# Sequels that ruined a film



## Chee (Jul 7, 2008)

There's probably a thread about this already, but I'm too lazy to look. 

What sequels do you absolutely hate because they ruined the series/first movie or plainly just sucked ass?

I hate Pirates of the Caribbean 2 and 3. The first film was a great summer blockbuster, but the second and third film totally killed it.


----------



## Dan (Jul 7, 2008)

Rush Hour 3...


----------



## Memos (Jul 7, 2008)

i totally agree with Pirates 1 and 2 and Rush Hour 3

i think Godfather 3 ruined it not only because it sucked but because it wasnt necessary

but i think the godfather of awful sequels has to be Terminator 3


----------



## Dan (Jul 7, 2008)

The Medicine Seller said:


> i totally agree with Pirates 1 and 2 and Rush Hour 3
> 
> i think Godfather 3 ruined it not only because it sucked but because it wasnt necessary
> 
> but i think the godfather of awful sequels has to be Terminator 3


I agree with that too, Terminator 3 was shockingly awful.


----------



## Castiel (Jul 7, 2008)

Batman and Robin


----------



## crazymtf (Jul 7, 2008)

Spider-man 3
Matrix 3 *I liked reloaded tho i know alot hated, my response to that, i don't give a shit * 

Off the top of my head that's all.


----------



## Bear Walken (Jul 7, 2008)

All *the Crow* sequel.


----------



## Memos (Jul 7, 2008)

i think for a sequel to be considered bad it has to be a bad sequel to a great movie

so Batman and Robin, however abismal, was a sequel to a terrible film so it cant be considered worse than Terminator 3......even though B&R was a worse film.


----------



## Chee (Jul 7, 2008)

All the other Jaws films. I'm surprised how many were made.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 7, 2008)

Spider-Man 3
Batman and Robin
Most straight-to-VHS/DVD Disney releases
Terminator 3
Mortal Kombat: Annihilation 
Basic Instinct 2
The Karate Kid Part III
Rocky V


----------



## ghstwrld (Jul 7, 2008)

The Ring 2
Bad Boys 2 
The Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions (i.e., fuck ups of epic proportions; the Matrix will never be the same.  )



Chee said:


> There's probably a thread about this already, but I'm too lazy to look.
> 
> What sequels do you absolutely hate because they ruined the series/first movie or plainly just sucked ass?
> 
> I hate Pirates of the Caribbean 2 and 3. The first film was a great summer blockbuster, but the second and third film totally killed it.



You should include remakes.

Planet of the Apes (2001) single-handedly ruined what all the horrible sequels couldn't (despite the studio heads best efforts).

I weep at thought of the Birds remake.


----------



## Undercovermc (Jul 7, 2008)

I agree with most of the films that have been mentioned already, but how have you all left the latest *Rambo* movie out. That movie was a joke.


----------



## crazymtf (Jul 7, 2008)

Undercovermc said:


> I agree with most of the films that have been mentioned already, but how have you all left the latest *Rambo* movie out. That movie was a joke.



Oh yeah cause all the other rambo's didn't have a man going through the jungle with cheesy dialog chopping off peoples heads and shooting the place up...Please if you hate the new rambo you never liked any


----------



## Undercovermc (Jul 7, 2008)

crazymtf said:


> Oh yeah cause all the other rambo's didn't have a man going through the jungle with cheesy dialog chopping off peoples heads and shooting the place up...Please if you hate the new rambo you never liked any


The others weren't overloaded with gore, nor did they try to set the record for most on-screen kills. You're wrong: I hate the new one, but liked the others.


----------



## Dimezanime88 (Jul 7, 2008)

Matrix Reloaded was awesome, but I don't know what the fuck happened to Revolution. It didn't suck, but it wasn't as memorable as the other two. 

As for my choices, it would have to be Terminator 3, Blade 3, Scary Movie 3-4 (2 was enjoyable), Mortal Kombat 2, and 3 Ninjas (2-4). There's more, but that's all I can remember. Most of them either sucked, weren't necessary, or not memorable.


----------



## Chee (Jul 7, 2008)

I didn't even bother with the second and third Matrix.



ghstwrld said:


> I weep at thought of the Birds remake.



Same here. Hitchcock FTW.


----------



## Gray Wolf (Jul 7, 2008)

Jurassic Park 2 and 3.


----------



## Shark Skin (Jul 7, 2008)

Matrix Revolution. It was eh... Spider-man 3, just fucked up what could have been a great trilogy. Wasted Spider-man's greatest villain. Even the parts with Symbiote Spider-man were lacking.


----------



## Chee (Jul 7, 2008)

^^ Totally agree, Spiderman 3 sucked ass.



Gray Wolf said:


> Jurassic Park 2 and 3.



To be honest, I didn't even care for the first one.


----------



## CalRahhh (Jul 7, 2008)

A bad sequal has never lessened my like for any great movie. I honestly think it's stupid that people suddenly hate an entire series just because one or two of the sequals was crap. Why not like the good ones, and dislike the bad ones? Not dislike the bad ones and dislike the good ones too because 'the sequals killed it'.


----------



## crazymtf (Jul 7, 2008)

Skeksis said:


> A bad sequal has never lessened my like for any great movie. I honestly think it's stupid that people suddenly hate an entire series just because one or two of the sequals was crap. Why not like the good ones, and dislike the bad ones? Not dislike the bad ones and dislike the good ones too because 'the sequals killed it'.



I think the Tc means a sequel that fucked up a series. Which happens all the time.


----------



## Adonis (Jul 7, 2008)

crazymtf said:


> I think the Tc means a sequel that fucked up a series. Which happens all the time.



Yeah, series tend to have a continuity that can be fucked by a bad sequel or two; especially if those sequels were supposed to answer questions posed in the first.

Of course, there are episodic sequels that only serve to give a protagonist a new adventure (i.e. Temple of Doom) that flop without affecting the first movie.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 7, 2008)

ghstwrld said:


> *You should include remakes.*
> 
> Planet of the Apes (2001) single-handedly ruined what all the horrible sequels couldn't (despite the studio heads best efforts).
> 
> I weep at thought of the Birds remake.



Oh, I've got one...The Honeymooners with Cedric the Entertainer...


----------



## Chee (Jul 7, 2008)

I saw the previews for the new Honeymooners and I facepalmed myself.


----------



## Maycara (Jul 7, 2008)

People have already named a couple I was going to say, like Mortal Kombat 2, and Spider Man 3.

Even though I liked them. A lot of people think the Star Wars "Prequels" ruined Star Wars....I quite liked them myself though....

Saw movies. Saw 1 was awesome, while they havent been horrible, they just keep getting worse. They just want to make money now. First was a awesome idea, second was okay. Third became meh. Fourth was okay you done yet? lol


----------



## Jackal (Jul 7, 2008)

Jaws. why the hell did they have to ruin jaws.


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 8, 2008)

I disagree with alot of you. I thought Pirates 2 was the best in the series, and I thought Matrix 2 was a worthy sequel(Matrix 3 was a letdown, not that it was bad, but it should've been better).

Spiderman 3 was the best in some ways, the worst in others.

As for my opinion

1) Jaws: My favorite film of all time was followed up by an average sequel and two crappy films after that(one being boring, the other being so bad its kind of funny)

2) Zombie: Now, you can take this both ways. The original "Dawn of the Dead" was renamed "Zombie" in Italy. It was followed up with "Zombie 2"(Which was renamed "Zombie" in the west). "Dawn" was great. "Zombie" was good for what it was. But it was followed up by "Zombie 3"(bad), "Zombie 4"(worse?), and "Zombie 5"(haven't seen it, but everyone seems to hate it).

3) Nightmare on Elm St: On one hand, the sequels made Freddy an icon. However, they mostly sucked. Oddly, "Friday the 13th" had some fine sequels.

4) Frankenstein: "Frankenstein meets the space Monster", nuff said.

