman movie after Batman Returns sucked. The Blade sequels sucked, even though the first wasn't that hot to begin with. The Jurassic Park sequels sucked. The Lost World novel sucked, as well. In general, all of Crichton's writing took a plunge after the release of the first Jurassic Park.

The Matrix sequels sucked, although Revolutions was much better than Reloaded. Yes, I'm aware of the symbolism they're trying to convey. The symbolism doesn't matter if the symbols themselves are pretenscious and convoluted.

The Star Wars sequals and prequels sucked all the fun out of the initial movie. Both prequels were god-awful films, and Return of the Jedi was mundane and predictable for the most part. Empire was solid, but pointless without Jedi.

I'm not going to count films in the horror movie genre like Child's Play and Friday the 13th; they're supposed to suck.

Really, until about three years ago, it was accepted as a given that sequels would suck...

[Manic Webb]

I problem I had with Matrix Reloaded was that it was the most incomplete movie I've ever seen.I like sequels that (even if they're part of a larger story) can stand alone on their own two legs. Reloaded couldn't do that. It had no real beginning (because it was in the Animatrix), and no ending (because it was the beginning of Revolutions). Heck, even a large chunk of the middle was missing. Revolutions was a decent movie, but its fault was that it was driven completely by symbolism. You simply couldn't watch the movie for what's on the surface, because its skin was completely ripped off (over-exposing the audience to the flesh and bone underneath, all at once) half-way through the movie. The ending made sense [i]only[/i] in the symbolic sense. I would've let just about everything slide if they had given us a clearer ending than [spoiler]Neo and Smith explode, and everything's back to normal[/spoiler]. Let me read into the ending, but don't [i]make me[/i] read into the ending just for it to make sense.

[James]

[color=#B0251E]I think the only real problem with the film is that it's a bit too ambitious for its own good; to some degree, it really does require you to delve into the other extended materials.

And I can see how it'd be frustrating for people who don't like the concept of one movie being split in two (ie: Reloaded/Revolutions).

But really, the meaning of the films isn't particularly "pretentious" or even convoluted. It's all quite clear and everything makes sense and is deliberate -- but again, whether or not people notice that is another question.

[spoiler]The ending had tremendous significance and was very clever. On the one hand you have a film that strongly suggests a nihilistic bent -- the Godless cycle of life, where machine replaces man and program replaces machine. Smith himself is a very nihilistic character.

You also have the prophecy, which itself is just another layer of control -- again, that's another nihilistic aspect of the films. There's also an underlying message that religious dogma itself is a powerful form of control and that fundamentalism is unhealthy.

And yet at the same time, you have this [i]other[/i] layer of control going on outside all of that -- call it fate, or God, or whatever. The ending is representative of that. In a sense it's very derived from Hinduism - a large part of the message is that "love is the ultimate form of control" and that decisions based on love lead to nirvana. Neo frequently makes [i]bad[/i] choices, but those choices are based around his love for Trinity and/or his love for his fellow man. So the ending with Smith was incredibly important for various symbolic and functional reasons -- symbolic, because it represented the fact that conflict didn't resolve anything; an act of love (joining yin and yang together) was what brought about an ending.

At the same time, there was a beautiful irony occurring. Smith was an unknown entity for the machines and he was a personification of their own arrogance and failure to acknowledge the lessons of the past. In that sense he's also the symbol of the Godless cycle. Where that cycle would have continued normally, it was ultimately ended by "love". I love the fact that there's this amazing irony going on throughout the entire three films -- it's a huge social commentary. But then you have several layers of control, which all have their own meaning and implications.[/spoiler]

So yeah, I'm sure I'm not saying anything new to most of you there -- and I obviously can't convince anyone to like those movies. But generally I do think that the movies themselves don't have much of a problem. As I said, they are just generally misunderstood/underappreciated.

But that's definitely partly the fault of the creators. By spreading this thing out with so many different media and by creating a film that isn't so ideal for the cinema (ie: like Donnie Darko), they've almost created a walking contradiction.

Of course, in a way, that's part of the beauty of it all. The public's reaction to the art becomes part of the art and all of it uncannily falls into place with several of the movie's own themes (ie: dogma, misunderstanding, control, etc). So in that sense I think they can be satisfied.

