Completely Unnecessary Sequels

[St_Eddie]

Which sequels did you feel were completely unnecessary?  Which follow-ups made you scratch your head and ask "why?", so unwarranted were they?

As is customary when creating a new thread, I'll start...

===============================================================================

Highlander

Not only is Highlander II: The Quickening generally regarded as one of the worst sequels of all time but by its very nature, it shouldn't even exist, given that the first film has a clear beginning, middle and end; MacLeod defeats the last immortal and as a result, becomes mortal.  Fin.

However, where there's money to be made, they'll always be a sequel, no matter how unnecessary it may be.  Well, I say 'a sequel' but in the case of Highlander, there's five sequels, two live action television series, an animated series and two animated films (not to mention various spin-off books and videogames).  There's also a remake in the works (because of course there is).  The studio must have missed the memo that read 'there can only be one'.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S. Darko

The producer of this film must be the only person in the world who watched Donnie Darko and thought 'yeah, I see the potential for a sequel here' (or more accurately; 'yeah, I see the potential for making money with a shitty sequel here').  S. Darko is an exceedingly redundant film, one in which we follow Donnie's Sister, Samantha, as she goes on a journey of recreating the story of the first film, beat for beat.  Dull as dishwater and utterly, utterly pointless.

[BJBMK2]

As much as I like large parts of it as individual little bits or scenes, there was absolutely no reason for T2 Trainspotting to exist.

[St_Eddie]

As much as I like large parts of it as individual little bits or scenes, there was absolutely no reason for T2 Trainspotting to exist.

It was rated C for Charity.  Jonny Lee Miller's gotta eat.

[The Culture Bunker]

It was rated C for Charity.  Jonny Lee Miller's gotta eat.

I'd imagine playing Sherlock for American TV provides plenty of food and booze tokens, so that doesn't hold up as a reason.

[St_Eddie]

I'd imagine playing Sherlock for American TV provides plenty of food and booze tokens, so that doesn't hold up as a reason.

Foiled again!  *shakes fist*

[SavageHedgehog]

I actually picked S. Darko up from a bargain bin this week, having a weakness for time travel stuff. I wouldn't say it was worth watching per say, but I think the reaction from the very protective fanbase at the time was a little overblown, it's definitely better made and more artfully executed than any direct to video sequel I can think of, with a great soundtrack. Might help that I haven't seen the original in over a decade; apparently Richard Kelly has plans to do a "proper sequel".

I would say Die Hard is a film that left no real logical opening for a sequel, yet it managed to spawn two good and one not-bad one (and one very bad one).

[Phil_A]

The Descent 2.

Apart from the redundancy of just doing the first film again, it's a sequel to the US cut, which crucially chops off the very last scene as the distributors felt it was too bleak. So in the alternative cut the film ends abruptly on what was intended in the original to be a jump scare out of a dream sequence, and Descent 2 is a sequel to that ending. Even though it makes no sense as there is no way anyone could have survived.

[Kane Jones]

The Descent 2.

Apart from the redundancy of just doing the first film again, it's a sequel to the US cut, which crucially chops off the very last scene as the distributors felt it was too bleak. So in the alternative cut the film ends abruptly on what was intended in the original to be a jump scare out of a dream sequence, and Descent 2 is a sequel to that ending. Even though it makes no sense as there is no way anyone could have survived.

Ah I'm glad you've explained this, Pip. I had no idea about the US cut, so when I watched the sequel I just assumed I hadn't understood the ending of the first one.

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

Jaws 2 (shark film sequel).

A New England island being attacked by a great white shark is a terrible stroke of bad luck. That same island being attacked by another great white shark three years later is just taking the piss.

[SavageHedgehog]

Most people go easy on Jaws 2, it's certainly better than the two that follow and mostly fine, but it's the kind of sequel that has been rendered redundant by the event of home video, streaming etc. A perfectly fine night at the pictures in 1978 I'm sure, but there's not much reason to watch it in 2018 when you could just as easily watch the first again.

For about 5 years they were trying to make a follow-up of some kind to I Am Legend, despite the obvious SPOILERing obstacle that the lead character/star dies in the film. At one point they were considering doing a sequel based on the alternative ending used on the DVD and blu-ray (where he lives). As someone with no strong feelings about the film, I kind of wish that had happened just to see how they would have tried to resolve the inevitable audience confusion.

