What films do you think should NOT have had sequels?

[MIB41]

I know this is a subject people will disagree with for a variety of reasons depending on your choices. But mine are pretty popular series:

1) The Terminator - I never thought the Terminator should have gone past the first. That story was completely self-contained and explained the future with the ending of the film. It never made sense to me that sending something back in time again and again would have ended with the same history repeating itself. I thought the irony of sending the Terminator back one time created the loop in that reality that made it possible...end of story. None of them have been even remotely as good as the first one. Seeing Arnold as a good guy in that outfit just diluted his image too much for my tastes.

2) Highlander - I think this is another story that was full contained and needed no further explanation. As the phrase indicates. "There can be only one." 'Nuff said.

3) Halloween - Even though I really enjoyed Halloween II, I think in the long haul it would have best just leave that story contained to one telling since all the other installments just try to find a new way to tell the same story.

4) Star Wars - What really happened after Star Wars? Luke and Leia are discovered to be the chief villain's offspring after he was sent into space on the spin cycle. So what? Of course then we would have 200 versions of that one film instead of 20.

5) Jaws - There has only been one and ONLY one that was worth anything. The second had potential, but this shark couldn't bite the broad side of a barn even when the live bait was in the water. It had no personality and thus was boring and without intimidation. Jaws III was horrid on every level of special effect. And Jaws IV resurrected Spot from the Munsters to offer the shark a 'roar' when he came out of the water. I often have wondered what they were smoking when they approved that idea.

Well I'm sure I can name more, but those really stand out. What are yours?

[emeraldknight47]

I dunno----I think T2 holds up pretty well and still keeps the mythos together. Now if they would've LEFT it at that, then it would've been okay.

HALLOWEEN would definitely have been better as a stand-alone film. No need for a sequel. I mean, H3 was okay because it really had nothing to do with Michael Myers, so it would've been okay as a stand alone as well...

STAR WARS didn't really NEED a sequel, but if there were no sequel, we never would've gotten TESB, which is actually the BEST of the series...

[Mikey]

Grease II ... Worst sequel EVER !!!

[thunderbolt]

Psycho, they were all pretty pathetic compared to Hitchcok's original.

[Bruce Banner]

The Matrix.

[UnderdogDJLSW]

Back to the Future comes to my mind.

What about films that have had sequels, but shouldn't have even been green-lighted for the first one? lol. Police Academy, Revenge of the Nerds, Weekend at Bernie's...Too many to count for that.

[Dark Shadow]

Frankenstein / Bride Of Frankenstein: Since these two movies together somewhat cover the content of the original novel, I consider the latter to be a necessary sequel. However, the sequels that followed, I believe, initiated the trend of endless sequels which dilutes the genre to this very day.

Psycho – This classic movie stood on its own and the sequels were nothing more than ridiculous farces that insulted the integrity and honesty of the original film.

Planet of the Apes – The original film was a classic that needed no expansion. Even though I enjoyed the sequels when I was a kid, as an adult it’s clear to me that they are nothing more than low budgeted attempts to capitalize on the success of the first film without bothering to offer up anything new to the story. The scripts were half-hearted attempts, at best, and the budgets were regressively and aggressively reduced. It would have probably been better to simply spin it off into a TV series after the first film. (Don’t get me started on the two most recent efforts…yikes!)

The Omen & The Exorcist – Perfect examples of excellent original genre novels with great film adaptations that were eventually reduced to cheesy franchises…similar to what happened with Jaws.

Alien – Even though I enjoyed Aliens, it really wasn’t necessary and it added nothing more than some “action” to the original story. Cameron’s offering would have been just as effective if it had featured some other alien species from some other place of origin.

Pirates of the Caribbean – The first film made for a fresh & original movie experience. As much as I liked the character of Jack Sparrow and looked forward to the first sequel, I have found all 3 of the sequels to be nothing more than a pillaging & plundering of the original. Unfortunately, the sequels have damaged the reputation of the first film, which really was an excellent story.