But yeah, that's my view on it. I liked the fact that they included critics on their commentaries, I thought that was a bold move. lol

But to get back on topic, I wanted to also address The Lost World with Alex for a moment.

When you talk about those deaths...you're talking about the novels aren't you? I don't even remember if The Lost World's novel had them alive. I remember the novel opening with discoveries of dead bodies (dinosaur carcasses) on the beaches of Costa Rica, which Dr. Levine investigates. If I remember correctly, Dr. Levine's character is changed pretty significantly in the film. Things like that really disappointed me.

[spoiler]And don't you think that the whole raptor-chase-at-night sequence would have been interesting in the film? You know, the one where they go on the motorcycle to grab the key from the raptor who swallowed it?[/spoiler]

I really feel that they missed a lot of opportunities with that one.[/color]

[Brasil]

I've got the novels around here somewhere...probably buried, heh.

I'm pretty sure that in the original novel of Jurassic Park 1, there were some massive character changes, specifically relating to who dies and who lives. It actually directly pertains to the flavoring of the novel, because...Jurassic Park was exceedingly dark.

[spoiler]The deaths are testament to this.

Hammond (who is very pleasant in the beginning of the novel) just becomes mean-spirited at the end. He decides to take a stroll when the coast is clear, but then a Tyrannosaur bellows and Hammond panics. He slides down a massive hill, twisting his ankle in the process. He tries to get up but can't. His ankle is gone.

He hears the roar again, but it's got a different intonation, then a few seconds later, he hears his grandchildren, Lex and Tim, arguing over who gets to play with the soundboard next. He curses them out like nothing else, and this isn't just frustration. This is pure contempt and hatred. He's condemning them for being children, but what he doesn't realize is that he's been treating this park and its "attractions" like his own personal playthings.

It's an incredibly ironic bit and really colors Hammond as a bastard.[/spoiler]

This is similar to Malcom.

[spoiler]Near the end of the novel, when the helicopter is coming to pick up Grant, Ellie, the kids, Muldoon, Gennaro (the lawyer), and one or two other people, Grant asks about Malcom. Muldoon shakes his head.

Malcom had suffered severe injuries, which had gotten progressively worse. He'd gotten snippity just from that, but then became even harsher and more vindictive when they loaded him up on Morphine. There are exchanges between Malcom and Ellie/Muldoon/Dr. Harding where Malcom just snaps at them, belittles them, etc.

And it's unfortunate that he dies, because he's probably--hell, he [i]is[/i] the sole voice of reason through the entire novel. But then again, given the dark and cynical tone of the novel, the fact that reason dies makes perfect sense.

And really, Malcom is probably the best character in the novel, anyway. The other characters don't have the depth that he does, or even just the matter-of-factly observer-type worldview. In some ways, there are trace elements of Heart of Darkness' Marlow here.[/spoiler]

In what I think fully cements the dark and cynical nature of Jurassic Park is Gennaro.

[spoiler]Gennaro is a lawyer. He lives. Dark and cynical novel? Hell yeah, lol.[/spoiler]

You'll find that each of these characterizations is totally reversed in the film. But that doesn't detract from the film...not at all. Jurassic Park still is in my Top 20 of all-time, because it's just so so good. The writing, the performances, the cinematography, the characterization...all solid. It's just that the film and the novel, like most adaptations, are entirely different animals (Chalk it up to genetic engineering gone wrong! hahahhaha! Get it?...nevermind).

So...yeah. I think what happened with The Lost World is studio heads approached Chrichton, went, "OMFG liek ur book to movee m4d3 s0 muich that we want u 2 write a sequel!11!! and pleeze put Malcom in it, bekause he was just 2 kool!1!!"

[spoiler]"But...Malcom died."[/spoiler]

"OMFG ur a writer!1!! Fix it!1!1"

[Semjaza]

I don't see how that really matters. They're making a sequel to the film, not the book. It doesn't matter what happened to the character in the original book if the movie didn't take that same route with their deaths and personalities. This is similar to that Batman thread. You can't connect these films and what they're adapted from directly thanks to the changes, I think. When the original Jurassic Park film flows differently than the novel, the progression for the next one will obviously differ. Of course, that doesn't mean the movie should have sucked as bad as it did lol.