5) Halloween: Most of the sequels sucked.

6) Leprechaun: lol, the first film wasn't very good, and the sequels were lame.

7) Fists of Fury: Actually, I wasn't bothered by the official sequel or the unofficial sequels, but alot of people were.

8) Day of the Dead: "Day of the Dead 2: Contagium"

That's all I can think of. Yeah, most of them are horror......


----------



## Chee (Jul 8, 2008)

> Leprechaun: lol, the first film wasn't very good, and the sequels were lame.



Wasn't that a horror flick?


----------



## crazymtf (Jul 8, 2008)

Chee said:


> Wasn't that a horror flick?



Yeah it was. I actually love it cause it's so bad it's funny.


----------



## Chee (Jul 8, 2008)

Yea, there's something about leprachauns that just isn't scary.


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 8, 2008)

lol, you guys should see Carnosaur, which is so awesome because its so bad.

It was followed by a bland sequel that ripped off Aliens, and a third one that was pretty entertaining.


----------



## Chee (Jul 8, 2008)

Anything original from Sci-Fi is pretty much bad.


----------



## Vonocourt (Jul 8, 2008)

Undercovermc said:


> The others weren't overloaded with gore, nor did they try to set the record for most on-screen kills.



That's the 2nd and 3rd to a tee. Only the first one can be viewed as anything more than a bloody cartoon.

>_>
[YOUTUBE]8n1hKQULa9Y[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 8, 2008)

I liked the new Rambo movie.

It was better than the cheezy Rambo 2 and 3, imo. 

Not quite as good as the more personal "First Blood"


----------



## crazymtf (Jul 8, 2008)

MartialHorror said:


> lol, you guys should see Carnosaur, which is so awesome because its so bad.
> 
> It was followed by a bland sequel that ripped off Aliens, and a third one that was pretty entertaining.



Already seen, and i actually owned the first one...i really liked dinos


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 8, 2008)

Don't we all.

If only "Jurassic Park 4" would be as gory as "Carnosaur", I would be the happiest man on the planet.


----------



## Hidd3N_NiN (Jul 8, 2008)

I guess I'm one of the few people that liked the Pirates of the Caribbean Sequels.

Anyway, I didn't really like the Matrix Sequels. 

And also Aliens Resurrection. It just didn't have the same 'feel' as the first 3 movies.


----------



## GunningForGlory (Jul 8, 2008)

Kill Bill 2.......................


----------



## Vault (Jul 8, 2008)

terminator 3
mortal kombat annihilation


----------



## Even (Jul 8, 2008)

Battle Royale 2... 
Spider Man 3...
X-Men 3

I actually enjoyed the Matrix and Pirates sequels..


----------



## GsG (Jul 8, 2008)

Blues Brothers 2000

Not completely terrible, but the original Blues Brothers was just so much better that it almost felt like it was.


----------



## Chee (Jul 8, 2008)

Cesc Fabregas said:


> Kill Bill 2.......................



Uhhh...what? Kill Bill 2 is superb.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Jul 8, 2008)

Most of the "3"s ruined films.

X-Men 3
Spider-Man 3
Terminator 3

I dislike failure trilogys.


----------



## troublesum-chan (Jul 8, 2008)

every disney sequel ever made

with the notable exception of toy story 2


----------



## Chee (Jul 8, 2008)

I sorta wanna see Terminator 4. I know the third one sucked, but this one is in the future. 



troublesum-chan said:


> every disney sequel ever made
> 
> with the notable exception of toy story 2



I bet the third one would change your mind.


----------



## Even (Jul 8, 2008)

Isn't Christian Bale going to be in that one??


----------



## Chee (Jul 8, 2008)

Yes, I'm totally going to see it to see him as well. pek


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Jul 8, 2008)

If Christian Bale is in T4, if cannot lose.


----------



## Vonocourt (Jul 8, 2008)

Cesc Fabregas said:


> Kill Bill 2.......................



Even though it was originally going to be one big film...



Hidd3N_NiN said:


> And also Aliens Resurrection. It just didn't have the same 'feel' as the first 3 movies.



The series plummeted down hill with the third one, the fourth one was even worse. And Joss Whedon wrote it.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jul 8, 2008)

well Jason X was the worse jason movie


----------



## Penkihake (Jul 8, 2008)

*All the sequels made to classic Disney movies. Like the Fox and the Hound, I cry when I watch it, and the ending was great imo, then they go and make some dumb sequel about some dog band (really wtf?) and tear up all the emotion >.>


Oh and Toy Story 2 and a few others are exceptions*


----------



## Lestat Uchiha (Jul 8, 2008)

Linkdarkside said:


> well Jason X was the worse jason movie



I disagree, "Jason goes to hell" was the worst Jason movie. It hardly was a Jason movie and brought a lot of shit that didn't make sense.


----------



## ~Flippy (Jul 8, 2008)

The grudge 2.

As much as I liked Spiderman 3, I agree that it was probably the worst of the three. Though the whole series never impressed me much.


----------



## Magoichi (Jul 8, 2008)

Blade 3. Just shit. Blade 2 wasn't bad, but is still nothing compared to the original.

All Fast & Furious sequels.

Project A:2. Pointless making a sequel without Sammo Hung and Yuen Biao in it!

Robocop 3.

Can't think of anymore at the moment.


----------



## Chee (Jul 8, 2008)

Shrek 3...nuff said.


----------



## Supa Swag (Jul 8, 2008)

MORTAL KOMBAAAAAT 2. A decent video game flick followed by a rancid piece of shit.

Spider-Man 3. Ugh

Terminator 3. What the fuck?



Chee said:


> Yea, there's something about leprachauns that just isn't scary.


----------



## HugeGuy (Jul 8, 2008)

Matrix 2 and 3.

The first Matrix was original and fresh. Best of all, the concept was easy to understand. And the ending was sufficient. Neo came to realise his power and the telephone call strongly imply that he's gonna warp the matrix according to his will now. It was all good.

Then came reloaded and revolution with their bullshit theory disguised as rocket science which 99% of the audience couldn't understand. Neo can't do jack shit here.


----------



## Chee (Jul 8, 2008)

Kitty Litter said:


>


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Jul 8, 2008)

How many of those Leprechaun movies did they make? I think the one above is the most recent, maybe part 5. I distinctly remember Lephrechaun 4: Leprechaun in Space.

*IN SPACE. *


----------



## Chee (Jul 8, 2008)

CrazyMoronX said:


> How many of those Leprechaun movies did they make? I think the one above is the most recent, maybe part 5. I distinctly remember Lephrechaun 4: Leprechaun in Space.
> 
> *IN SPACE. *



How the heck does he get into space!?


----------



## Adonis (Jul 8, 2008)

Chee said:


> How the heck does he get into space!?



Do you know the worst part about the poster Kitty Litter posted? The 2 implies he has been there before. It's a sequel of a sequel!


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Jul 8, 2008)

I saw the "2" and thought it looked odd, but I passed it off as a mistake of some sorts.

Imagine if it is a sequel of a sequel?


----------



## Vonocourt (Jul 8, 2008)

HugeGuy said:


> Matrix 2 and 3.
> 
> *The first Matrix was original and fresh.*



Dark City came out a year before, Strange Days came out in 1995. Both movies question memories and reality.

But Matrix had Kung-fu

I liked the second one too. Sure they tried to hard with the force-fed chinese cookie philosophy...but once you get past the first thirty minutes...it's a pretty good action movie.

The third one, was bullshit.



CrazyMoronX said:


> I saw the "2" and thought it looked odd, but I passed it off as a mistake of some sorts.
> 
> Imagine if it is a sequel of a sequel?



It is.


----------



## ctizz36 (Jul 8, 2008)

For me it was the Jaws' sequels


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Jul 8, 2008)

I guess that does it. Leprechaun is officially the worst moderately-known film franchise of all time.


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 8, 2008)

Lestat Uchiha said:


> I disagree, "Jason goes to hell" was the worst Jason movie. It hardly was a Jason movie and brought a lot of shit that didn't make sense.



Nah, imo, the worst Jason movie was the 8th one.

"Jason Goes to Hell" wasn't very good, but the acting was better than most and the director seemed to be going out of his way to make a  wierd horror film.

Part 5 wasn't very good either, and Im not a huge fan of Part 4.

Anyway, there are currently 6 leprechaun movies. 

I've only seen the first, the fourth(where he goes into space) and the 5th(where he first goes to the hood).

While we're on horror sequels.

Worst Halloween movie: Part 5, followed closely by part 3.

Worst Nightmare on Elm St: *this is difficult because most of the sequels suck* probably part 6 or part 4.

Worst Hellraiser moviekeep in mind, I haven't seen part 5 and up), probably part 4(although part 3 wasn't alot better)

Worst Godzilla film: My current least favorites were those two newer mechagodzilla movies. Yes, I hated them even moreso than "Godzilla's Revenge"(which I kind of liked).

Worst Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie: Part 4...........ugh, definately part 4.

Worst Aliens movie: either "AVP2" or "Resurrection". 

Thats all I can think of right now.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Jul 8, 2008)

AVP2 was good compared to AVP1. 

Still, awful movies, raping the Aliens and Predator movies both, at the same time.


----------



## crazymtf (Jul 8, 2008)

MartialHorror said:


> Nah, imo, the worst Jason movie was the 8th one.
> 
> "Jason Goes to Hell" wasn't very good, but the acting was better than most and the director seemed to be going out of his way to make a  wierd horror film.
> 
> ...


Just my opinion on some stuff you mentioned


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 8, 2008)

I thought AVP1 had an average script, decent actors and an average director. I don't remember if I'd give it a 2/4 or a 2.5/4. Paul Anderson is an alright director, but he uses the wrong styles for his flicks. Resident Evil, for example, should have been a horror flick instead of an action one. If he used his "Event Horizon" style for AVP, it would have been better.

AVP2 had a TERRIBLE script with bad actors. The director was actually pretty good, however. In fact, in terms of directing, I'd say he was the best since Fincher did Alien 3. I gave it a 2/4 on my website.

Ummm, I liked the Reboot more than most of the Halloween sequels. H2 was okay, just a typical slasher. H4 was probably the best sequel. H6 had some stylish moments, but was pretty stupid. H7 had Jamie Lee Curtis, which was the only good thing about it. H8 had some creepy parts, but was incredibly idiotic.

As for Nightmare: Part 2 had a good idea, but the homoerotic elements and slow pace made it difficult to take the movie seriously. Part 3 was badass. Part 4 was bland(in my opinion). Part 5 had its positive aspects, but was sort of forgettable. Part 6 sucked. Part 7 was pretty good. FVJ was awesome. 

Speaking of bad sequels, I hated "Day Watch", the sequel to the popular "Night Watch"(Which I wasn't jumping up and down for either).


----------



## crazymtf (Jul 8, 2008)

MartialHorror said:


> I thought AVP1 had an average script, decent actors and an average director. I don't remember if I'd give it a 2/4 or a 2.5/4. Paul Anderson is an alright director, but he uses the wrong styles for his flicks. Resident Evil, for example, should have been a horror flick instead of an action one. If he used his "Event Horizon" style for AVP, it would have been better.
> 
> AVP2 had a TERRIBLE script with bad actors. The director was actually pretty good, however. In fact, in terms of directing, I'd say he was the best since Fincher did Alien 3. I gave it a 2/4 on my website.
> 
> ...



Dude your awesome, lol. No one besides my cuz and me watched all these horror movies  I use to watch these kinda movies with her all weekend ranging from Jason to exorcist to pet cemetery, and even this one where this kid kills his own parents and then is adopted and kills those parents too *If you know this please tell me, i must watch it again * 

and i agree on day watch tho i hated night watch too so it's not like a big difference. Shame too cause i had high hopes for both.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Jul 8, 2008)

Ah, people who hated Night Watch. Finally, I feel like part of the crowd.


----------



## Dimezanime88 (Jul 8, 2008)

Night Watch was confusing as hell!



Magoichi said:


> All Fast & Furious sequels.



I recently saw F&F3 and it wasn't that bad. It was entertaining and the teaser at the ending made up for the whole thing (at least for me). I mean, they did after all try to approach things differently with the whole 'drifting' and the setting being in Japan. Though I think the movie could've done without Bow Wow.


----------



## Chidori Mistress (Jul 8, 2008)

Most Disney films. 
Spiderman 3.
X-men 3.
Matrix 3.


----------



## Aruarian (Jul 8, 2008)

Dimezanime19 said:


> I recently saw F&F3 and it wasn't that bad. It was entertaining and the teaser at the ending made up for the whole thing (at least for me). I mean, they did after all try to approach things differently with the whole 'drifting' and the setting being in Japan. Though I think the movie could've done without Bow Wow.



The acting, story, characters, development, etc. were all shit as fuck. Everytime you see one it's like 'wait, what?'. Cars were nice, and driving was decent as well. But a redneck in Tokyo? I mean, come on.


----------



## Dimezanime88 (Jul 8, 2008)

Chee said:


> Shrek 3...nuff said.




Uwah!

That's not going to stop me from making my Shrek 3 set. Snow White was just too badass and sexy.


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 8, 2008)

I thought 2fast2furious was pretty fun. Tokyo Drift was just average and forgettable.

Crazymtf- that movie sounds like a few ones. The one that comes first to mind is "Children of the Corn 3". Ill let you know if I can think of another.


----------



## Ankoma (Jul 8, 2008)

Spider-Man 3. Just awful. Cool action scenes, but they turned Venom, Spider-man's greatest villain into some side-show, abridged character. And why? For Sandman? He did not impress me at all. He was just a real boring villain. 

Many Disney sequels, except Toy Story 2. 

Liked the Pirates sequels, and the Star Wars prequels (although I have to admit, Episode II was just borderline boring. III made up for it though)

I know there's more, but that's all I can think of for now


----------



## Adonis (Jul 8, 2008)

Ankoma said:


> Spider-Man 3. Just awful. Cool action scenes, but they turned Venom, Spider-man's greatest villain into some side-show, abridged character. And why? For Sandman? He did not impress me at all. He was just a real boring villain.



Venom isn't Spider-man's greatest villain by a long shot. He could have been one of the greats but the comics always fucked it up.


----------



## Ankoma (Jul 8, 2008)

Adonis said:


> Venom isn't Spider-man's greatest villain by a long shot. He could have been one of the greats but the comics always fucked it up.



my mistake. I just always thought he was.


----------



## Shark Skin (Jul 8, 2008)

That's what I thought as well... I'm still pissed that Venom did shit in the movie. Now that I think of it, most superhero movies that try and stuff several villains into one movie usually suck because they just take so much from the individual villain (Spiderman 3, Batman Forever, Batman & Robin, etc.)


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 8, 2008)

Adonis said:


> Venom isn't Spider-man's greatest villain by a long shot. He could have been one of the greats but the comics always fucked it up.



I would say he is the most popular. Hell, Venom is the one character in Spiderman(besides Spiderman himself) who even people who havent read the comics/watched the tv shows tend to know about.

As for the movie, I thought Sandman was cool and Venom was cool(although the actor was completely miscast), it was goblin jr that blew it for me.

The actor(James Franco?) was just terrible in that movie.....

The spiderman movies haven't really had very good villains. William Dafoe owned in the first one, but his outfit looked lame.  Alfred Molina(?) was kind of boring as doctor octopus. 

So...thats it,.


----------



## Shark Skin (Jul 8, 2008)

I didn't really like Sandman's character development or the way he was connected in the death of Ben... it was just so stupid. And Venom was certainly cool, the problem was that his role was nearly nonexistent. Also, as I said before, Symbiote Spiderman had terrible development as well. I hope that they  don't make a Spiderman 4 and if they do I hope they get new writers.


----------



## crazymtf (Jul 9, 2008)

MartialHorror said:


> I thought 2fast2furious was pretty fun. Tokyo Drift was just average and forgettable.
> 
> Crazymtf- that movie sounds like a few ones. The one that comes first to mind is "Children of the Corn 3". Ill let you know if I can think of another.



finally, i also agree 2fast2furious was better then 3. 

And it's not children of the corn, seen those. It's a small little movie, not big production or anything.


----------



## Chee (Jul 9, 2008)

They made sequels to Children of the Corn?


----------



## Starrk (Jul 9, 2008)

Children of the Corn 2: Mother Shuckers.


----------



## GsG (Jul 9, 2008)

Ocean's Twelve (2004)

It sure didn't deliver the same performance as Ocean's Eleven.  I'd rather there had been only Ocean's Elven and that's it.  Milking isn't good if you don't try as hard or harder than you did to make the first film.


----------



## Shippingr4losers (Jul 9, 2008)

Oh, if there were two disapointing films for me, it would be Spider-man 3 and Shrek the Third.
God, where do I begin? Okay, Spider-man 2 is the best Marvel film for me period, it took my imagination to new heights and convinced me that Sam Raimi was the greatest director to hit the screen. Then I saw Spider-man 3.
First of all, I hated to soap opera stuff that happened. I mean, just kill the man instead of *asking his girlfriend to break up with him.* I also thought Parker spent too little time in his suit. I mean, that was the theme of the whole movie! The morality of a man with too much power. It was simple, easy and Raimi could run circles around that. Now, by all means, there have been worse Marvel films, however *Spider-man 3 dissapointed me.* Instead, it got complicated for its own good.

Now Shrek the Third was just awful. It carried neither the emotional weight or the wit of the first two. The problem was that none of it felt epic, the ending felt way too easy and Shrek's daddy issues are just...bleh.

If anything killed my childhood, it was probably the sequel. It just goes to show you that regardless how good a franchise is, it will ultimately lead to the death of the movie and its glory.


----------



## Dimezanime88 (Jul 9, 2008)

Shippingr4losers said:


> Now Shrek the Third was just awful. It carried neither the emotional weight or the wit of the first two. The problem was that none of it felt epic, the ending felt way too easy and Shrek's daddy issues are just...bleh.
> 
> If anything killed my childhood, it was probably the sequel. It just goes to show you that regardless how good a franchise is, it will ultimately lead to the death of the movie and its glory.



......


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 9, 2008)

Both sequels to 'Bring It On'.


----------



## Byakuya (Jul 9, 2008)

The Grudge 2, Shrek 3.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Jul 9, 2008)

That one Batman movie with Mr. Freeze, Bane, and Poison Ivy.


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 9, 2008)

Yes, Children of the Corn had sequels. In fact, I think they sometimes come out direct to DVD(or video). Last I heard, there were 7 of them.

I only remember part 2, which scared me as a good. I also remember part 3, which was uber-graphic. At the time, it was also the first movie that really offended me(I'm religious, and that movie had alot of blasphemy). Looking back, I probably wouldn't be that offended if I saw it again. Hell, I might even like it in all its gory gooness.

Part 4 was bland and forgettable(best thing was Naomi Watts). Never saw part 5. Part 6 was lame(good sountrack, if I remember correctly). Never saw part 7.

Another series is "Howling". I dont remember any of them. I own part 5 and while it has promise(it takes place in a castle), its a very bland horror flick.

I hear some of the sequels are worse. Sadly, I gave Howling 5(23% approval. ) a 2/4, and part 5 is supposed to be one of the better sequels.

Hmmmm, maybe we should make a thread on sequels that were superior to the original. 

"Bloody Murder" was arguably the worst slasher of all time. Yet its sequel, while being just a typical slasher, was ALOT better than the first.


----------



## Vonocourt (Jul 9, 2008)

CrazyMoronX said:


> That one Batman movie with Mr. Freeze, Bane, and Poison Ivy.



BAT CREDIT CARD!!



Chee said:


> They made sequels to Children of the Corn?



They give them all subtitles like "The Final Sacrifice," to try to make it seem like the last in the series...then they would go and make another one.


----------



## Toad Hermit (Jul 10, 2008)

The Exorcist 
Matrix
Next Friday
also agree with martial on Nightmare on elm street


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 10, 2008)

hmmm, forgot aboutn the Exorcist.

I've only seen part 1 and 4(theatrical version)

I hear part 2 sucks, part 3 is good(but slow paced), the original cut of part 4 was pretty good as well.....the version I saw was was average.

The Exorcist was a stupid movie to make sequels from......its like making sequels to The Blair Witch project(er, wait they did that), or the Ammityville horror(Sp?/Oh wait, they did that too), or the Poltergeist(dammit, people just have stupid ideas, don't they?)


----------



## ChaochroX (Jul 10, 2008)

X-Men 3 was the pinnacle of shitting on a series that at least had great potential. There are plenty others and they almost always have a 3 in the title. In fact has there ever really been a good "3" movie?


----------



## Vangelis (Jul 10, 2008)

Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End and Harry Potter: Order of the Phoenix.


----------



## Jspider (Jul 10, 2008)

Shippingr4losers said:


> Oh, if there were two disapointing films for me, it would be Spider-man 3 and Shrek the Third.
> God, where do I begin? Okay, Spider-man 2 is the best Marvel film for me period, it took my imagination to new heights and convinced me that Sam Raimi was the greatest director to hit the screen. Then I saw Spider-man 3.
> First of all, I hated to soap opera stuff that happened. I mean, just kill the man instead of *asking his girlfriend to break up with him.* I also thought Parker spent too little time in his suit. I mean, that was the theme of the whole movie! The morality of a man with too much power. It was simple, easy and Raimi could run circles around that. Now, by all means, there have been worse Marvel films, however *Spider-man 3 dissapointed me.* Instead, it got complicated for its own good.
> 
> ...




You pretty much nailed what made those two three's disappointing.  Spiderman 3 probably should've been divided into two movies (granted I doubt the movie's cast would've liked that and it would sure ruin this while "trilogy" fad going around these days) one movie to give adequate time to Symbiot Spiderman (why did they axe it's shapeshifting powaz?) + phase in Eddy Brock and another to have Venom actually take the limelight as the final villain of the series.

Shrek 3 was just at the bottom of the barrel for ideas and you could feel it all around (the humor was bleh) but yeah the lack of Epic was what totally flattened it.

To be honest though neither of those two really "ruined" the preceding movies for me.

For a list like that I'd definitely pick out Xmen 3 as ruining that series of films.  I felt the first was shaky to begin with the 2nd was good but the 3rd just seemed to fail all over the place.  It ruins the series for me because the 2nd being the best one has this obvious incomplete feeling but if you move to the part that completes it the whole thing falls apart (at least Spiderman you can end at 2 and still enjoy it, or hell even watch Spiderman3 it p0wnz Xmen3) 

I'd say Revolutions ruins the Matrix Trilogy for similar though slightly altered reasons.  The first film just out and out rocked and the second film was actually pretty enjoyable as others have said.  The issue was the first film makes you want to know what happens next, the second delivers but leaves alot of things in the air to the point were it would either be ruined by the outcome of the third or be strengthened.  And then the third went ahead and just grand slammed the second one down into the ground to the point were they're seriously weighing down the first film (which is still great but now tainted)

Pirates 2 and 3 really blehed up the original too.  They tried to hard to be epic and really created quite a few plot holes in doing so (though I suppose plot doesn't matter in this sort of thing).  I don't feel like dissecting why but by the time 3 came around it felt like alot of things were arbitrarily happening and the finale really disappointed me (why the hell line up so many ships and then have only a couple of them actually do anything? that's just a HUGE waste).  As it stands I think I'll just enjoy the first one and forget the rest.  It's funny how by the third they're seriously stretching for those ride references  Barbossa goes off and quotes an entire stretch of Dialog word for word that was REMOVED from the ride when they did the upgrade to make it fit the movies.  BTW I have mixed feelings on Disney doing that too but in all honesty I suppose it wasn't any worse then when they altered the ride in the 90's to make it politically correct.

