Worst Movie sequels.

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]I was just browsing through my movie collection to try and pin down the worst sequel to a film that I've seen, and even though it isn't even released on DVD and Video yet, [B]Ocean's Twelve[/B] just has to take the crown. I got the first film, Ocean's Eleven as part of a triple-pack of videos and when I first went to watch it I wasn't expecting much. I usually equate a film with a very prominent cast to be either very crap and just using the cast to get people to go see it, or a lot of people in Hollywood were genuinely interested in it.

Anyway to get back to my point, I thoroughly enjoyed Eleven and thought that it was definitely one of the slickest heist films I'd seen in a long time, as such when I heard about Ocean?s Twelve I was quite excited as I hoped it would be just as good as the first had been. Anyway when it came out in the cinema I went to see it, and from the very start I knew that something was wrong, [spoiler]it started when they brought back Andy Garcia?s character[/spoiler] as I was hoping they were going to have a different storyline to it. [spoiler]The Fox [if I remember his name] was an interesting nemesis to the film, and for a while I quite liked him, however him betraying Ocean and his crew to Garcia because he wanted the be Numero Uno was a bit petty and kind of brought down the film.[/spoiler]

However the single thing they did to kill the film entirely, and I say entirely because it became simply unwatchable after that, was them having [spoiler]Julia Roberts play herself[/spoiler], I mean for God?s sake, that was just plain horrific, [spoiler]and then to have Bruce Roberts come in and actually bring it in more just killed it for me. I mean why not have George play himself, or Matt or any of the other cast. I mean even though the ending to Julia playing herself was good it[/spoiler] still did not forgive them doing that, I just literally went out of the cinema, not only feeling cheated out of a good sequel but also feeling they?d brought down [spoiler]the credibility of the cast who didn?t play themselves.[/spoiler]

I haven?t seen Bill and Ted?s Excellent Adventure but the sequel Awesome Journey couldn?t possibly have been the better of the two.[/SIZE]

[The Drizzle]

[QUOTE=Minako]
(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.
[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=DarkGreen]Sorry, but I have to totally disagree there, Minako. Kill Bill vol. 2 was way better than the first, in my opinoin.

First off all, i dont even know if it[I] can[/I] be considered a sequel, seeing as how the films were shot together and they were meant to be one story. It would be the same as calling LOTR: The Two Towers a sequel.

As for it being a better movie, I think this because in the first, it just seems like there is killing and violence with not much story (Im not bashing all of the violence, i would just like i little more story with it). Plus the second one has the good old Quentin dialougue that was missing in the first. I think the ending wasnt even that bad, it just wasnt that big or explosive or anything that im guessing you wanted and were looking for in this film.(also thought that Shrek 2 was excellent. there were SO many pop culture references. its a film adults [I]and[/I] kids can enjoy)

Whew, and i agree with everyone else in saying that pretty much ANY sequel that is released straight to DVD sucks. And I see that one LONG line of sequels is missing from this list that must be told: The Land Before Time Series. I mean, how many do they have now, like 20?[/COLOR]

[Cap'n]

I don't envy the man who has to count all of the Land Before Times. Though we mustn't forget Robocops 2 & 3, Caddyshack II, and the Leprechaun movies.

In the case of the Leprechaun movies, those are sequels of a bad movie already. I mean...: Leprechaun, Leprechaun 2, Leprechaun 3 [COLOR=Red](this is where it gets wierd)[/COLOR], Leprechaun 4: In Space, Leprechaun in the Hood [COLOR=Red](WTF IS THIS?!?!)[/COLOR], and [COLOR=Red](drumroll please......)[/COLOR] Leprechaun: Back 2 tha Hood [COLOR=Red](omg *dies*)[/COLOR]

[Zen]

[color=darkred][size=1]

[B]Bloodsport II and III[/B] really, really killed me... The first one with Van Damme was excellent, I really liked that movie and then I checked out [B]III[/B] (which I didn't expect much from in the first place) and I couldn't sit through 3 minutes of it with out wanting to change the channel because the movie was so corny... man... I mean, ninja's attacking a casino... and then the waiter comes out with mediocre Kung Fu and dispatches all of them.... really!