Crichton didn't write the screenplay to The Lost World anyway, so I would not fault him for anything. I'm sure a lot of it was the studio buying the rights to the franchise, leaving Crichton with little say in its future.

The main problem with the film is something that people who created it have said in the past in interviews and other articles I've read. Something to the effect of some kid they ran into saying "I liked the first, but it needed more dinosaurs and less talking!" They took his advice and wound up with a filler movie. Maybe someone can dig up the quote, but I'm pretty damn close.

The next one is even worse as far as I'm concerned, so I guess we lucked (?) out.

[Brasil]

Well, Tony, we agree that The Lost World was pretty bad anyway, but novel-to-novel inconsistencies do matter, because while, yes, the first film differed from the first novel, the second film is almost [i]directly[/i] written from the second novel (the set-up is almost [i]identical[/i]), sans a few characters and sequences.

In some ways, the second film was truer to the source material than the first was...but the second film's source material directly contradicted the first novel. Malcom is only in JP2 because Chrichton "wrote" him alive. "Only partially dead." (That's a case of "You're a writer. Fix it!" if I ever saw one.)

[quote]They're making a sequel to the film, not the book.[/quote]
I think that's half-right. They're making a sequel to the [i]film[/i], yes, but they're using the second [i]novel[/i] as the foundation for the sequel (naturally), and the second novel is pretty clearly (at least to me) a case of "You're a writer. Fix it."

Chrichton didn't write the screenplay, yes, but he did write the novel the screenplay is based on, so I do consider him responsible for some rather nasty plot holes in the film itself. I mean, there was virtually no change at all in terms of Malcom's situation in Lost World book to movie.

Let's not forget that Malcom's character changes almost entirely between the two films (and in the novels as well--ignoring that pesky Lazarus thing). I'm not saying that Goldblum didn't do a good job...far from it. It's just that the character lost all the bite he had before, and he's no longer the edgy sarcastic voice of reason...he's become a whiner, lol, even in the novel.

I know I sound like I'm really bashing on Lost World, but while it has some nifty action sequences...it's a haphazard and rushed sequel (both in novel and film form) that was written strictly cause of the green. The Lost World novel's copyright date is 1995. The first Jurassic Park film was released in 1993. The first novel was copyrighted 1990. I don't see those dates as coincidence.

[James]

[color=#B0251E]But the novel was a whole lot better than the film. By a mile.

So I don't really view the novel negatively. The thing that annoyed me about the film was that it avoided many of the scientific discussions that they have in the novel. Those discussions were incredibly interesting.

At least the original film included various discussions, which helped to flesh things out and provide you with a sense that these characters knew what they were talking about and had a genuine interest in their relative fields.[/color]

[4815162342]

[QUOTE=DeathBug]Hmmm...

JUst about every direct-to-video sequel Disney's ever made sucks. Lion King 2, Little Mermaid 2, Aladin 2...ugh.

[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=RoyalBlue]I'd like to add Stitch 2 and Jungle Book 2 to that list...couldn't they just leave well enough alone?

The "sequels" to Star Wars were good. The [i]pre[/i]quels, however, I despise. Mainly because of Anakin, but also because the stories just aren't that good anymore. I am looking forward to Revenge of the Sith, though...bye bye, Anakin...[/COLOR]

[Brasil]

James, I'm not saying The Lost World novel was horrible or anything. It's written extremely well and it's a very entertaining read...once you get past that pesky Lazarus thing, lol.

But with that said, I still feel Malcolm's character was arbitrarily changed (novel or film). In the novel, he's pretty mean, and in the film, he's still got a sinister edge to him, but in the sequels, he's a goofy, lovable family man who spends the entire time looking all doe-eyed and acting like a *****, to put it bluntly, lol. He became a caricature (Lost World novel and film) instead of a character who's grown.

EDIT: To whoever is bashing the Star Wars Prequels because they say the story is crap, I'll address that later.

[Kuraineko]

I didn't like Jurrasic Park 2 or 3 as much as the first one. I can't really explain why very clearly. I also saw the Princess Dairies 2, the first one was Ok but I couldn't even finish the second. A lot didn't make sense. It probably would have if I watched the whole thing instead of just parts, :animeswea I couldn't get into it.