Indy's sequels were all pretty marginal too but fortunately Raiders is strong enough to carry all that mediocrity on it's shoulders (Raiders is the only one that really stands the test of time too)

maybe we should discuss things like Back the Future/Robocop/Ghostbusters while we're at it


----------



## Jspider (Jul 10, 2008)

ChaochroX said:


> X-Men 3 was the pinnacle of shitting on a series that at least had great potential. There are plenty others and they almost always have a 3 in the title. In fact has there ever really been a good "3" movie?



Return of the King?  Return of the Jedi? Star Trek 3:the search for spock?

I think there have been a few but in all honesty having good 2's is hard enough.  For alot of films they're really just trading on familiarity and by the time they hit 3 they're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

3's work better when the story actually calls for a third entry and the people involved really think things out.

I suppose it's also annoying when you have movies that were done by good writers and directors who lose interest in continuing the story and then it gets handed off to another person who really doesn't have a good feel for story direction or perhaps arbitrarily thinks that he should make things distinctly his OWN style


----------



## Halo (Jul 10, 2008)

Speed 2 comes to mind as a horrific sequel. Hell, its probably one of the worst films of all time.


----------



## omg laser pew pew! (Jul 10, 2008)

Adonis said:


> Venom isn't Spider-man's greatest villain by a long shot. He could have been one of the greats but the comics always fucked it up.



Not by a long shot? Venom is either slightly below Green Goblin or equal


----------



## Adonis (Jul 10, 2008)

omg laser pew pew! said:


> Not by a long shot? Venom is either slightly below Green Goblin or equal



By comic standards, I'd have to say, "Fuck no!"

The only people who think so are people conspicuously born in the late 80's or 90's (aka the genocide of comicdom.)

I can't find the link at this exact moment but I'll link an article proving why.


----------



## omg laser pew pew! (Jul 10, 2008)

Wait, are you talking in what he has actually done to Spider-Man and the threat he posses? Because if that's the case then Venom would be one of his easiest going villains (more so since he's generally labeled as an anti-hero nowadays)


----------



## Adonis (Jul 10, 2008)

omg laser pew pew! said:


> Wait, are you talking in what he has actually done to Spider-Man and the threat he posses? Because if that's the case then Venom would be one of his easiest going villains (more so since he's generally labeled as an anti-hero nowadays)



No, I'm saying he's a lame villain in general.

Edit: Okay, maybe "lame" isn't the word I should use considering his competition is an old man in a vulture suit. He's "ill-conceived" if you will and poorly-executed.


----------



## omg laser pew pew! (Jul 10, 2008)

Then he's where things break away from Objective-land to Subjectiveville


----------



## Adonis (Jul 10, 2008)

omg laser pew pew! said:


> Then he's where things break away from Objective-land to Subjectiveville



OMG, OPINIONS! MAY THEY NEVER END UP IN CONFLICT!!!


----------



## Tevinhead (Jul 10, 2008)

^________________^


----------



## Chee (Jul 10, 2008)

Halo said:


> Speed 2 comes to mind as a horrific sequel. Hell, its probably one of the worst films of all time.



I pretend that shit never existed.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Jul 10, 2008)

I thank my lucky stars every night I never watched Speed 2. I keep seeing it on TV, sometimes tempted to watch it, but I have yet to fall prey to this disaster.


----------



## Jspider (Jul 10, 2008)

Adonis said:


> By comic standards, I'd have to say, "Fuck no!"
> 
> The only people who think so are people conspicuously born in the late 80's or 90's (aka the genocide of comicdom.)
> 
> I can't find the link at this exact moment but I'll link an article proving why.



I'd like to see that

as a kid I always remember Venom having a cool image

maybe I've just been raised to like dopplegangers though.  The idea of an evil stronger Spiderman has always seemed cool to me.  He seemed to do alright in the old 90's cartoon.


----------



## Boocock (Jul 10, 2008)

Any Star Trek sequel after ST6. Yes, that includes First Contact too.


----------



## Ashiya (Jul 10, 2008)

X-Men 3 was terrible. So much for an antidote for the mutant population. It truly defaced the ageless paradox of man versus mutant, which was what made the X-men story so interesting.


----------



## Vonocourt (Jul 10, 2008)

Adonis said:


> I can't find the link at this exact moment but I'll link an article proving why.





Venom is a mess of a character, and this article details why. And Carnage is even worse...


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 10, 2008)

Hmmm, I feel I need to get a few things straight on some of these misunderstood sequels.

Spider Man 3: Whoever says "Spiderman 3 should've been turned into 2 films" or whatever clearly missed the point on what it was going for. The first two movies were basic "hero vs villain" films. Based on interviews with Raimi, and having seen the movie myself, I think its obvious they didnt want to go that route. It was supposed to be about Spidermans internal struggles....literally.

1) The Sandman represented his desire for revenge.
2) The Green Goblin(Jr) was meant to represent Spider Man taking the easy way out(Peter kept trying to befriend th guy again until that the black stuff(cant remember what its called) basically caused Peter to give up on him).
3) Venom was supposed to be a mirror to peter, however, they fumbled on this. Interviews suggest they were supposed to  have alot of similarities, and Venom's relationship with that blonde was supposed to mirror Peter's relationship with Mary. When Peter begins to woo her, it causes Venom to go insane and he basically succumbs  to the same weakness that peter did. 

Hence, having so many villains actually makes sense. Unfortunately, the movie misfired and nothing came out how it was supposed to. What could have been brilliant, turned into a mess. They should have killed sandman during the sewer scene(maybe they could have Peter running into his daughter which would cause guilt, which would lead to Peter overcoming the black stuff). As for Green Goblin, most of his development felt rushed. The Venom subplot just became an incoherant mess. Spidermans own development was mishandled. He had two good scenes(when he attacks Mary and realizes what he has done, and when she breaks up with him), but it mostly became comical and over-the-top. Sometimes, the acting in general was poor.

If the movie wasn't rushed, it could have been the best. On the positive side, the special effects were on the money and the action was cool. It should be noted that I found the first two spiderman movies to be good, but safe and forgettable. "Spiderman 3" at least was ambitious and tried to go beyond that. It just sort of failed in the process.

X-men 3: Okay, this movie simply was rushed. That's all there is too it. Brett Ratner wasn't the best choice here, and they should have waited for Singer to do it. What made the first two films good was that they were more personal films, which focused on social commentary and well-developed characters. X3 just went for an action route with hints of this. I also hated how they killed off some of the characters.....It wasn't a bad film, but it was a disapointment compared to the others.

The Matrix Revolutions: The first was intelligent, creative and entertaining. The second had some creativity and was entertaining. The third tried to be intelligent, and it just didn't feel like a true matrix film. Once again, it wasn't bad, just disapointing.

Pirates of the Carribean  2 and 3: Okay, I am one of the few people who was sort of lukewarm on the first Pirates film. Yes, it was a good film. It just, once again, felt like it was playing it safe. Pirates 2 was over-the-top and flawed, but it was ambitious and had some style. Pirates 1 had alot of energy and nice production value, but the director actually puts some style behind the 2nd film. My favorite scene is when the kraken crushes the 2nd boat. It was very haunting and had what most films lack today: Control. The first film let the special effect control  it, whereas this time, the special effects aren't what dominated the movie. It was the direction behind it.

As for Pirates 3, I'd say I liked it a bit less than the first one. It seemed even more safe. The only real good ideas where the final battle and Jack Sparrow going crazy(ier).

