Films Better Off Without Sequels

The vast majority of movies don't have sequels. Only some movies are made with sequels in mind, like Dune (2021).

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules (2011) was the #1 hit in the US so they made a sequel, even though they were already planning to

Not sure why virtually every reply to this is ignoring the (bolded) question at the end of the OP because that is honestly more interesting than saying which sequels should never have happened:

In which case, here are my answers

The Nice Guys/The Last Boy Scout - between the Lethal Weapon franchise and The Predator, it's arguably for the best that Shane Black and sequels do not mix.

Super Mario Bros. - so much of its charm is wrapped up in the fact that it adapts a bright and colourful videogame into a family-unfriendly cyberpunk nightmare and becomes a singular curio as a result; having a sequel would undermine that.

Flash Gordon - "The End...?" is such a good way to cap off this adaptation of a classic serial that understands the trick is to always have one more adventure around the bend.

Commando - did you know Die Hard was originally supposed to be a sequel to Commando? Enough said.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Almost half the movies I like have sequels.


How the Grinch Stole Christmas was good enough and I'm good it didn't get a Part 2. How'd that work anyway??????


The Way of the Dragon. It's now a worldwide rule that if you make a sequel to a Bruce Lee movie, you are an idiot and to never make another movie. New Fist of Fury counts too.



The Karate Kid 2010. In 2014 even NEWSPAPERS would lie this film was going to get a sequel. It never did, and I'm glad. Jaden would be too old (and so would Jacky).

My question is about the other half.

Karate Kid
Snake in Eagle's Shadow
Good Burger (..oh wait.. that already got a sequel. Minkle.)
The Way of the Dragon
Fist of Fury
The Big Boss
...and a thousand more .etcs

I actually like the ending of 2010 a lot more. Kinda makes the whole thing. But then I've always been lower on 2001 than everyone else.

Anyway, to the OP: overwhelmingly, most films are better of without sequels. But after that I think it gets complicated.

When I was younger, I generally wanted more. If I liked a film, sure, make a sequel. Ditto for remakes and reboots. I never understood (and still don't entirely understand) the whole "ruined my childhood" thing. Remakes and reboots do not remove the original. You still saw it and loved it, and can still see it and keep loving it. You might even love it more once you have an inferior version to compare it to. That inferior version will probably crystallize why the earlier version is better.

This was my posture for a long time. It still mostly is, but now that I'm a bit older I'm slightly more conflicted about it. It's tough to articulate why, but here's the best I can come up with: when a good film is remade or given an unnecessary sequel, it often creates an obligation for me to watch it even if I'm not confident it'll be worth my time. This is still on me, and not really a big problem (which is why I'm conflicted), but it is a reality. They're gonna make more Narnia films and because I read the books as a child and really love parts of them, I'm probably going to see them, even if they end up being some clumsy postmodern subversion thing, or strip out all the message, or whatever. Nobody's going to MAKE me, and their existence will not harm my memories of reading the books, but I will feel I have to see them even if they end up, effectively, punching me in the face to some degree (not that I'm not already used to Hollywood doing that).

The only other things I can come up with are indirect and cultural, like remakes or sequels "crowding out" better things, or becoming the definitive version (so maybe the reboot, stripped of the heart and soul of the original, fools people into thinking that's what the story "really" is). There's something there, but I think that's generally an unhealthy and unproductive way to engage with stories, worrying too much about whether people are receiving them the "right" way, so I try to suppress it.

Re: 2001/2010, I agree with what most people have said. It is a competent sci-fi film, but considering the goals and ambitions of the original, it was an uphill battle anyway. So I kinda understand them going for a more straightforward approach, instead of trying to top the original. The weird thing is that, despite being released 20+ years after 2001, its visuals and themes feel more dated than the first one. Like Corax said, there's some of that 80's Cold War subtext/text that just doesn't transfer that well to today.

__________________

As for the original question, how about The Incredibles? I just found it weird how Incredibles 2 pretty much backtracks and retreads a lot of the themes and messages of the first one, despite being set immediately after the first one.

Also, most of the Scream sequels fall in the trap of doing the same things they were satirizing in the first one. At least, the first two sequels fail at that. I kinda like the spins that both Scream 4 and Scream (2022) gave to it, but that doesn't mean they were *necessary*

Jurassic Park? I mean, none of the sequels has ever come close to the original.

Wasn't that the working title of Barbie.

I saw it. '2001 A Space Odyssey' is my all-time favorite film and no, the sequel wasn't needed. It wasn't awful but definitely could have been left off the table and allow the masterpiece to stand on it's own.

__________________
“You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” — Gandhi​

There should be a 2111 Space Odyssey

Well, Clarke did write 2061: Odyssey Three and 3001: The Final Odyssey, so you never know.

And in that film Heywood Floyd's great grandson goes to see 28 Decades later at the holo-cinema as a creature feature.

Rocky. The first one was a novelty, but after that, a parody.

Rocky might be the greatest movie series in history.


It perfectly maps the beautiful earnestness of the American Dream, slowly being corrupted by the jingoism and outsized capitalism of the 1980s.


Yes, it gets ridiculous. But so has America.

The first four are great as a whole. The fifth one is clearly a pile of garbage. As was the Rocky Balboa trip down memory lane crap.

Never cared for Rocky

*thumbs down*

I never even considered Rocky V as part of the canon (it's that bad and that divergent from the series... I mean, come on.. a street fight?)

Personally, I like Rocky up through III.

I like Rocky IV as a movie, but my only problem with it is it's largely a rehash of III (except for the Russian stuff):
Rocky's coach (Apollo) dies in IV while Mickey died in III (and Mickey's death could practically be blamed on Rocky's rival Clubber Lang while Apollo is killed directly by Rocky's rival; the Russian). Rocky fears his opponent, Rocky overcomes his fear. Rocky resorts to an atypical training regime that takes advantage of his environment in both, etc., etc.