[Boo]

[color=gray][size=1]Can you guys only think of the matrix and Jurassic Park all of a sudden?
I thought lion king 2 wasn't very great ;_; The music is really cool though. It's just cause the storyline was cheesy. All the disney sequals are mostly Bullpoop. Which doesn't care because I never watch them ofcourse >_>;
[/color][/size]

[Semjaza]

[QUOTE=Boo][color=gray][size=1]Can you guys only think of the matrix and Jurassic Park all of a sudden?
I thought lion king 2 wasn't very great ;_; The music is really cool though. It's just cause the storyline was cheesy. All the disney sequals are mostly Bullpoop. Which doesn't care because I never watch them ofcourse >_>;
[/color][/size][/QUOTE]

All those Disney sequels were already mentioned, it's not just about those other films lol.

All of the direct-to-video sequels are terrible, really. Roy Disney and other shareholders seem to realize this and I expect it to change once Eisner is gone... if things go according to plan anyway. They seem to want to return to the idea of Disney releases being special and not so commonplace and unimportant.

[Brasil]

I think the only good Disney sequel released lately was Lion King 1.5. It was such a fun and quirky MST3K-type of take on the original film that I enjoyed every minute of it. It was one of those "other side of" stories. It reminded me of an old children's book I had when I was younger about the Big Bad Wolf telling his side of the 3 Little Pigs story. Those different POV stories ([plug]like Rebel Scum![/plug]) are always pretty good.

[QuincyArcher]

Resident Evil 2 was probably one of the worst movies i have seen in my life. Though im not saying the first Resident Evil movie was fantastic either, but i do think that it was one of the movies made based on a video game series so far. But RE2 was just a complete no-brainer film with nothing but blazing guns and explosions, essentially it was a Steven Segal caliber flick... except with less of a plot (which may be hard to believe).

[Kuraineko]

I didn't even bother to see that movie. Just by seeing commercials and trailers, I knew it would have been a waste of money. And yes, I can't name one Disney movie that had a good sequel to it, except Lion King 1.5, I did like that one. I don't think I'm going to bother with Mulan 2 as well.

[Lennex3]

[B][COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Times New Roman]I dont hate sequels.......I just hate movies that have crappy endings and never HAVE sequels......thats what I hate :mad: .....but lets see......I would have to agree with the matrix people.....the last ones sucked alot! :o [/FONT][/COLOR][/B]

[Sea Of Chaos666]

The one Sequel I hated most was The Secret of NIMH 2. I hated the 2nd movie but loved the frist. The Secret of NIMH was and still is my favorite Movie, But the Sequel almost made me want to throw up!! :mad:

[Minako]

I agree with Death Bug, when all straight-to-video Disney sequels suck. I personally wanted to watch Lion King 2 to see if it would live up to the amazing work of the original and was very upset to find that it wasn't.

(I know some of you are going to get me on this) I thought that Kill Bill Vol. 2 was a bit of disappointment. I'm not saying that it's bad; it was good in it's own right, but as a sequel, it wasn't what I expected. In Kill Bill 1, [SPOILER] there was killing, killing, and more killing. Especially the scene at the Japanese hot springs. :animenose [/SPOILER], but in Kill Bill Vol. 2 [SPOILER] It didn't have all the blood-shed I was expecting in Kill Bill 1. Yes, the fight scenes were amazing, I have to give props to Quentin Tarantino for that. Just the very end bugs me when Bill dies using the 5-point-death-thingy...(I forget what it's called) I was just so melo-dramatic compared to the rest of the movie. He gets up and walks five steps and dies. That's it.[/SPOILER] Quentin Tarantino is a wonderful director, but Kill Bill vol. 2 was a disappointment.

Shrek 2 was also a wee bit disappointing. Again, it was a good movie in it's own right, but as a sequel it wasn't what I expected. It did have funny parts such as [SPOILER]When Pinoccio says, "I wear ladies underwear." "Do you?" "No!" *nose grows* and Puss in Boots was just great (Antonio Banderas was a perfect choice for the voice). I especially loved the end song with Eddie Murphy and Antonio Banderas (I have the Soundtrack, and it's my favorite song on there!). [/SPOILER]

I guess my expectations for sequels is too high...