Question:
Im fed up with sequels. They tend to ruin their predessecors. Think of something original please, instead of recycling characters and situations into similar movies and slapping a "2" on them.

Choices:
More, more, I want a sequel.
Original creations please

 

Absolutely! Are people just so tired of having to think about characters? Or accepting new premises rather than rehash after rehash? It would certainly appear so. Sequels, sequels everywhere. *mutters angrily*

money makes the world go around... and movies make a lot of money.

it sucks but that's reality.

the ultimate example of a sequel done right obviously is The Godfather Part II. it continues the story of the previous film while digging deeper into what would become one of the most memorable characters of all time: Michael Corleone (all hail Al Pacino).

what ticks me off is the re-makes. The Manchurian Candidate?! why must hollywood insist on tainting classics?

as just about every struggling screenwriter would claim-original ideas still exist out there. they may not be as easy to find or as profitable, but they deserve a chance.

Sequels to good movies that have a story that allows for a sequel, dont really bother me. Like the Godfather 2. As long as they are done well.

But a good sequel is so rare. We even get sequels to really crappy movies nowdays.

I have no problem with a sequel if the story was planned in advance to span more than one movie and so it makes sense to have another one, and you are expecting more at the end.

I think it's jarring when a movie is a complete and self-contained story but is successful so a sequel is pulled out of someone's butt when it's completely unnecessary.

But I have to agree with Robby Digital. I think straight remakes are far worse. They're just ... dumb. And the Manchurian Candidate is especially dumb, because I read that the conflict in the remake is in the Middle East, which makes the title completely nonsensical, since why would Manchuria have anything to do with it then?

I would just like to see all the time and money wasted on putting out remakes and bad sequels go into making really good, creative movies. I could easily trade every sequel and remake that comes out for one or two really good movies.

We should try to come up with a list of completely unnecessary remakes. Some of the easy ones:

Manchurian Candidate (probably the best example)
Sabrina
La Femme Nikita (whatever the Bridget Fonda version was called)
Psycho
Texas Chainsaw Massacre

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Josie P.,

Oh yes, I can do that ...

The Italian Job
The Vanishing
City of Angels
I don't remember what it was called, but the remake of "Charade"
Get Carter

And another future one in the works:

Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (Or Charlie & the Chocolate Factory, whatever)

What about "Wuthering Heights"? Theres been something like three big movies made that have all been a total misrepresentation of the book.

Its really going to be big doom when they start remaking the "classics" like Casablanca. I can just see it now: "Your favorite movie of all time. Same characters, same story but now with booming special effects and a giant gorilla rampaging around destroying Casablanca. Do they have to courage to stand against the evil force or will they horrendously die... Find out May 27th". Ahem, well you get the point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Member 27:
Its really going to be big doom when they start remaking the "classics" like Casablanca. I can just see it now: "Your favorite movie of all time. Same characters, same story but now with booming special effects and a giant gorilla rampaging around destroying Casablanca. Do they have to courage to stand against the evil force or will they horrendously die... Find out May 27th". Ahem, well you get the point.

---

"Citizen Kane, a film by Jerry Bruckheimer, is a bold and daring reinterpretation of Orson Welles' original masterpiece! In this spirited retelling, Kane is reimagined as a popular online blogger on the run from the CIA, trying to silence his madly typing fingers! Find out the real story behind the myth!" (that was what I hated most about the King Arthur trailers, all that "true story" nonsense)

That is one of my MAJOR pet peeves, when Hollywood makes "history" films, and then people end up thinking that's how history actually happened. It's a MOVIE, people.

Oy vay.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KT:
That is one of my MAJOR pet peeves, when Hollywood makes "history" films, and then people end up thinking that's how history actually happened. It's a MOVIE, people.

---

Forget history, this drives me nuts about most adaptations. Case in point: a Troy that butchers characters who were in the Odyssey, features no gods whatsoever, and portrays the war as lasting 4 days of battle and 12 days of funeral. No!

I'm not trying to seem like someone who's utterly uptight and doesn't realize that you have to change things. For example, I always defend RotK's shearing of the 'Scouring of the Shire' chapter: if it were in the film, there would be major, major pacing and audience confusion issues among those who hadn't read the material.

But how on Earth would amazingly cinematic scenes like the forging of Achilles's new armour in the forge of Hephaestus have hurt the movie? Answer: in absolutely no way, shape, or form.

EDIT: Okay. No hard feelings.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Vykromond,

Vykromond,

Sorry about the last post. I was having a problem, but it had nothing to do with you. I was totally out of line. The only good thing about it was that you did respond. I'm going to delete that post now. Best to you and yours.

Bottom line is, sequels will forever exist. They can't be avoided. As long as there are people who want to make money, then there will always be "shitquels".

K-Dog

Has anyone noticed that some of the hugest box office successes on the list are sequels? This fact shows that Hollywood isn't going to stop the sequels anytime soon.

I tend to agree that sequels are USUALLY pointless sludge that was inly put out because they thought they could make more off of the same basic idea. Case in point: The "Beverly Hills Cop" series. Why is it criminals from Beverly Hills keep coming up with ways to visit Detroit. Granted, the first time was to get Foley's friend for stealing. The second, it was completly contained inside of Beverly Hills, so not that bad. But, the third & most horrible of the series, they once again come out to Detroit & kill Foley's captain. AWFUL. For some reason when a studio has a hit, they have no idea what made it a hit. They guess at it & usually get it wrong. The biggest mistakes they seem to make are changing the writers or directors & sometimes even the actors. How very sad that some of our favorite characters are ruined by a crappy sequel that was made for a quick buck instead of actually progressing the story.

I like sequels it gives the characters a chance to come back and finish what they started.

Martian Leader