The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I was thinking about this yesterday as I watched Terminator 2 - This is the only sequel better than its original.
I'm not saying that some sequels aren't good. Star Wars Episodes 5,6 and 1 were all good films, but none of them as good as A New Hope. And The Mummy Returns, I enjoyed this film immensely, but the Mummy was far better. A true example of how CGI doesn't make the movie. I don't know if you can include James Bond in this, because they are, in a way, follow-ups - not sequels. You can't really judge a series of films when the actors change. Mission Impossible 2 - An amazing film, so good I claimed it a while back, but simply not as good as the first, because it wasn't a M:i movie, it was action. Mission Impossible 1 had plot turns and twists aplently, that always kept you guessing. In the second one, it's all 'Well, look, he's acting strangely, obviously a mask'. And it was. 100% of the time. And just in case we couldn't get this, they played ominious music when it was about to happen.
The closest contender, I would say, to being another better sequel, is Rush Hour 2. Both it and its prequel are hilarious, and full of one-liners. But its not better. It could be classed as the same, but definitely not better. The biggest flop in a sequel? Well, it has to be Jurassic Park 2: The Lost World. What a disaster. Jurassic Park was a truly classic film, in the way Ben Hur is. But JP2 was everything a film shouldn't be - predictable, monotonous, and even boring at times. If you can count JP3 as a sequel to JP2, then we have another one, but I'll count JP3 as a sequel to JP1 for this post.
All the time, I hear of sequels in production. Shrek II, for example. Already in production. Shrek was very funny, original, and witty. But Shrek II will probably just play the same old gags again, and people will end up laughing, but feeling a little disapointed. The Matrix 2 and 3 - I wonder about them. They have the potential to be great movies, as goos as the original, as long as it doesn't involve Neo and Trinity running up walls and shooting a lot of people like the original.
And I guess that's the problem with sequels. They can only happen if the original was a success. And the makers of the sequel think 'Cha-Ching!' and try to cash in on all the successes of the first film, when what they really need to do is use the same brain-cells that came up with the idea for the first movie, and produce something equally as good, and equally as original.
T-2 was better because it came up with original stuff. What it could have done was make it seem if Kyle, from T-1, was not dead, and Arnie had been sent back as the baddy again, and Kyle had to defend Sarah, AGAIN. But no, Cameron gave us an original movie with good effects and great plot mixed in. That's why it was better.
There are some movies coming out soon that I think have the potential to spawn better sequels. And its ironic that both these movies have their scripts written for them before the original has even been released. I am, of course, talking about the two big movies based on books - Harry Potter and Fellowship of the Ring(when do I ever stop talking about LOTR, eh Tarrant?). Both these films have established and original sequels. I think this proves my point. the films cannot have sucessful sequels if the producers think of money. It's probably not going to happen, and the only good sequels will come from the movies based on books. And even this rule slips after a while. Silence of the Lambs - Amazing movie. Hannibal - Cashes in on the popularity of Hannibal Lecter. Not as amazing.
One word for potentials sequels - Originality. Try it, and you'll get a much better sequel.
Thanks, Stryke.
I'm not saying that some sequels aren't good. Star Wars Episodes 5,6 and 1 were all good films, but none of them as good as A New Hope. And The Mummy Returns, I enjoyed this film immensely, but the Mummy was far better. A true example of how CGI doesn't make the movie. I don't know if you can include James Bond in this, because they are, in a way, follow-ups - not sequels. You can't really judge a series of films when the actors change. Mission Impossible 2 - An amazing film, so good I claimed it a while back, but simply not as good as the first, because it wasn't a M:i movie, it was action. Mission Impossible 1 had plot turns and twists aplently, that always kept you guessing. In the second one, it's all 'Well, look, he's acting strangely, obviously a mask'. And it was. 100% of the time. And just in case we couldn't get this, they played ominious music when it was about to happen.
