Sick and tired of sequels ruining classic movies.

*Yawn* I don't get this, Exorcist III is nothing more than boring TV movie fodder if you ask me.

Not in my book it ain't. Part II loses the raw edge of the first film in favour of tame slapstick hokum; the original kicks it's ass in my humble opinion.

Agree with the rest of your post though

__________________
100 Favourites From The Future: REWIRED

Oh man, Exorcist III is SO damn good. How many times have you seen it?

__________________

Check out the picture on the left here I own the sucka'...

...but to answer your question, I've seen the movie twice

I think there are some genuinely great suspense moments in the film, as well as a couple of stellar performances on the parts of Dourif and Scott, as well as a nice bit part by Nicol Williamson. I think it stands the test of time well, and also retains much of its impact on repeat viewings. I like the writing, as well.

Also, you may have a point on Evil Dead being the definitive film in that collection.

oh well, one man's turkey is another man's masterpiece as they say

You make a good argument if one assumes that "you're only as good as your last film" refers to talent. However, too often in Hollywood it's really "you're only successful as your last movie" in a box-office dollars and cents sense. That's always been true to some degree, but it seems to me to be more prevalent today than at any time in the past. To insure the biggest box office success, films more and more today are being aimed at the lowest common denominator worldwide, which means audiences with lower standards and acceptance levels who are looking only for temporary entertainment, not great art.

I'm not sure that "sequel" is the correct designation for most of the film series mentioned in this thread, i.e. a literary or cenematic work continuing the course of a story begun in a preceeding one. Take the James Bond series of films for example: All are about a British secret agent and a few other characters reappear from time to time, but there is no sense in any of the films or the books on which they are based of the progression of the same story line. It's all just a haphazard series of incidents. Same is true with Die Hard series: you've got, what, 3-4 characters who keep bumping into each other (particularly the wife and newsman) but there is nothing in any of the plots that suggest a continuing story. Each one stands alone, with no dependence on the previous or the following film. Same thing with Lethal Weapon and IMHO, the Alien series OK, there's a tentative link with the spacewoman keeps being brought back to capitalize on her experience in combating the alien creature, but in each case her motivation is different (survival in one, rescue in another), she gets more or less assitance from the people or robots who are with her, and the alien she's fighting in any one film dies at the end; we think in the next film she's fighting the same monster again because they all look alike to us. Those films are no more sequels than the series of Marx Brothers films or the Thin Man series with the recurring appearances of Nick and Nora Charles.

The most successful sequel (maybe only one of two truly successful sequels as far as continued plot and storyline) IMHO was Godfather II, which is both a prequel and a sequel to the events in the original Godfather. The storylines entertwine perfectly because all the events in the two films are in the original best-selling book. Moreover, in GFII you learn more about what motivates the Godfather and what influences the development of his relationship with other mob members and what influences the development of his children (the middle brother between Sonny and Mike is weak because he was a sickly baby). Godfather III on the other hand is like the old Pin the Tail on the Donkey game at a child's party--just blindly stuck onto the original picture in hopes that it will appear to be a part of it.

Yet even Godfather II appears to me to fail in one important aspect. As I see it, the only true sequel is the one that the writer/director intended to make from the start--where someone says, "I'm going to write (or film) this one segment of the story and then continue it in a second book (or film) immediately afterward." I don't think the Godfather II sequel was planned from the start as were the first three Starwars or the Lord of the Rings films. Those two were truly sequels in that sense, but to me Starwars was less successful than the Godfather and LOTR series in that the second of the three films just wasn't as good as the other two in plot and characterization.

The way I see it, most so-called "sequels" are the result of accountants hoping to recreate a box-office success by cloning a film that was perhaps an unexpected hit, so it's "Give me another Die Hard, another Terminator, another Superman, etc., as much as like the original success as possible with the same cast and a similar plot. Such films seldom are anywhere as good as the original, but the original has created a fan base that will pony up admissions for the chance to relive some of the thrills of the original hit.