[B]Mortal Kombat 2[/B] sucked pretty bad... I bet poor Johnny Cage's actor thought it would be his big acting role seeing as how he was one of the main characters in the first flick... five minutes and BAM! [spoiler]Neck broken by Shau Khan...[/spoiler] And then the only returning star to play in the movie was Lou Kang! Even Johnny Cage's actor was a different guy! And really... Buffalo Bill from [B]"Joe Dirt"[/B] playing Shau Khan... man. Oh, and Scorpion was in the movie... for like one scene to [spoiler]kidnap Kitana and then he was gone for the rest of the MOVIE!!! SCORPION! Freaking Cyrax had a bigger role than him, and he was a robot![/spoiler] That really dissapointed me... oh, and that grease ball Cenataur! Dear GOD!
[/color][/size]

[James P. Galvatron]

THe Worst Sequel really has to go to drumroll please.....
Oh My God! I can't believe it Bad Boys II which was terrible I mean the first wasn't that good, but did it really need a sequel I mean comeon it was just terrible from the start.

Another bad movie that needed no sequel was Terminator I mean 1 and 2 were amazing, but 3 made me mad I was steaming why why did they do that.

Also another bad one was the last Rocky made it was either 5 or 6 in the movie Rocky started to go delirious and started seeing images of his dead trainer Micky and Apollo and other old characters a waste of time and didn't need to be director or even scripted.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Inuyasha7271']Another bad movie that needed no sequel was Terminator I mean 1 and 2 were amazing, but 3 made me mad I was steaming why why did they do that.[/quote] Don't let the bigger budget fool you, because T3 adheres to every single principle and philosophy of the first two films. It's just much more direct with the delivery (i.e., "Judgment Day is inevitable").

I was debating whether to include this article I wrote, but it will help you to understand what I mean.

[quote]?No Fate or Human Misconception??

It?s an interpretation that is so widely held that most find it difficult to consider anything to the contrary. And what reason do they have to believe anything to the contrary? After all, if you were to ask anybody who has seen and discussed Terminator 2 on any level, it?s very likely you would hear the same thing: Judgment Day was prevented. And because this interpretation has been repeated so often, many consider it to be official. After all, when something is so widely accepted, it must be true.

But interestingly enough, this is a fallacy, because this ?official? interpretation is [i]not[/i] true. What is accepted as official is actually a severe misinterpretation, which brings me to the objective of this piece.

Through an analysis of the action, characterization and dialogue of Terminator 1 and 2 exclusively, I intend to show that Judgment Day has always been inevitable throughout the Terminator films, and consequently, that No Fate (and its audience ?following?) is actually purely human misconception.

It seems tragically obvious to many, and to some, a point not even worth consideration, but the pure, physical, action-oriented dominance of the various Terminator models throughout T1 and T2 functions on two levels. The first level is purely superficial: the Terminators are nigh-indestructible, fully armored, killer cyborgs that feel no pain, pity, or remorse. They?re called ?Terminators? for a reason, after all.

But the second level goes far deeper than that. Because the Terminators are so destructive and powerful, and thus propel the action forward much more than any human character, it can be said that the Terminators are in control of the films, in control of ?destiny.? In effect, they are Fate, an unstoppable, unwavering force that is headed in our direction.

Evidence of this Terminator control is the premise of the first film: Skynet, a computer defense network, sends a Terminator back through time to assassinate the leader of the human resistance. It is a machine that initiates the conflict; it is a machine that propels the action forward.