[goinggoinggone]

The Taken sequels.  The first film felt like a straight to video action flick that made it to cinemas, because it had a respectable actor in the lead (instead of someone like Seagal).  The whole part of the first film's appeal was seeing someone as seemingly miscast as Liam Neeson being a badass and it worked.  The two sequels (and a lot of the films Neeson has been in since) just don't have the same sort of kick to them after he was confirmed as a "modern action hero".  They also suffer from the same kind of dismissal of collateral damage that a lot of modern action flicks do, to the point where he comes across as a borderline terrorist and is often worse than the bad guys.

[paruses]

[...]They also suffer from the same kind of dismissal of collateral damage that a lot of modern action flicks do, to the point where he comes across as a borderline terrorist and is often worse than the bad guys.

Yes. I do love Taken for its unexpectedness and downplayed violence. With regard to the collateral damage in it doesn't his French mate make mention of it when he's trying to get him to fuck off out it about 2/3 of the way through?

The third one is a boring insult to the first one. I remember being really annoyed at the car chase-pileup scene in it. Just think how many lives would have been altered forever by his actions. At the end where they all apologise to him for having doubted his innocence I wanted them to say "But seriously, we are going to have to take you into custody and charge you with a shit load of offences to person and property. You're looking at at least 20 years"

[goinggoinggone]

Yeah, you have a point with the French corrupt cop in the first one, but as you said, it felt relatively downplayed and low-key.  The scene in the second one, where he tells his daughter to "act casual" while throwing grenades into the streets of Istanbul is hillarious in its inapropriateness.  Weirdly, no one in the street or the even the local police seem fussed about the carnage.

[Keebleman]

Godfather III.  Not only unnecessary and poorly done, but its existence actually diminishes the two earlier films.

[Shit Good Nose]

Godfather III.  Not only unnecessary and poorly done, but its existence actually diminishes the two earlier films.

Respectfully, but completely disagree.  Regardless of what Coppola thought about it at the time and the reason for it coming into being, it's a much needed bookend to the life of Michael and, more generally, the Corleone empire.  Its only real negative is Sofia Coppola, who is absolutely dreadful in it, but her role is relatively small (if pivotal).  After that, its only problem is that its predecessors are two of the greatest American films ever made.  Taken alone, part III is still an American crime masterpiece.

[St_Eddie]

I actually picked S. Darko up from a bargain bin this week, having a weakness for time travel stuff. I wouldn't say it was worth watching per say, but I think the reaction from the very protective fanbase at the time was a little overblown, it's definitely better made and more artfully executed than any direct to video sequel I can think of, with a great soundtrack. Might help that I haven't seen the original in over a decade...

I agree that it's not a bad film, per se.  It's competently shot, the acting is fine and the story is functional (though, as I previously said, it's a lazy retelling pf the first film's story) but personally, I find it to be painfully mediocre.  It completely fails to engage me in any way whatsoever.  It's the very definition of a forgettable "meh" film, which for my money, is the worst sin that a film can commit.  At least an outright bad film can be entertaining and memorable in just how bad it is.  A mediocre film is neither one thing nor the other, it's just kind of there and all too quickly fades from one's memory.

...apparently Richard Kelly has plans to do a "proper sequel".

I wonder how much of that has to do with Kelly having a real creative vision and wont to tell a story within that universe and how much of it is is due to him wanting to return to the well because his career is pretty much dead in the water at this point.

The Descent 2.

Apart from the redundancy of just doing the first film again, it's a sequel to the US cut, which crucially chops off the very last scene as the distributors felt it was too bleak. So in the alternative cut the film ends abruptly on what was intended in the original to be a jump scare out of a dream sequence, and Descent 2 is a sequel to that ending. Even though it makes no sense as there is no way anyone could have survived.

The biggest crime of The Descent 2 is its absolute betrayal of the first film's realistic lighting.  In the original, Neil Marshall went to great lengths to ensure that the only light sources within the caves originated from the characters themselves (flares, the viewfinder of the protagonist's camera).  In the sequel, it's shot as a traditional movie, with non-existent in-universe light sources all over the place.  It's all the more irritating given that the sequel is directed by Jon Harris, whom was the editor of the first film, worked extensively with Neil Marshall and therefore should have known better.  It just comes across as lazy, as though he didn't want to go through the hassle of ensuring that the realistic lighting of the first film was maintained.