PS Sedai, I agree that A Shot in the Dark is in many ways much better than The Pink Panther, but that's because Shot was first a successful play in Europe before being made into a movie. As I remember it, Peter Sellers' character Clousou was a totally surprise hit in The Pink Panther and the studio wanted immediately to put him and that character in another movie while he was still hot, which is how the Clousou character got grafted into a script in which he did not originally appear. But because Shot did not turn out to be the giant hit they were hoping for, they decide to combine the Pink Panther title and cartoon character with Sellers and his Clousou into the very successful series of Pink Panther films

I'm not sure how we disagree that the quality/success of every project sets the tone for the next contract negotiation. It appears to me we're saying the same thing.

I couldn't agree less about the common denominator comment, though. I see an upswing in the quality of film since indies proved the popularity of thoughtful film. The Animal House of yesterdecade is today's Superbad, which has a bit of heart and social commentary thrown in on top of the jokes about bodily functions. I guess there's no way to objectively measure it, and you and I have disagreed in the past over whether all good things happened in decades past, so I guess we know how this dance ends.

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

@ Ruf:

Well, you mention Superman, but it and Superman II certainly qualify as a film and its true sequel. Originally, both films were shot all at once, with one continuous story in mind. Only later did Richard Lester, after taking over the Superman II project well after it was started, re-shot some stuff, added lame sight gags, and attempted to graft a different story over what Donner had created. He failed, as most of the original stuff is still there, including the three villains that were set-up at the beginning of the first film.

In the original story, which has now been restored in the Richard Donner cut of Superman II, the villains are released from the Phantom Zone by an explosion from one of the missiles Lex set in motion in Superman:The Movie. It is not only a direct continuation, inextricably linked to events in the first film, but it happens, chronologically, minutes after the first film ends. A true sequel in every sense of the word.

This is what makes Lester's (completely overrated, IMO) version of Superman II seem like it has some severe identity crisis. Lester took what was really a completed film, and shoehorned a bunch of hack scenes and terrible comedy in where he thought it would fit.

It didn't.

As for the other stuff I listed, I think they fit the term in the arena of this thread, where titles like these were being tossed about.

Good post, though, as usual.

Technically PW and yourself are not right since his links were to threads about remakes rather then sequels. And while it is a similar argument,I wasn't making the point that all sequels are all bad. People have posted both exceptions and examples of this. Exorcist III and F13/Halloween are good examples.

Can you post a link to these threads, thanks.

Alien and T2 are great sequels but the following sequels ruined them.
X2, I don't like any of the X Men films, I don't think they do justice to the Marvel brand but I'm sure people agree with you.
I haven't seen the majority of the of your films. Thanks for the feedback anyway.

Couldn't agree more.

@ the one who brought up Bond

according to your agrument Quantum of Solace is STILL a sequel to Casino Royale

It seems to me our primary difference is that you have a more optimistic outlook in that you assume that most of the people involved in making a sequel want to do just as good a job on that movie as they did on the original. And I'm sure there are examples where some or even most of the people involved actually try to do as well or better than the original film. However, there are many examples, too, of people who just sort of walk through their parts in films, whether sequels or not. A prime example is one of the greatest actors ever, Marlon Brando, who once said that at the start of a new film, he'd show the director two different ways of playing his first scene, then ask which the director preferred. One, according to Brando, was the "right" way while the other was all "wrong." If the director made the "right" choice, Brando said he'd then do his best for the film. But if the director made the "wrong" selection, Brando didn't take him seriously and just loafed through the film. And certainly he made some stinkers in his day, as did Lawrence Olivier and Michael Caine, both of whom frequently took movie roles just for the pay check.

What I'm really objecting to is the beancounter attitude of, "Hey, let's make another Die Hard (or whatever, Young Guns; I don't mean to pick on Die Hard)," not because there is something to be said or further explored in the sequel but simply because the original did so well at the box-office and the sequel may or may not do as well but likely will still be profitable. That's the sort of monkey-see attitude that put tailfins on all the cars decades ago in the late 1950s.

