All the Rockys, except the original Rocky. The original was a fantastic film. The sequels were just cheesy. Great sequels carry the story forward, like the Godfather sequels did. They shouldn't just try to repeat the success of the original by repeating the formula.
I think the most horrendous movie sequel I've ever seen was Mulan 2. That movie was straight up trash.
Top Gun 2 (maverick) , not out yet. The original can’t be beat. Also; Smokey and the Bandit another epic movie
First time I saw these in theatres I wasn't a fan. Watching them a couple of years ago, though, I actually didn't mind them, but at this point in my life I also read Jean Beaudrillard for the heck of it. So rather than being confused and bored during all of the rampant exposition, I was more curious and intrigued, but still annoyed at the rampant exposition.
I remember when I first heard they were being made. Just stunned, the first one was fine, and what the hell were they going to do with more? Oh, that's it, fuck things up. ETA: Can we count Parts II-XVII of The Hobbit as unnecessary sequels, given that it should have been one two-hour movie? I still haven't seen Part III, I just refuse to after that whole gold hot-tub scene. And Bilbo's conversation. And...
Despicable Me 2. The character development from the first film necessitated a huge shift in tone and it was obviously just a massive money-grab. Also St. Trinians 2. Seems to have killed the series (again).
The first film had so many strengths: introducing the audience to the Matrix, the novelty of nearly unstoppable Agents as villains, Cypher's betrayal, a slow building romance, and the last second reveal that Neo, is indeed, the One. The way I see it, its sequels had nowhere to go but down. And I feel the same about Jaws.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a movie that should not exist. The fact that it does makes me sad. Every so often I will hear that Spielberg/Lucas/Ford are thinking of making a fifth one, which always forces me to wonder if all their past successes in the film business have been some kind of fluke.
You're right. Names like Spielberg and Lucas should be trying to make something new. They've got loadsa money, so that shouldn't really be a huge incentive at this stage. Maybe they have simply run out of ideas? Maybe having so much money at their disposal when they make a movie has erased that 'let's do it on a shoestring' attitude that made their original movies so good. Now their moviemaking life is too easy? Dunno. For me, two of my most favourite movies of all time are American Graffiti and the original Lucas-only Star Wars. Both made by Lucas, on a shoestring budget, using mostly actors who were unknown at the time. (Hard to believe now, looking at their amazingly successful careers.) Lucas was unbeatable in my eyes, at the time, for making entertaining movies that were extremely original in concept AND execution. He hasn't really recapped those successes since. Unfortunately, as long as Joe Q Public keeps flocking to 'sequels,' people like Spielberg and Lucas will keep making them—to the overall detriment of the moviegoing experience. (Look at the dragged-out mess that was The Hobbit movie, after the fantastic LOTR movie made by the same guy, Peter Jackson. Such a missed opportunity there, with Martin Freeman in the role of Bilbo ...he was a perfect Bilbo, but even he couldn't get the series off the ground.) I think what people actually want is 'another movie that thrills me as much as the last one did.' They don't necessarily want a predictible repeat of the same story, dressed up slightly differently—which is what most 'sequels' are. The best sequels, I believe, are the ones that were always meant to be there, to complete the story. Like the Godfather ones, which were necessary to complete the Corleone story. Or the three parts of LOTR. The first two in both of these sets of films could have ended with "To Be Continued." You can't say the same for the Indiana Jones movies, can you?
The Star Wars sequels are a disappointment in a way no other Star Wars content post-Disney buyout has been. Utter waste of potential and unnecessary. Solo to a lesser extent suffers the same problem. They were poorly executed and I’d rather they were never made if they couldn’t have been made competently.
My knee-jerk response would be to say Toy Story 4. Not that it was a horrible movie or anything, but considering some of the things that happen in it, it's a complete and utter betrayal of the previous film and always leaves a rather bitter taste in my mouth when I think about it, since Toy Story 3 is one of my favorite films ever. But, if I have to be completely honest with myself, probably Blade Runner 2049. Again, not that it's a horrible movie, in fact it was my favorite film of that year, but I find myself agreeing with the people who say that it tells a story that shouldn't be told.
I kinda sorta liked Rogue One, but I agree with you on the rest. The one with Luke was just an abomination.
I somewhat did too. I tend to like those little oddball, in-between stories, and the general tone of the movie was pretty good. Thought Solo was some hot garbage though.
That’s exactly what I mean though. Rogue One was good. Star Wars Rebels was good. Star Wars Resistance was a good show that displays the state of the galaxy better than the films. The comics are great. The Mandalorian might be too early to judge but it looks promising. Only the sequels have been so profoundly mishandled. Only Solo comes close to dropping the ball as badly as the sequels when they could have simply not picked it up.
I was drunk and couldn't reach the remote when Solo came on cable. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Very little memory of the movie, and none of it good.
Funny, I too find that being drunk helps to watch movies that I would otherwise skip entirely due to them being shit.
