Films with better sequels

pharmaboy

Eats Squid
You people disgust me.
;D

Had a look at a couple of the lists of the best sequels, and terminator 2 - Judgement Day comes in the top 3. First is pretty much always godfather 2, and Aliens as third. So us lovers of T2JD are in good company:behindsofa:

The ones not mentioned here are Superman 2, Spider-Man 2, x men 2 and the second Star Trek whatever the fuck that's called. Also honourable mention for the second LOTR, and Harry potter
 

PINT of Stella. mate!

Many, many Scotches
;D

Had a look at a couple of the lists of the best sequels, and terminator 2 - Judgement Day comes in the top 3. First is pretty much always godfather 2, and Aliens as third. So us lovers of T2JD are in good company:behindsofa:

The ones not mentioned here are Superman 2, Spider-Man 2, x men 2 and the second Star Trek whatever the fuck that's called. Also honourable mention for the second LOTR, and Harry potter
You people are the reason why Hollywood keeps churning out so many horible re-makes, reboots and sequels. No taste whatsoever!

Although I will agree with Star Trek Wrath of Khan, Spidey 2 (and only #2) and X-Men 2 (and The 2nd Wolverine film, X-Men Babies and X-Men Babies 2) but then Spidey and X-Men are part of an ever-continuing series of comic books of which there have been hundreds of different storylines. Same can be said for Star Trek, being originally a TV series. Do these movies really count as sequels, or rather episodes?
 

thecat

NSWMTB, Central Tableland MBC
Blue crush.... Um yep little more than a tennybopper perve but the second one was better
 

pharmaboy

Eats Squid
Episode versus sequel?

Hard line to draw LOTR is a trilogy so shouldn't count. I can't find much in the way of a continuing story with batman either. I reckon a sequel is when you get a good result with the first movie and decide to make another after the fact.

Hollywood these days seems to plan ahead for the sequel before they've even made the first, which brings is to the reason for the question. Traditionally, the xxxxxx2 is there to make money and extend a franchise which is why the vast majority of them are shit. On that grounds I reckon it needs to follow the story, have some continuity in the main character , and not have been written before the first one has been made.
 

PINT of Stella. mate!

Many, many Scotches
Episode versus sequel?

Hard line to draw LOTR is a trilogy so shouldn't count. I can't find much in the way of a continuing story with batman either. I reckon a sequel is when you get a good result with the first movie and decide to make another after the fact.

Hollywood these days seems to plan ahead for the sequel before they've even made the first, which brings is to the reason for the question. Traditionally, the xxxxxx2 is there to make money and extend a franchise which is why the vast majority of them are shit. On that grounds I reckon it needs to follow the story, have some continuity in the main character , and not have been written before the first one has been made.
Yeah. Alien was an original idea for a one off film- I say original but 'Jaws in Space' was probably how it was sold to the studio. Regardless nobody thought there would be a brilliant sequel spawned of it, much less a massive (and often underwhelming) multimedia universe.

Star Wars too. I know it got relabelled as 'Ep 4 a New Hope' but it was never originally intended as episode 4 of a 6 part series.

The Godfather is another one although that cheated a little bit. It was based on Mario Puzo's original book and they left out the quarter of the book that was all flashbacks to the young Vito Corleone arriving in the US and making his mark. They then got use all that to fill up half of Godfather 2 with Robert Deniro playing young Vito, cementing it as the king of all italian-american movies.

If you want an exploration of the mindset behind the apparent creative bankruptcy of Hollywood as manifested by their overt lust for sequels and remakes I recommend watching the film '21 Jump Street', followed by it's sequel '22 Jump Street.'

Admittedly they probably won't explain too much beyond the obvious (Hollywood loves money. Hates thinking) but they're both way more fucking hilarious and poignant than they ever had any right to be...
 
Last edited:

jrewing

Eats Squid
Stop talking shite. The Terminator was pure hardcore menace. Moody as fuck and violent as all hell with at least 3 Aliens cast members squaring up against a genuinely scary cyborg Arnie.

Terminator 2 had an annoying little shit playing John Connor, PG levels of violence, Arnie hamming it up saying shit like "I know now why you cry", "I need a vacation" and doing that stupid thumbs up thing when he gets lowered into the furnace. Johnny 5 from 'Short Circuit' was a more badass and intimidating robot!
Plus he walks into a cop station in 1 and unloads. Rad right there.

Austin powers 2 then the rest. Beyoncé ruined gold member.
 

Beej1

Senior Member
Aliens = Alien 3!!?!?! Are you f***ing mental!?
Interesting ... you seem to dislike Terminator 2 compared to Terminator. And I totally agree. In fact, I'd go so far as to say The Terminator is James Cameron's only endearing quality as a filmmaker. From here on his movies are formulaic shite designed to appeal to the greatest common denominator in order to make coin. Terminator 2 was a family movie compared to 1.

I loved Aliens as a kid. Quoted it like a mofo for freakin years. Still do in fact. The mech warrior v queen at the end ... awesome. Its a movie jam packed with awesome things. But its not an awesome movie. Its just marginally-better-than-current-form James Cameron. And that kid ... damn! Almost as annoying as teen John Connor.

Alien 3 went back to the core of the first film: one creature terrifying the shit out of people and everyone dies. An absolute clusterfuck behind the scenes apparently with David Fincher disowning it never to return, but you get a glimpse of what he was aiming for. It ain't great, but it ain't shit.