I've never been so foolish to claim "all" good films were made "in decades past." I wouldn't even say most were. I think in any decade there are more bad to mediocre movies made than good ones, which is why the good ones stand out in our memories. Unfortunately, our age difference is such that some films that I think of as modern and up to date are to you merely "decades old." For instance, I wonder when in your timeframe did the indies "prove the popularity of thoughtful film." From my ancient viewpoint, I would say that happened back when the major studios lost their chokehold on cinema and people like Cassavettes started making movies. To me, The Man With the Golden Arm is a thoughtful film independently made and distributed without the official stamp of Hollywood's moral code.

I do believe that the big studios and the independents both stopped making films aimed at my demographic group years ago and now target younger audiences with different tastes, different interests, different backgrounds, different humor, and so young that most simply have not lived long enough to acquire the education, experience, and sophistication of my generation. Doesn't make us better and them worse--just different. One example of this is that Pearl Harbor was watered down in an effort to appeal to Japanese as well as US audiences. Was that a good business decision? Yes, if the sole aim was to broaden the film's market and bring in more bucks. Was it good cinema? No.

I can't comment on your example because I've never seen (nor, I think, even heard of) Superbad. However, I've also never seen Animal House all the way through (just a few clips while flipping TV channels). John Belushi (hope I got the spelling right) just never did much for me, although parts of the Blues Brothers were better than I had expected but not good enough that I'd care to see it again. Not saying AH was a bad film--I've got no reason to judge it. It's just that college campus comedies have never had much appeal for me, not even decades ago with Debbie Reynolds and Peter Lawford were making them.

For what it's worth, I liked Belushi's brother in Thief and some other decades-old films that seem like only yesterday to me.

Ah, now see--I learned something! Truth to tell, I really shouldn't have mentioned Superman because I've never been a fan of either Superman nor movies based on comic book characters. I remember some scenes from Superman I and II, but I can't say for sure I ever saw any of the Superman films all the way through (I've always like the actor who played Lex Luthor's henchman in at least the first film--can't for the life of me think of his name at the moment).

I think maybe I just never got over the obscene fee they paid Brando for that few minutes of film in the first movie!

Take your pick of threads:

Sequels That Surpass The Original & Visa Versa


Great Movies That Were Followed Up By The Absolute Worst Sequels


First Among Sequels


Sequels better than the original


Movies ruined by sequels


BEST/ WORST Movie Sequels


sequels, cant live with em


Sequels


These are only a few of the 30 to 40 existing threads on the subject.

In the future, you might find Movie Forums Search feature of use to you.

__________________

Technically, you have posted a thread concerning a topic that has been hashed and rehashed here over the years yet you've stubbornly failed to concede the point despite the fact that the search feature is as available to you as it is to everyone else and folks here have already linked you to threads by way of demonstration.

It's generally not a wise idea to join a well established forum and within 20 or so posts begin to argue board etiquette with members and moderators who participated in the threads that you can't seem to find.

My advice to you is that you don't argue this particular point any longer. There most definitely ARE established threads on the subject and you've managed to irritate at least 3 mods with your insistence on arguing a point that is painfully obvious to the board at large.

If others hadn't spent so much time composing such great posts on the subject (Sedai & rufnek to name a few) I'd have locked it down already and been done with the nonsense.

I joined this forum to discuss movies. Not argue about forum rules and regulations. You've been on my back from the first post I left here.

I think if you'll read back through the thread and read my responses you'll see that you are in error. How have I been 'on your back'?

I disagreed with your premise and still do. Did you mean that you wanted to discuss movies and have everyone agree with you?

Well Zedlan... Multiple people have responded in an attempt to talk about films, so let's continue the discussion. Meanwhile, Toose is spot on about the previous threads, as I participated in them myself, so they most certainly exist. There is a certain way things operate around here, and one can go with the flow or...not. It's well worth it to do so, though, IMO, as there are plenty of intelligent and well-informed people on the site.

I thought I knew a ton about film...until I came to MoFo, when I discovered just how much more I had (and still have) to learn...

I am curious about your view on the X-men stuff, as I thought that was one of the first franchises to raise the bar on comic films, and I certainly think X2 is "up to Marvel standards" and then some. Great screenplay, dark atmosphere and well done characterization...