The Star Wars prequels: Erm, I personally enjoyed them all. Granted, Lucas shouldn't have written/directed them all, but I was never disapointed. I suppose "Phantom Menace" was my least favorite, but it still was alright for me.


----------



## maximilyan (Jul 10, 2008)

The ring 2. shit was just horrible.


----------



## Vonocourt (Jul 10, 2008)

MartialHorror said:


> Hmmm, I feel I need to get a few things straight on some of these misunderstood sequels.
> 
> Spider Man 3: Whoever says "Spiderman 3 should've been turned into 2 films" or whatever clearly missed the point on what it was going for. The first two movies were basic "hero vs villain" films. Based on interviews with Raimi, and having seen the movie myself, I think its obvious they didnt want to go that route.* It was supposed to be about Spidermans internal struggles*....literally.



Which Spider-man 2 already dealt with.

My insertions are bolded.


> 1) The Sandman represented his desire for revenge. *Again, revenge didn't help him before, why would it do it this time. It's rehashing the plotline handled in the first and slightly in the second.*
> 2) The Green Goblin(Jr) was meant to represent Spider Man taking the easy way out(Peter kept trying to befriend th guy again until that the black stuff(cant remember what its called) basically caused Peter to give up on him). *Um, Yeah, this is just really stupid. I'm avoiding it. >_> *
> 3) Venom was supposed to be a mirror to peter, however, they fumbled on this. Interviews suggest they were supposed to  have alot of similarities, and Venom's relationship with that blonde was supposed to mirror Peter's relationship with Mary. When Peter begins to woo her, it causes Venom to go insane and he basically succumbs  to the same weakness that peter did. *Which they would have had more time to do this if the film was split up into two.
> *
> ...


----------



## crazymtf (Jul 10, 2008)

maximilyan said:


> The ring 2. shit was just horrible.



Ring 1 was terrible too


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 10, 2008)

I liked Ring 1....Ring 2 was just a bad idea from the start. If the Japanese  version couldn't pull it off(with the apparently awful Rasen, and the creepy, yet boring Ringu 2.), then what are the chances that America(home of some of the worst writers of all time) will do it?

As to the big one,
1)I never thought the first two really concluded his internal struggles. I havent seen them in awhile so maybe I'm missing something, but the frst one surprisingly just dropped the revenge aspect after he did it. The second one mainly dealt with him trying to balance his personal life with his superhero life. The third one appeared to aim more for Peter's dark side. 

2) I think they could have done it in one film, if they did this.
-have sandman die in the sewers.
-have Venom only appear in venom form at the very end(final battle). Make it a badass 1 on 1 film.
-To be honest, I'm not sure how the Goblin Jr subplot would be handled. I liked the fact he turns good in the end, but I was expecting it and the plot had already become bloated enough as it was. Part of me wants to say 'just axe it' and focus more on the other venoms. Green Goblin was already the villain once, and while the action scenes where improved with Goblin Jr, it wasn't anything we hadn't already seen before. Personally, I think Spiderman 2 shouldn't have ended with Harry finding out about his Dad. 

As I said, if they did it right, they could've put it into one film and it could have been great. They simply screwed up along the way.

Anyway, now that I think about it, every superhero movie has the same kind of development. It appears Batmans development will be the same in "Dark Knight", which worries me. Either that or it will focus too much on the Joker, which will be a mistake as well(didn't Tim Burton's Batman teach us that's not the way to go?)

3) Let me ask you this, did Pirates 1 show anything new and exciting that we already hadn't seen before? Yes, it was based on a ride, but you could still do anything with it. The only thing that made Pirates great was Johnny Depp(although the movie was still good in itself). Pirates 3 sort of went back to the "Safe" mode. Did they spend all their budget on Pirates 2 or something?

For Pirates 3 to work, I think they should've killed Norrington, maybe Davie Jones(and then have that evil, english dude control the kraken), never have introduced Fat's character, nor Sparrow's father(or whatever). No one had enough screentime, so no one was happy. Oh yeah, it also needed something new and unique. 

4) Personally, the original star wars films weren't that good. We simply grew up watching them, and tend to ignore this. its the same reason why fans are mixed on the new Indiana Jones movie. Luckily, I never watched the old Indiana Jones movies when I was a kid, and I was never that big on the star wars movies as a kid. 
If you watch the original, you would see that the special effects weren't all that(even for their time), the dialogue was bad, the acting was questionable(mostly bad) and it had alot of wasted information(which thankfully would become useful in later films).

Lucas, if I recall, didn't write the other two films, nor did he direct them. Did you know that when Return of the Jedi and Empire Strikes back were released, they recieved heavily mixed reviews? Just like the new Star Wars films.

Its the same with Indiana Jones, although "Last Crusade" got better reviews than "Temple of Doom". Once again, we've seen these movies as kids, so we critique them differently and unfairly.


----------



## Vonocourt (Jul 10, 2008)

My insertions are bolded.


MartialHorror said:


> As to the big one,
> 1)I never thought the first two really concluded his internal struggles. I havent seen them in awhile so maybe I'm missing something, but the frst one surprisingly just dropped the revenge aspect after he did it. The second one mainly dealt with him trying to balance his personal life with his superhero life. The third one appeared to aim more for Peter's dark side.* Inner struggle isn't just about being a dick or not.*
> ...
> -To be honest, I'm not sure how the Goblin Jr subplot would be handled. I liked the fact he turns good in the end, but I was expecting it and the plot had already become bloated enough as it was. Part of me wants to say 'just axe it' and focus more on the other venoms. Green Goblin was already the villain once, and while the action scenes where improved with Goblin Jr, it wasn't anything we hadn't already seen before. Personally, I think Spiderman 2 shouldn't have ended with Harry finding out about his Dad. *On the other venoms, you say that GG was already a villian...yet you want Venoms. right... As for Harry not finding out about his dad, why set up the character and never do anything with him.
> ...


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 10, 2008)

1) You're right, its not. As I said, the movie failed at what it was trying to be. Going into Peter's darker side would have been interesting, it was just done in the wrong way. If you think I'm defending the movie because it was good, you are missing my point. You simply missed the point of what the movie was trying to be. I've directly stated it failed multiple times(as for my personal opinion, I enjoyed it, but on a very uneven scale)

2) Typo. I meant villains, not venoms. I'm not saying they couldn't have done something with Harry, but just another green goblin clone was repetitive.

3) The Kraken and Davie Jones were new, top-of-the-line special effects. They were also used creatively.

4) It distracted me.....based on the fact you seem bothered by my claims, I'm presuming you grew up on the films. The fact that you say "maybe" shows your bias.

5) I'm aware. Actually, it was generally criticized for its poor storyline. If you know anything about scripts, you would know that Empire wasn't a very good one. It works in the context of all three films put together. Don't get me wrong. "Empire" is my favorite film of the three, it just has a weak narrative. 

"Phantom Menace" is criticized for being a kids movie. "Clone Wars" is criticized for its dorky romance and poor dialogue. "Revenge of the Siths" has alot of smaller, less defined problems. 

"Safe" means that no one is really taking any risks and just going by usual mold. Keep in mind, a movie can take risks and still suck. 

Is it just me, or are you getting too offended over this? Jeez, they're just movies.


----------



## crazymtf (Jul 10, 2008)

^It's Vono man, you been gone awhile. A quote from when he critized I am legend "You bitch to much, though you do it very well" It's his specialty  

I thought the SW films were decent, i just like the fighting


----------



## Cero (Jul 10, 2008)

Saw 4


----------



## Chee (Jul 10, 2008)

Cero said:


> Saw 4



I never even bothered with the first one.


----------



## Lestat Uchiha (Jul 10, 2008)

"Batman and Robin" was the one of the worst sequals that have ever been created. The guy that directed Batman Forever should have stopped there, but he had to create that piece of crap.


