Most Unnecessary Sequels?

[Dilusha Bandara]

Jurassic Park 2 and 3.

[Fancyarcher]

What happened to Cars 2?

 

Completely unnecessary, but I’m having a hard time deciding if Lasseter made it because the original was his personal project, and he wanted to make more films (and he had an idea for an sequel), or because Disney demanded it to due to merchandising, probably a combination of both.

 

Besides I don’t hate it as much as some do .

Edited August 15, 2013 by Boxofficefanatic

[fishstick]

Unnecessary sequel is a sequel that either

 

a)  stretches the story that ended period in the first movie, and basically gives us nothing essential about characters since they have nowhere to go (and by that I don't mean change of location)

 

 or is so poorly done that you regret the fact that there was in fact room for more left from the first movie

 

In the  first category I'd list:

 

Alien 3 (and later 4...oh, dear they didn't stop...they also made a massively horrid prequel too)

Karate Kid 2 (and later 3 and 4...oh dear just stop...they also made a remake that didn't really break any new ground)

POTC 4 (exception to the first-should-be-last rule since third was designed to end it all and it did although it sucked dino balls)

The Ring ( there was really no point of exploring Samara further without over-explaining things and they not only did that but broke first movie rules and made complete garbage I'm trying to erase from memory)

 

In the second category I'd list:

 

Matrix sequels aka 2-parter (there was so many ways to go with the story but what they chose was probably the worst ever and I so hate reset button where hero who ended his journey goes "oh, I'm not so sure I'm the hero lemme go on a hero journey again)

TF2 (I was sitting on the cinema floor crying because the movie was so bad, characters went nowhere except to Egypt and Jordan which we learned were about 50 meters apart)

STiD ( reset button, lame remake of another movie, nobody goes anywhere, the whole thing was a remake of the first movie)

IM2 (if feeding us with more Shield was the whole point they really needn't have bothered)

T3 (everyone and their mother wanted to see the war and they gave us "talk to the hand"...and another movie with the war but directed by McG so you get the point)

 

There's more but these are on top of my head.

[CaptainJackSparrow]

Alien 3 and JO2 and JP3 were defiantly not "unnecessary" sequels.

[Ozymandias]

There is a difference between unnecessary sequels and bad sequels, an unnecessary sequel is when there was absolutely no real reason to make another besides a studio executive saying "cash grab!"  The only sequels I can think of off the top of my head right now that were truly unnecessary are Hangover 2 & 3, Alien Resurrection, Taken 2, Pirates 4, and Terminator Salvation.  It really, really shows with those ones, basically no redeeming qualities at all.

 

Some that haven't come out yet:  Dumber & Dumber 2, Independence Day 2, and Pirates 5.

[Fancyarcher]

Unnecessary sequel is a sequel that either

 

a)  stretches the story that ended period in the first movie, and basically gives us nothing essential about characters since they have nowhere to go (and by that I don't mean change of location)

 

 or is so poorly done that you regret the fact that there was in fact room for more left from the first movie

 

In the  first category I'd list:

 

Alien 3 (and later 4...oh, dear they didn't stop...they also made a massively horrid prequel too)

Karate Kid 2 (and later 3 and 4...oh dear just stop...they also made a remake that didn't really break any new ground)

POTC 4 (exception to the first-should-be-last rule since third was designed to end it all and it did although it sucked dino balls)

The Ring ( there was really no point of exploring Samara further without over-explaining things and they not only did that but broke first movie rules and made complete garbage I'm trying to erase from memory)

 

In the second category I'd list:

 

Matrix sequels aka 2-parter (there was so many ways to go with the story but what they chose was probably the worst ever and I so hate reset button where hero who ended his journey goes "oh, I'm not so sure I'm the hero lemme go on a hero journey again)

TF2 (I was sitting on the cinema floor crying because the movie was so bad, characters went nowhere except to Egypt and Jordan which we learned were about 50 meters apart)

STiD ( reset button, lame remake of another movie, nobody goes anywhere, the whole thing was a remake of the first movie)

IM2 (if feeding us with more Shield was the whole point they really needn't have bothered)

T3 (everyone and their mother wanted to see the war and they gave us "talk to the hand"...and another movie with the war but directed by McG so you get the point)

 

There's more but these are on top of my head.