This occurs in every single scene, as well. Whether it is the Terminator?s first appearance in T1, where it brutally slaughters a few thugs (putting its fist through one?s chest, which requires enough force to puncture the breastbone and rib cage), the cold-blooded murder of the gun shop owner, taking a buckshot round in the face and then performing surgery on itself, getting run over by an 18-wheeler (and getting blown up in said 18-wheeler then rising out of the fire like the Phoenix), the Terminator cannot be stopped. Each and every time it gets knocked down, it gets right back up and resumes the chase, even after getting blown in half by Kyle?s plastique in the robotics lab at the end of T1. The Terminator is only finally stopped by a hydraulic press that completely crushes what?s left of its endoskeleton.

T2 only further cements this theme, because the new Terminator antagonist cannot be destroyed, only mildly injured?a flesh wound, if you will. The T-1000 is caught in a tanker truck explosion in the waterway chase sequence, only to casually walk out of the flames in perfect condition. Similar to the T-800 in what is surely an intentional parallel, it takes buckshot rounds to the face and body, but unlike the T-800, it requires no surgery to repair the damage. The bullet holes merely vanish as the liquid metal coalesces. Apart from the liquid nitrogen and the molten steel (both at extreme opposite ends of the damage spectrum), the T-1000 is indestructible.

Aside from those extreme situations (the hydraulic press, the liquid nitrogen and the molten steel), there is no stopping the Terminators. If thirty police officers couldn?t kill one T-800 (or even defend themselves with a minimal level of efficiency), how could three humans possibly save the entire world from a global thermonuclear holocaust?

Simply, there is no way, because throughout the films, the Terminators are dumptrucks, and the humans are little Micro Machines that get in the way. This analogy is actually rather appropriate, as well, because during the casting process for the role of the Terminator in T1, James Cameron and his crew mention how they were looking for an actor who had the ?face of a dumptruck.?

The question then becomes if this impossibility is so obvious, why don?t we see any evidence that the human characters, namely Sarah Connor, have thought about it? After all, it seems reasonable that if trained police officers (and SWAT teams in T2) couldn?t put up a fight, three people blowing up Cyberdyne isn?t going to have any dramatic effect on the apocalyptic future.

The answer lies in something many fans have not considered: one, that Sarah Connor is not a Prophet; two, that she is basing her actions and outlook on a twisted misinterpretation of John?s message?a high jacking, in a sense?; and three, her hyperemotional reactions directly contradict the manner of approach demonstrated by the successful characters in the films.

Firstly, I?d like to strongly emphasize that Sarah is not a Prophet, even though many have (erroneously) elevated her to such a status. When discussing the course of the future in the Terminator films, many quote her narration at the end of T2, claiming it to be proof that she and John prevented Judgment Day, because she looks to the future with a sense of hope.

The key point they?re missing here is that she doesn?t know they prevented Judgment Day, because her sense of hope is just that: hope. It?s not fact. It?s not reality. It?s a human emotion. She?s not making any type of prediction in that final speech. She?s expressing what she wants, and what she wants is a future without Judgment Day. Keep in mind that she only knows of Judgment Day because she was told about it, and not because she had a major revelation or a premonition similar to Abraham, Moses or Muhammad, so she has no idea what the future holds.

Secondly, many attribute the ?No Fate? message to Sarah Connor, and with good reason. She is the mouthpiece for it in [i]T2[/i]. But again, there are key subtleties that people are missing.

For example, the idea of No Fate was introduced in [i]T1[/i], when Kyle recites John?s message for her. The religious imagery here is fairly obvious. John is the God figure, Kyle is the Prophet (a Christ figure), and Sarah becomes a Disciple. But the message that Kyle delivers (?No Fate?) does not relate to Judgment Day at all. When Kyle speaks of No Fate, he is merely reciting an [i]inspirational[/i] speech, a battle cry to rally the troops.

John is not telling Sarah that there is no Fate entirely, but only that she must survive the impending assault from the T-800. If the message had been a ?downer,? Sarah would have given up, and John would not exist. He is merely telling her exactly what she needs to hear at this point in her life, given the current situation. The sole purpose of ?No Fate? is [i]not[/i] to tell Sarah to fight and prevent Judgment Day. The purpose of ?No Fate? is to inspire her to survive in the face of a very real and concrete (and lethal) adversity.