Godfather III.  Not only unnecessary and poorly done, but its existence actually diminishes the two earlier films.

The one thing I will give The Godfather: Part III credit for is the very last scene, with Michael dying alone.  To me, that seemed like a much more appropriate ending for the saga than the ending of Part II, with Michael having Fredo killed.  So in that respect, I don't think that it's an unnecessary sequel.  I just think that it should have been better.

[goinggoinggone]

I used to think The Godfather Part III was good enough.  I didn't see the whole trilogy until about 2001 when the DVD boxset was first released.  Up until that point I heard so much flack about Part III that when I finally watched it, I didn't quite get what the bad buzz was about, although even then I thought it was slightly weaker than the other two.  Cut to about three years ago and I watched the Blu-rays back to back over a weekend and I suddenly understood why Part III is so disliked.  It's no secret that Coppola made this entirely for the money and everything feels phoned in.  Sofia got a bad rap (somewhat justifiably), but she's the least of its problems.  I just didn't buy Michael going straight and Kay forgiving him after all she went through.  Pacino just isn't very good in it, either... particularly his stroke scene.  It's also very poorly paced and feeling longer than the other two, even though it's actually shorter...


should have ended with him on that park bench.  Beautiful, morse and powerful in its simplicity.  And Pacino being the method actor that he was, you just know he sat stewing on that park bench all afternoon while they waited for the sun to set perfectly.

[goinggoinggone]

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps.  Who wanted to see Gordon Gekko become a misunderstood father figure?  And that Charlie Sheen cameo... Jesus wept!  That film is on a par with Highlander II in as far as how much it bastardises the original.

[St_Eddie]

...Sofia got a bad rap (somewhat justifiably), but she's the least of its problems.

I disagree with this.  Sofia Coppola's performance is genuinely one of the absolute worst that I've ever seen in a big production and in my opinion, the worst element of a film riddled with issues.  The film sinks under her awfulness.

Pacino just isn't very good in it, either...

Aye, Pacino is terrible in it.  It's very much latter-day Pacino; hamming it up like nobodies business.  A complete 180 on his subtle performance in the first two films.  He feels like a different character.

[Sebastian Cobb]

I've thought about it long and hard and my favourite Pacino performance is Dog Day Afternoon. Godfather? Arsedfather more like!!

[goinggoinggone]

You mean it isn't Author, Author?

[kidsick5000]

I would say Die Hard is a film that left no real logical opening for a sequel, yet it managed to spawn two good and one not-bad one (and one very bad one).

The third makes most sense as a sequel. So if you wanted, you could easily forget the second andthe last two where he has superpowers

[kidsick5000]

As much as I like large parts of it as individual little bits or scenes, there was absolutely no reason for T2 Trainspotting to exist.

You mean the film where James Cosmo outacts the rest of the cast just by walking up the stairs?

[St_Eddie]

The third makes most sense as a sequel. So if you wanted, you could easily forget the second andthe last two where he has superpowers

This is preciously what I do.

[goinggoinggone]

Die Hard 2 has grown on me over the years, because of how bad 4 and 5 are.

[BeardFaceMan]

John McClaine surfing a truck down an aquaduct was the moment that franchise turned to irredeemable dogshit, it was all great before then. Shooting a car into a helicopter. For fucks sake, behave yourself.

[BlodwynPig]

John McClaine surfing a truck down an aquaduct was the moment that franchise turned to irredeemable dogshit, it was all great before then. Shooting a car into a helicopter. For fucks sake, behave yourself.

wasn't that escape from L.A?

[St_Eddie]

wasn't that escape from L.A?

No, that was a different surfing scene, though just as ridiculous.  John McClaine surfs a truck down an aqueduct during the last act of Die Hard with a Vengeance.  I love the first two acts of the film but the last act is arse.

[BeardFaceMan]

wasn't that escape from L.A?

First one from Die Hard 3, 2nd one from Die Hard 4 (as I havent seen Escape From LA).

[thecuriousorange]

The Matrix (1999) 
Just imagine how much more you would like it if it had been a stand-alone.