----------



## Vonocourt (Jul 10, 2008)

MartialHorror said:


> 1) You're right, its not. As I said, the movie failed at what it was trying to be. Going into Peter's darker side would have been interesting, it was just done in the wrong way. If you think I'm defending the movie because it was good, you are missing my point. *You simply missed the point of what the movie was trying to be*. I've directly stated it failed multiple times(as for my personal opinion, I enjoyed it, but on a very uneven scale)



I know that the symbiote is the chance of letting the inner darker feeling released. I did not missed the point of it. That's what I did not like about your post. The other people are saying that they did not like the movie. I don't see why you had to come in here and say that none of use understood the movie.

The way you wrote it also made it seem like you thought fighting your own demons was the only way of having inner conflict.



> 2) Typo. I meant villains, not venoms. I'm not saying they couldn't have done something with Harry, but just another green goblin clone was repetitive.


 Ah, that makes a bit more sense. But what else would you do with the character besides have him grimace at pictures of spider-man.


> 3) The Kraken and Davie Jones were new, top-of-the-line special effects. They were also used creatively.


 I don't see how the use of CGI to create a giant monster(Godzilla), or making a character out of it(Jar Jar Binks), constitutes as breaking new ground.



> 4) It distracted me.....based on the fact you seem bothered by my claims, I'm presuming you grew up on the films. The fact that you say "maybe" shows your bias.


Of course I have bias to the films. I liked them. Huh-dur!



> 5) I'm aware. Actually, it was generally criticized for its poor storyline. If you know anything about scripts, you would know that Empire wasn't a very good one. It works in the context of all three films put together. Don't get me wrong. "Empire" is my favorite film of the three, *it just has a weak narrative.*


 Because the film was set up as the middle of the series, not as a standalone film. Hence what I said about the ending.



> "Phantom Menace" is criticized for being a kids movie. "Clone Wars" is criticized for its dorky romance and poor dialogue. "Revenge of the Siths" has alot of smaller, less defined problems.


Don't really see why this is in here...I've already stated my dislike towards them...and you are just giving reasons to hate them.


> Is it just me, or are you getting too offended over this? Jeez, they're just movies.



Pfft, I'm not angry...I wonder how I would be then...Even worse I presume

But I guess if you want to agree to disagree. I'm fine with it.


----------



## Cero (Jul 10, 2008)

Saw 4 had a terribly retarded ending -_-, i dont even feel like watching it anymore


----------



## Vonocourt (Jul 10, 2008)

crazymtf said:


> It's his specialty



Is it a surprise that I'm a fan of the Spoony Experiment.


----------



## crazymtf (Jul 10, 2008)

Vonocourt said:


> Is it a surprise that I'm a fan of the Spoony Experiment.



 He is awesome aint he?


----------



## Ema Skye (Jul 10, 2008)

Most Disney sequels


----------



## Chee (Jul 11, 2008)

Lestat Uchiha said:


> "Batman and Robin" was the one of the worst sequals that have ever been created. The guy that directed Batman Forever should have stopped there, but he had to create that piece of crap.



Robin. Anything he touches turns to shit.


----------



## Adonis (Jul 11, 2008)

Lol, I leave for a day and there's people other than me arrogant enough to start a debate over an opinion. Derailing threads like that is my niche.


----------



## Gray Wolf (Jul 11, 2008)

Conan the Destroyer: Film studios need to realize adding a comedy relief character is a bad idea.


----------



## Catterix (Jul 11, 2008)

The Medicine Seller said:


> i think for a sequel to be considered bad it has to be a bad sequel to a great movie
> 
> so Batman and Robin, however abismal, was a sequel to a terrible film so it cant be considered worse than Terminator 3......even though B&R was a worse film.



He said that any film that ruined the series as well. Because really, though Batman & Robin followed off from Batman Forever, it still works because it's a sequel to the original Batman movie and is the movie that killed the Batman movie franchise.

Anyway, I think my bets for now is on Shrek 3... it's just beating the dead donkey.


----------



## Chee (Jul 11, 2008)

Gray Wolf said:


> Conan the Destroyer: Film studios need to realize adding a comedy relief character is a bad idea.



Comedy relief characters are fine, as long as they are placed right. =\


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 11, 2008)

Vono:
1) lol, then I apologize that I said you missed the point. When you say it should've been two movies, I think that would have made it worse. If the movie went by the same structure of the first two films, with all 3 villains, then you would be right. However, Spiderman 3 simply wanted to focus on that black stuff, Spidermans inner demons, and three villains were simply plot devices to exploit that. So really, if it was more than one film, it would have been a bigger mess.

2) I'm not sure. There's little you could do with him. Maybe if they bent the rules and made him turn into another villain instead of the second green goblin, it would have been more interesting. I know that would be going against the comic books, but then again, if I read correctly Harry's fate was different in the comic books anyway.

3) lol, technically, both would be major breakthroughs. JarJar Binks was the first CGI character to interact with the live cast(basically the voice actor was doing all the movements, was cut out in post production, and replaced with the CGI). If I recall, this had never been done before. As for Godzilla, I dont remember if that was the first CGI monster of its time. I do remember being incredibly impressed with the CGI in its day. Was Jurassic Park all CGI, or was it a mix of robotics/cgi? Keep in mind, breakthroughs can still become dated. Jumangi is a perfect example....even the old Godzilla films were considered Innovators of special effects in their time/

4) The first Star Wars was made as a loose remake of "The Hidden Fortress".. A trilogy was never necessarily planned. After its sucess, they then made a trilogy. They could've done things differently, but they made "Empire" simply a film for exposition and character development. In the end, it worked, but that doesn't change the fact its a flaw.

5) Simply included those as to why they were criticized. All the Star Wars movies recieved mixed reviews when they were released("New Hope" didn't as much because it was the first and was a surprise). If you had watched "Phantom Menace" as a kid, you would probably like it. 

Hmmmm, good point on Conan the Destroyer. "Saw 4" was better than it should have been, but was still the worst in the series.


----------



## Vonocourt (Jul 12, 2008)

MartialHorror said:


> 3) lol, technically, both would be major breakthroughs. JarJar Binks was the first CGI character to interact with the live cast(basically the voice actor was doing all the movements, was cut out in post production, and replaced with the CGI). If I recall, this had never been done before. As for Godzilla, I dont remember if that was the first CGI monster of its time. I do remember being incredibly impressed with the CGI in its day. Was Jurassic Park all CGI, or was it a mix of robotics/cgi? Keep in mind, breakthroughs can still become dated. Jumangi is a perfect example....even the old Godzilla films were considered Innovators of special effects in their time/



Yeah, I forgot about Jurassic Park, the giant dinosaur with the long necks near the beginning of the movie still look pretty good. 

But I was saying that the ones in pirates 2 were merely refinements to previous techniques.

As for star wars, there are so many ideas that George Lucas pulled from other stuff, that it's basically a loose remake of every story ever made.


----------



## Roy (Jul 12, 2008)

Spiderman 3


----------



## DELAHK (Jul 21, 2008)

Robocop 3
Jurassic Park 3
Batman Forever
Rocky V
Rush Hour 3


----------



## Chee (Jul 21, 2008)

Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. Just bad.


----------



## Starrk (Jul 21, 2008)

If I see _Dark Knight_ anywhere on this thread other than in this post, I will personally neg anyone who does so.



On topic: I disliked Superman Returns.


----------



## Chee (Jul 21, 2008)

The Dark Knight. 
Don't neg me! I be joking! 

I hated Superman Returns.


----------



## Starrk (Jul 21, 2008)

Kangaroo Jack 2.


----------



## Chee (Jul 21, 2008)

Stark said:


> Kangaroo Jack 2.



They made a sequel to an already dreadful film?


----------



## Buskuv (Jul 21, 2008)

Dark Knight.

**


----------



## RisingVengeance (Jul 21, 2008)

How did that ruin a series?