Unfortunately, that message is not the same in T2, because Sarah has largely discarded the original meaning behind the philosophy and twisted the idea around to better serve her own goals (preventing Judgment Day).

Whereas John?s message of No Fate was adaptation through determination and perseverance, Sarah?s is an all-out war fueled by passion and intense psychological anguish. In this sense, Sarah is similar to Al Qaeda, in that both twist a specific doctrine to support their own respective Idealistic crusades.

Thirdly, Sarah?s behavior and approach are inconsistent with the attitude and emotional detachment that are necessary to realize a successful campaign against Skynet and its Terminators. Only through assuming the cold, efficient qualities of the Terminators themselves are humans able to achieve victory, and the humans? failure to do so is a foreshadowing of the inevitability of Judgment Day, because in order to kill a Terminator, one must be a Terminator.

This concept is manifested most clearly in the characterization of John Connor, the leader of the human resistance and savior of mankind. While his resolve, determination, and cunning battle strategy enable the resistance to rise up against the machines and ?smash those metal mother-fuckers into junk,? his mannerisms, movements, and facial expressions mimic those of a Terminator, and not those of a human.

We first see John behind a pair of binoculars, which give an initial impression of a mechanical soldier. As he lowers the binoculars with arms locked in a rigid 90-degree angle, however, it becomes clear that the binoculars are not the only thing inhuman.

John's head turns on a fixed, rigid axis, and only after his eyes have moved first along the same fixed, rigid axis, a physical trait of the Terminator in T1, and a trait we will see in the two Terminators later in this film. John's eyes are cold and distant; there is no life to them. His face is locked in an impassive gaze. John is not a human surveying the battlefield; he is a Terminator [i]scanning[/i] the battlefield. The humans win because they are being led by a Terminator.

If John is the symbol of success, then it could be said that any human seeking a victory in the films would need to emulate John?s mannerisms and behaviors precisely.

Sarah Connor does not. She rarely demonstrates the necessary coldness seen in John, and her inability to control her most primal emotions surfaces multiple times throughout T2, the first during the Pescadero state mental hospital episode.

When Dr. Silverman, Sarah?s psychologist, informs her that he is not going to recommend that she be transferred to a minimum security wing, she attacks him like an animal. This lashing out is not going to help her, however, because heated passion is not conducive to Sarah?s ultimate goal of preventing Judgment Day, as we see from John?s demeanor in the Prologue, and in the mannerisms of the Terminator units themselves.

Sarah?s escape later, however, is going smoothly?as smoothly as an escape from a maximum security wing can go, of course?because Sarah has planned the entire escape beforehand and is executing it with cold precision. In order to take Dr. Silverman hostage, she throws a ring of keys at the orderly reviewing medication schedules with him, and then quickly incapacitates the orderly in the brief second of distraction. Silverman begins dialing the front desk, but is quickly stopped as the nightstick comes cracking down on his forearm. Sarah?s movements are fast, clean, and coldly efficient.

Later, however, as she is running to an open elevator, fear takes over as she sees the T-800 stepping out. Sarah runs back down the hall, screaming ?He?ll kill us all! He?ll kill us all!? and not even the burly orderlies are going to stop her. She begins clawing her way across the floor, a wounded animal trying to escape a predator. She loses complete control over herself and lets her emotions overtake her.

Her emotions again prove overly dominant when she decides to assassinate Miles Dyson, the man ?most directly responsible? for Skynet?s development. ?Most directly responsible? is a key phrase here, because while Dyson was the primary researcher for the project, ?most directly responsible? would indicate there were others also working on it, and would certainly have data of their own, quite possibly in their homes, if Dyson is any indication of common work habits of Cyberdyne employees. Given the very likely existence of other research and data of other members of the team, it?s hard to believe that blowing up Dyson?s home and the Cyberdyne office is going to stop anything. If anything, it would only delay Judgment Day.