[MicromanZone]

I like this list. Because it treats the original movies like the classics they are/were. Great art makes you think, and sequels can never fill in the “What if?” questions that great art creates. It’s really better to quit while your ahead for the story, but remember Hollywood is a business. And nothing is easier money than to just create a copy of the first film or bring back enough of a theme to draw people back in.

Star Wars is a tough one. I agree it stands well alone, but Empire Strikes Back is really an oddball because it is really the best of the series if you look at it as a series.

Bad News Bears should have never had any sequels. The first film is a classic that respects the subject, respect the POV of kids, doesn’t sugar coat anything and *SPOILER* despite the team loosing in the end, the overall message is positive: Do not ever let competitive nonsense get in the way of friendships and happiness.

Rocky is also like the Bad News Bears; a complete classic where the protagonist doesn’t win but does such an amazing job he technically “won” a lot in the end. The sequels were just hollow… Maybe Rocky II was passable but that’s it.

48 Hrs. is a great buddy copy film. The seminal buddy cop film every other cop film emulates! And Another 48 Hrs. is a piece of crap.

Escape from New York is another genre defining film. Anyone truly have fond memories of Escape from L.A.?

Casino is not technically a sequel but it is is a tolerable film that is totally forgettable because Scorsese told the same story much better in Goodfellas. Why did he ever make Casino?

[kennermike]

I know this is a subject people will disagree with for a variety of reasons depending on your choices. But mine are pretty popular series:

1) The Terminator - I never thought the Terminator should have gone past the first. That story was completely self-contained and explained the future with the ending of the film. It never made sense to me that sending something back in time again and again would have ended with the same history repeating itself. I thought the irony of sending the Terminator back one time created the loop in that reality that made it possible...end of story. None of them have been even remotely as good as the first one. Seeing Arnold as a good guy in that outfit just diluted his image too much for my tastes.

2) Highlander - I think this is another story that was full contained and needed no further explanation. As the phrase indicates. "There can be only one." 'Nuff said.

3) Halloween - Even though I really enjoyed Halloween II, I think in the long haul it would have best just leave that story contained to one telling since all the other installments just try to find a new way to tell the same story.

4) Star Wars - What really happened after Star Wars? Luke and Leia are discovered to be the chief villain's offspring after he was sent into space on the spin cycle. So what? Of course then we would have 200 versions of that one film instead of 20.

5) Jaws - There has only been one and ONLY one that was worth anything. The second had potential, but this shark couldn't bite the broad side of a barn even when the live bait was in the water. It had no personality and thus was boring and without intimidation. Jaws III was horrid on every level of special effect. And Jaws IV resurrected Spot from the Munsters to offer the shark a 'roar' when he came out of the water. I often have wondered what they were smoking when they approved that idea.

Well I'm sure I can name more, but those really stand out. What are yours?

Tom your pretty much on the money here with your List we always Think alike

[MegoMonk]

What about Death Wish? The first one really had a point. After that it turned Charles Bronson's character into a parody. However, I do love watching Death Wish 3, in which we got to see what really happened to Chuck Cunningham.

[Den82]

Most films. But some that really come to mind:

Nightmare on Elm Street

All the sequels sucked. At least Friday the 13th managed to have a few good one.

Salem's Lot

I haven't seen the sequel in years, but from what I remember, it was total horror comedy crap.

Evil Dead

Yup, I said it. They all suck, including Army of Darkness.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre

They were all everything the first was not.

The Exorcist

The third was great. The second was total crap.

[Iron Mego]

Blues Brothers.

The Exorcist

The third was great. The second was total crap.

The third movie is the "real" sequel since it's based on the book Legion by William Peter Blatty... the sequel to the original book.

[torgospizza]

The Matrix.

Good call. I think they would have had an all-time classic on their hands if they hadn't tarnished it with the sequels.

[ctc]

>What about Death Wish? The first one really had a point. After that it turned Charles Bronson's character into a parody.

Good point. It also suffers from the franchaise continuing on past a shift in film attitudes: the first was made in the 70's, when dark, bleak violent films were acceptable; the last in the 80's.... post "Commando".... when action films had been cartooned up.

Don C.

[Jason73]

Weekend at Bernie's