I look at where each director went from here and it almost reflects these two films. One went all gung-ho god-bless america we're awesome and I can re-hash any old story and it sells. The other stayed (mostly) dark, depressing, everything's going to shit. Guess I like those films more. I have a happy life goddammit ... can't have that shit creeping into my cinema.

I expect I'll convince exactly zero people with that.
 

PINT of Stella. mate!

Many, many Scotches
Interesting ... you seem to dislike Terminator 2 compared to Terminator. And I totally agree. In fact, I'd go so far as to say The Terminator is James Cameron's only endearing quality as a filmmaker. From here on his movies are formulaic shite designed to appeal to the greatest common denominator in order to make coin. Terminator 2 was a family movie compared to 1.

I loved Aliens as a kid. Quoted it like a mofo for freakin years. Still do in fact. The mech warrior v queen at the end ... awesome. Its a movie jam packed with awesome things. But its not an awesome movie. Its just marginally-better-than-current-form James Cameron. And that kid ... damn! Almost as annoying as teen John Connor.

Alien 3 went back to the core of the first film: one creature terrifying the shit out of people and everyone dies. An absolute clusterfuck behind the scenes apparently with David Fincher disowning it never to return, but you get a glimpse of what he was aiming for. It ain't great, but it ain't shit.

I look at where each director went from here and it almost reflects these two films. One went all gung-ho god-bless america we're awesome and I can re-hash any old story and it sells. The other stayed (mostly) dark, depressing, everything's going to shit. Guess I like those films more. I have a happy life goddammit ... can't have that shit creeping into my cinema.

I expect I'll convince exactly zero people with that.
A couple of reasonable points there so I'll lay off pronouncing any fatwa's just yet but you can't compare Newt to John Connor. Yes when she does have to do any acting other than screaming, it's pretty amateurish but John Connor was like the fucking template for Justin Bieber.

David Fincher's original vision for Alien 3 would have made for a great horror movie if it didn't fall after Aliens. Once James Cameron had shown that your average alien is no match for any wisecracking soldier with a shotgun (much less one of them pulse rifles or those crazy arse machine guns Vasquez and Drake carried), the fear factor of just one alien dropped to negligible. Put them in an overwhelming swarm however and it's shit your pants time. They stepped up to the same primal level of fear that people have about angry mobs and the like.

Also fuck killing off Hicks without giving him even a scene.

I'll admit Fincher's setting was great if it were in a movie independant of the 'Alien' storyline, the cinematography was great but the script was fucking awful and the special effects were a total let down. the running-dog alien was kinda cool when I first watched it on a copied VHS tape but as soon as i saw it on DVD and saw how out of place it looked compared to the rest of the scenery, it just completely ruined it for me.

As for T2. I don't dislike it. It was an awesome film, especially when I was 13! Linda Hamilton was definitely a lot hotter in angry MILF mode than she was with her daft 80's hair in Terminator and Guns'N'Roses' 'You Could Be Mine' turned out to be the soundtrack of my summer holidays that year. It's still no Terminator though.
 
Last edited:

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
Not bait at all, Mallrats was tops. Clerks was good but I like Mallrats that little bit better.
 

PINT of Stella. mate!

Many, many Scotches
I'll admit Clerks was amateur as fuck and full of terrible acting but I'd never seen anything as hilariously offensive and groundbreaking as it at the time.

Mallrats, i hoped would be like some sort of glorious technicolour 'We've got hollywood money and we're taking-it-to-the-next-level' shit but it wasn't. It was a good film and a hell of a lot more polished than Clerks but my initial buzz about it wasn't there and the jokes weren't anywhere near as loose. It was good but tame.
 

Beej1

Senior Member
David Fincher's original vision for Alien 3 would have made for a great horror movie if it didn't fall after Aliens. Once James Cameron had shown that your average alien is no match for any wisecracking soldier with a shotgun (much less one of them pulse rifles or those crazy arse machine guns Vasquez and Drake carried), the fear factor of just one alien dropped to negligible.
True ... but in 3 that one alien was loose in a prison colony with zero weapons more powerful than a crowbar wielding Charles Dutton.
Put them in an overwhelming swarm however and it's shit your pants time.
.... unless you're Ellen Ripley .... with near-zero military training and who just learned how to shoot a BFG 9000 like ten minutes ago .... in which case you get you're arse back into the slaughterhouse on yer own where all the space jocks got reamed by said overwhelming swarm and leave steaming chunks of acid alien flesh in your wake ... all so you can save the cute wittle girl. Classic James Cameron.

But seriously ... Ripley kicks arse and you kinda feel like she could pull all that off on her own. If she'd gone in with the marines in first wave it'd be a different movie altogether.

Props for the hot Linda Hamilton reference. Though her man-like arms in 2 were a bit iffy.


Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

PINT of Stella. mate!

Many, many Scotches
True ... but in 3 that one alien was loose in a prison colony with zero weapons more powerful than a crowbar wielding Charles Dutton.
I'm surprised the Alien didn't fuck off straight away for fear of hearing a tired but typical militant Charles S. Dutton racial rant.

and Linda Hamilton's arms would have been great for rubbing one out for you if she was otherwise 'cyclically engaged'

not that I would ever suggest such a thing. or shagging her for that matter.

She's a single mum for fucks sake.

OH btw. John Connor's foster mum is Vasquez from Aliens.
 
Last edited:
Top