Sarah believes that by killing the creator, she kills the off-spring. The parallels being drawn between Sarah and Skynet are fairly clear here, and further re-enforced by the dialogue between young John and the T-800 as they race to Dyson?s house to stop her, ?Killing Dyson might actually prevent the war,? as the T-800 says. Sarah is thinking like a Terminator, but unlike a Terminator, she is hindered by emotion, and is unable to detach herself enough to become the Terminator we see in adult John. She is unable to finish the job as she stands over Dyson, pistol drawn, and again, like Pescadero, her inability to act without emotion foreshadows her ultimate failure in preventing Judgment Day.

In a pivotal moment in T2, when Sarah is confronting the T-1000 in the steel mill, she is unable to send it into the molten steel because she is short by one shotgun shell. Had she not fumbled moments before in the first encounter with the T-1000 on that same walkway, she would have had the shell she needed, and would have been able to kill the Terminator. However, in a moment of human fear and panic, she dropped the shell. Again, her inability to act with the cold efficiency of both the Terminators and adult John hindered her effectiveness in destroying Terminators, and later, in preventing Judgment Day.

Sarah?s characterization in T2 is a stark contrast to her ?You?re terminated, ******? during the hydraulic press in T1. She has abandoned compassion, love, fear, etc., at this point, and is now focused on one goal and one alone: killing. She has been transformed into a killing machine, a Terminator, and had adopted the emotional detachment of John Connor, the human Terminator, and thus was able to terminate the machine. It was an example of Terminators killing Terminators.

However, throughout Terminator 2, this powerful, cold, emotionless efficiency disappears, and Sarah becomes who she was at the beginning of T1: an emotional, sensitive, caring, and weak human. It is the complete antithesis of what the victorious human is, as illustrated by the older John Connor in the Prologue of Terminator 2. As Sarah only rarely demonstrates this cold efficiency in the film, often acting out of pure emotion and never out of pure logic, her efforts to prevent Judgment Day become exercises in futility, because emotion is not the weapon of success, as shown by John?s Terminator-like movements in the Prologue.

Most audiences enjoy happy endings. That much is clear. There?s a certain satisfaction in knowing everything is going to work out in the end; the hero will ride off into the sunset with his love interest; that world-wide chaos will be averted. For the most part, happy endings are good things. But sometimes a happy ending just doesn?t ?fit? within the context of a film. Ridley Scott?s Blade Runner is a perfect example. The entire film is dark, grungy and rainy, but then in the theatrical release?s ending, Deckard and Rachel are driving off into a picturesque forest on a bright and sunny afternoon. There?s no precedent at all for that happy ending, and similarly, the ?happy ending? interpretation of Terminator 2, the ending in which they prevent Judgment Day, also has no precedent at all.

The humans in the films are secondary characters, merely along for the ride when Terminators are on-screen. The characterizations throughout the two films clearly identify what approach works (Terminators) and what doesn?t (Sarah Connor) in the context of the struggle, and it?s this context of the films that indicate a very clear conclusion (Judgment Day being inevitable and ?No Fate? being a human misconception), despite the mildly ambiguous ending of T2.

The ending of T2 is also significant because the theatrical release?s ending was not the original conclusion to the film. The alternate version featured an older Sarah Connor, sitting on a park bench, watching John and his son play on the playground, as she talked about the future without Judgment Day. James Cameron canned this ending because he felt that if the future was in fact changeable, then it couldn?t be changed with one action. That ?one action? was blowing up Cyberdyne.[/quote]

[Morpheus]

[quote name='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:[/quote]
The secret of nimh was terrible. Mrs. Frisby and the rats of nimh(upon which the secret of nimh is based) blows the movie out of the water. After reading the book, you will realize how thin and rushed the plot really is.

I think everyone over analyes the matrix sequels. Why is it so difficult for people to just watch a movie and think about what it is, not what it's not?