The closest contender, I would say, to being another better sequel, is Rush Hour 2. Both it and its prequel are hilarious, and full of one-liners. But its not better. It could be classed as the same, but definitely not better. The biggest flop in a sequel? Well, it has to be Jurassic Park 2: The Lost World. What a disaster. Jurassic Park was a truly classic film, in the way Ben Hur is. But JP2 was everything a film shouldn't be - predictable, monotonous, and even boring at times. If you can count JP3 as a sequel to JP2, then we have another one, but I'll count JP3 as a sequel to JP1 for this post.
All the time, I hear of sequels in production. Shrek II, for example. Already in production. Shrek was very funny, original, and witty. But Shrek II will probably just play the same old gags again, and people will end up laughing, but feeling a little disapointed. The Matrix 2 and 3 - I wonder about them. They have the potential to be great movies, as goos as the original, as long as it doesn't involve Neo and Trinity running up walls and shooting a lot of people like the original.
And I guess that's the problem with sequels. They can only happen if the original was a success. And the makers of the sequel think 'Cha-Ching!' and try to cash in on all the successes of the first film, when what they really need to do is use the same brain-cells that came up with the idea for the first movie, and produce something equally as good, and equally as original.
T-2 was better because it came up with original stuff. What it could have done was make it seem if Kyle, from T-1, was not dead, and Arnie had been sent back as the baddy again, and Kyle had to defend Sarah, AGAIN. But no, Cameron gave us an original movie with good effects and great plot mixed in. That's why it was better.
There are some movies coming out soon that I think have the potential to spawn better sequels. And its ironic that both these movies have their scripts written for them before the original has even been released. I am, of course, talking about the two big movies based on books - Harry Potter and Fellowship of the Ring(when do I ever stop talking about LOTR, eh Tarrant?). Both these films have established and original sequels. I think this proves my point. the films cannot have sucessful sequels if the producers think of money. It's probably not going to happen, and the only good sequels will come from the movies based on books. And even this rule slips after a while. Silence of the Lambs - Amazing movie. Hannibal - Cashes in on the popularity of Hannibal Lecter. Not as amazing.
One word for potentials sequels - Originality. Try it, and you'll get a much better sequel.
Thanks, Stryke.
Page:
Hmm. I'm glad someone agrees with me about M:I-2, and I can't really talk about Aliens, having only said Alien.
I stand by my judgement that Austin Powers 1 was funnier, buy hey, the point of this topic, though a bit hidden, was to find better sequels.
We now have three consistent choices.
Terminator 2
Aliens
Austin Powers 2
Any more?
I stand by my judgement that Austin Powers 1 was funnier, buy hey, the point of this topic, though a bit hidden, was to find better sequels.
We now have three consistent choices.
Terminator 2
Aliens
Austin Powers 2
Any more?
The Good the Bad and the Ygly was better than the first two.
And Stryke, have you seen the 3 Hannibal films?
And Stryke, have you seen the 3 Hannibal films?
Haven't seen all of Manhunter, but have seen the famous two. Why? Hannibal is just a cash-in.
I hate it when people say that about Hannibal. It wasn't just a cash-in. It was better than Lambs because it was actually about Lecter. Lambs was about Jame Gum with a few scenes with Lecter in, it wasn't actually about him.
People who think Hannibal was poor have usually read the book. So, you can probably guess what I'm gonna ask next. Yep, have you read the book?
People who think Hannibal was poor have usually read the book. So, you can probably guess what I'm gonna ask next. Yep, have you read the book?
Yep, read Hannibal, before I saw the movie. But its still a cash-in.
You idiot. Learn to spell, actually watch the films, and then come back. T-2 is accepted by everyone as the better of the two.
many appologies for the spelling i happen to be dyslexic im having my wife type this for me so i could get my message across. In my personal opinion terminater is a far superior movie, the suspense is always there and for the time of release the storyline was totally origanal also for the megre budget the sfx were superb. Critizie my opinion not my spelling if you dare.
P.S. who's every-one????????
P.S. who's every-one????????
austin powers 2 was more widely known about than austin powers 1, but I still cannot decide if one is better than the other.
Ok..You keep on believing that if you think so gotan.
Page: