Movies with Sequels, Good or Bad? Options

[rae24]

what, for you are the movies that have good sequels and those that made you think that the producers just wasted their money on bad sequels.


With Good Sequels:
1. The God Father
2. Star Wars ( I dnt like the prequel though)
3. Lord of the Rings
4. Harry Potter


Bad Sequels
1. Scream
2. Red Dragon (sequel to silence of the lambs)
3. Jason (the Friday the 13th series)

[IYIiDWeSt_T.S.I3]

wat about martix??
anyway yes i agree with u...red dragon was a dumb sequel to the silences of the lambs...and i agree with lord of the rings....great sequel.

[s0b3yur53lf]

i thought red dragon was the PREQUELl to silence of the lambs and was hannibal the SEQUEL....

im confused

[shuang_dao]

Yeah I'm slighty confused too.........

[Teamsta]

s0b is correct....in chronological order it goes:

Red Dragon -> Silence of the Lambs -> Hannibal

If you had read Silence of the Lambs (not sure about the movie) FBI Director Crawford mentions his distrust of Lector because of what Lector did to Will Graham (main character in Red Dragon). Also, in Red Dragon, Lector is still incarcerated, while we know that Lector escapes in Silence of the Lambs.

Hannibal, obviously, occurs long after Silence of the Lambs....since Dr. Lector is free.

As a sidenote, there actually was another prequel made to Silence of the Lambs...."Manhunter" was made back in 1986 (give or take a few years). Personally I prefer that to Red Dragon



It seems to me that in general sequels always are "worse" than the first movie of the series, for varying reasons (most, I suspect, are a 'flop' because they can't top the original).

That said, I would say these are good sequels:

- Star Wars Trilogy (A New Hope, Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi)
- LOTR Fellowship, LOTR Two Towers (haven't seen Return of the King yet)
- Harry Potter

This post has been edited by Teamsta: Dec 22 2003, 01:34 PM

[SiLvErStArDuSt]

No sequals for me. I'll only watch them if enough people say that they're good.

[some guy named E...]

Sequels are great when they're epics. when they're not really "sequels" just chapters in a story so grand it couldn't fit into one book.

Like Lord Of The Rings -- Tolken originally wanted to write it as one big book, but his editor said that there's no way they could print all that int one book and to split it into three books-- they'd also profit more.

George Lucas's original Star Wars screenplay was too long to be a movie. When he made the first Star Wars, he wasn't sure how well it would do. He put a third of the story in there, plus there was a great fight that he loved at the end of the original script with wookies vs stormtroopers. So he put a wookie in the first movie. When that became successful and it was time to do ROTJ he made the wookie fight into an Ewok battle-- he just cut the wookies in half. Although with his "prequels" he lost something. he got too fat, too rich, paid too much attention on the effects and not on the actors, and he knows that no matter how bad the movies are, people are gonna watch it, no matter what. It's part of the American culture.

JK Rowling had Harry Potter's entire academic career in mind when she started the book.


X-men had a good sequel. It's one of thos rare movies that had a better sequel than the original. This is because X-men is a VERY big story, epic, episodic, the comic book is about every aspects of the characters lives.

Most other sequels are usually-- we made a lot of money with the first one-- let's do the exact same thing but different. Which goes to show you how creative the executives are in Hollywood.

[Saint Legends]

Terminator 2 was a really good sequel, in my opinion.

[s0b3yur53lf]

tomb raider had a pretty good sequel even though it was a big disappointment im guessing that it had a good sequel becuz the first one was dull n not very deep the second one is the same but this time the story was alot better even though it was still pretty boring but non the less it was good