 

I disagree. Those two were most definitely not unnecessary sequels. Iron Man has a lot of potential for sequels (it’s a superhero movie after all), and Star Trek: Into Darkness was based off a pre-existing franchise that's been around for basically forever.

 

Quality is another thing all together. I really liked Star Trek: Into Darkness, the last act was a wee bit cringeworthy though.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Boxofficefanatic

[baumer]

There are no unnecessary sequels.  Honestly.  I truly believe this.  If a film makes money then the sequel should as well.  Hollywood is a business and the whole reason to have a business is to make money.  There may have been films that failed to make money as a sequel, but that doesn't mean they were unnecessary.

[Jack Nevada]

There are no unnecessary sequels.  Honestly.  I truly believe this.  If a film makes money then the sequel should as well.  Hollywood is a business and the whole reason to have a business is to make money.  There may have been films that failed to make money as a sequel, but that doesn't mean they were unnecessary.

I think we're talking "unnecessary" from a moviegoers point of view.

[Fancyarcher]

I think we're talking "unnecessary" from a moviegoers point of view.

 

A lot of sequels that are only mild (or minor) hits tend to get sequels that fail (Kick-Ass 2, Red 2 etc.).

 

I don’t mean unnecessary sequel specifically from a moviegoers perspective to be honest, but more from a “let’s make a half-hearted sequel, only because the original made some dough” perspective. 

Edited September 14, 2013 by Boxofficefanatic

[baumer]

But you can't look at it from a moviegoers point of view.  And no one is forcing you to see the film.  If you think it's a bad idea, don't go.  But business wise, even though I think making the Hobbit three parts is fucking ridiculous, no one is forcing me to watch it.

[K1stpierre]

The most unnecessary sequels I can think of off the top of my head are the Lion King 2 and the Lion King 1 and 1/2 lol. Those were so bad. Why can't they just leave a classic movie alone?

 

I don't understand all the hate for the Star Wars prequels. I thought they were good.....   I liked knowing how Annakin turned into Darth Vader.

[dashrendar44]

SW prequels are the movies people wished they never had wished for.

 

Home Alone 2.

 

Every garbage sequels Disney made to milk on a classic.

 

(OTH, Matrix sequels were needed sequels but left everyone on the road because the basic core of Matrix Reloaded shattered everything they took for granted in Matrix. It's like the movie Matrix was another level of illusion to the general audience who massively rejected them. People reacted to those just like one of many Neo's occurences told the architect: "BULLSHIT!". It didn't help those sequels were not as tight as the first and meandered into lot of armchair philosophical freshman student blaberring).

Edited September 15, 2013 by dashrendar44

[K1stpierre]

SW prequels are the movies people wished they never had wished for.

 

Home Alone 2.

 

Every garbage sequels Disney made to milk on a classic.

 

(OTH, Matrix sequels were needed sequels but left everyone on the road because the basic core of Matrix Reloaded shattered everything they took for granted in Matrix. It's like the movie Matrix was another level of illusion to the general audience who massively rejected them. People reacted to those just like one of many Neo's occurences told the architect: "BULLSHIT!". It didn't help those sequels were not as tight as the first and meandered into lot of armchair philosophical freshman student blaberring).

  I loved Home Alone 2!!! Better than the first one! That movie was hilarious. The third one though was dumb.

Edited September 15, 2013 by k1stpierre

[dashrendar44]

Yeah, I saw Home Alone 2 in theater when I was young. But still unnecessary, it's a remake of the first one.(I discovered the first one on TV after seeing the second movie).

Edited September 15, 2013 by dashrendar44

[K1stpierre]

Yeah, I saw Home Alone 2 in theater when I was young. But still unnecessary, it's a remake of the first one.

The concept was the same as the first one, but I felt like the second movie was not only funnier, but also had a good story as well even if it was the same as the first one. It follows the first one the same way, but even with that said I think the fact that it was done well, they were able to pull it off. I even felt bad for the old pigeon lady