I personally can't say I dislike any particular sequel and say it ruined a series. I will say that Spiderman 3 is not my particular favorite movie because they killed 3 villains in one. I wonder if Jurassic Park IV will change those of you against 2 and 3's minds.


----------



## excellence153 (Jul 21, 2008)

Let's see... Jurassic Park 3, most certainly.  And X-Men: The Last Stand (fuck you, Brett Ratner).

Spider-Man 3 went a little too far for me.  And they didn't kill Sandman... he just sorta... disappeared.  And I don't believe that Venom's dead either.  Just Eddie Brock.  I want to like Spider-Man 3... I really do!  But I just can't.  I don't know how Raimi went wrong.  Spider-Man 2 was one of the best super hero films ever... then he goes and shoots himself in the foot.


----------



## Chee (Jul 21, 2008)

Mary Jane pisses me off. She never defends herself, its always Spiderman doing the work.


----------



## Vonocourt (Jul 21, 2008)

Chee said:


> I hated Superman Returns.



That movies was pretty much a remake.


----------



## Shark Skin (Jul 21, 2008)

excellence153 said:


> Let's see... Jurassic Park 3, most certainly.  And X-Men: The Last Stand (fuck you, Brett Ratner).
> 
> Spider-Man 3 went a little too far for me.  And they didn't kill Sandman... he just sorta... disappeared.  And I don't believe that Venom's dead either.  Just Eddie Brock.  I want to like Spider-Man 3... I really do!  But I just can't.  I don't know how Raimi went wrong.  Spider-Man 2 was one of the best super hero films ever... then he goes and shoots himself in the foot.



Rami went wrong when he thought he could actually be a writer


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 21, 2008)

I rewatched Pirates 3 and liked it more this time around.

It was....different. The director decided to almost make a surreal film instead of the usual Pirates fare. It was still my least favorite of the trilogy, mainly because of the dull story and crappy exposition.


----------



## Boocock (Jul 21, 2008)

If prequels count, Star Wars 1-3 was horrible.


----------



## EvanNJames (Jul 21, 2008)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Spider-Man 3
> Batman and Robin
> Most straight-to-VHS/DVD Disney releases
> Terminator 3
> ...


 

Kaiba pretty much wrote all the damn movies I was going to write down, so I'm gonna just benge off of him.


----------



## HumanWine (Jul 21, 2008)

There was a Karate Kid part III?


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 21, 2008)

Am I the only one who liked Rocky 5?

I thought 4 was the worst(would have been better if they didnt have that 5-10 flashbacks of Apollo).


----------



## Vonocourt (Jul 21, 2008)

HumanWine said:


> There was a Karate Kid part III?



There were four Karate Kid movies.


----------



## Toad Hermit (Jul 21, 2008)

Lestat Uchiha said:


> "The guy that directed Batman Forever should have stopped there, but he had to create that piece of crap.



haha I liked Batman forever, riddler and 2face were very lulzy


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 24, 2008)

ghstwrld said:


> The Ring 2
> Bad Boys 2
> The Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions (i.e., fuck ups of epic proportions; the Matrix will never be the same.  )
> 
> ...



Did you just say Bad Boys 2? What the Hell are you smoking? Its so much better than the original that most people I know can't even watch the original after seeing it. 

Both of the Matrix Sequels were horrible.

Highlander 2
Austin Powers 3
Resident Evil 3
And of the sequels to Dusk til Dawn
The Ring 2
Queen of the Damned (not really a sequel but compared to the movie version of Interview it was utter shit)


----------



## Chee (Dec 24, 2008)

Toad Hermit said:


> haha I liked Batman forever, riddler and 2face were very lulzy



 Horrible movie.


----------



## Vonocourt (Dec 24, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Resident Evil 3


The franchise was already horrible, though the second was definitely the lowest point.


----------



## Moonshine (Dec 24, 2008)

Terminator 3, Spiderman sequels, Pirates 2 and three. I also didn't like shrek three as much as the first too.


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Dec 24, 2008)

*coughs* 









The Godfather 2


----------



## Jimin (Dec 24, 2008)

Lion 1 1/2 killed a lotta epicness of Lion King 1. Almost every Disney DTV sequel has been a disaster.


----------



## Stalin (Dec 24, 2008)

King Lloyd said:


> Lion 1 1/2 killed a lotta epicness of Lion King 1. Almost every Disney DTV sequel has been a disaster.



Though lion king 2 wasn't bad and soo were the aladin sequels. But the other disney sequels are horrible and feel like filler. Fox and the hound 2 seems to me like the worst. Also, the part where cinderella's stepsister(the less ugly one) finds love was a pretty good part of a filler seqeul.


----------



## excellence153 (Dec 25, 2008)

I'm sure a bunch of people have said this already, but X-Men 3.  I can't respect Brett Ratner as director because of that shit.

Spider-Man 3 didn't ruin the other two, it was just a step in the wrong direction.  Still salvageable in my opinion.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 27, 2008)

Home Alone 4...what were they thinking?


----------



## CalRahhh (Dec 27, 2008)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Home Alone 4...what were they thinking?



Fuck yes. 1 and 2 were good, and number was a cash-in, but it was a _good_ cash-in that I think was better than the first two. But 4 was just fucking terrible.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 27, 2008)

I didn't even think that there was a Home Alone 4.


----------



## Ziko (Dec 27, 2008)

90% of the Disney movies


----------



## GunningForGlory (Dec 27, 2008)

hold up................theres a home alone 4?!


----------



## Grape (Dec 27, 2008)

X-Men 1 2 and 3

Ruined the series IMO :|

Jurassic Park 3

Blew!


----------



## Bear Walken (Dec 27, 2008)

Knox said:


> *X-Men 1 2 and 3
> 
> Ruined the series IMO :|*
> 
> ...



Could have saved yourself the trouble and put down Bryan Singer or Fox studios.

.......

Superman 3 & 4 killed the franchise. 3 still had some pretty bad ass moments.

Godfather 3. 

Rush Hour 3.

Any film done by Paul WS Anderson pretty much fucks over any franchise.


----------



## Chee (Dec 27, 2008)

Cesc Fabregas said:


> hold up................theres a home alone 4?!



Crappy TV movie:


----------



## benstevens19 (Dec 27, 2008)

Cesc Fabregas said:


> Kill Bill 2.......................



????? r u serious, kill bill 2 ftw.

Quantum of Solace

Heroes seasons 2 & 3. yes they're not movies but they destroyed what would've been a classic so they count.



Chee said:


> Robin. Anything he touches turns to shit.



teen titans on CN was epic. it can be done if done right.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 27, 2008)

Don't double post, and Chee isn't going to listen to reason like that. It's what she does.


----------



## benstevens19 (Dec 27, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Don't double post, and Chee isn't going to listen to reason like that. It's what she does.



im new, i don't know how to not double post, or multi quote. and thanks for the neg rep, ireaaly needed that.

EDIT: Apoligizes to Chee for noobness


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 27, 2008)

benstevens19 said:


> im new, i don't know how to not double post, or multi quote. and thanks for the neg rep, ireaaly needed that.



There's rules posted above every section, I don't know of any forum that lets people triple post.


----------



## Naruko (Dec 27, 2008)

Bottom of your post is a big, colored button that says "EDIT". Click it...add your comment, hit save. Voila. Now you know and knowing is half the battle, GO JOE!


----------



## Chee (Dec 27, 2008)

benstevens19 said:


> teen titans on CN was epic. it can be done if done right.



Teen Titans is for little kids. Watch it in about 10 years and you'll be wondering "what the fuck is this shit?"


----------



## mystictrunks (Dec 27, 2008)

A Teen Titans movie would be interesting.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 27, 2008)

I think had they made Teen Titans an extension of the DCAU, it'd probably be more interesting.


Evan Almighty. I guess you could include most films Jim Carrey has refused to do a sequel in. Ace Ventura 3 is gonna suck...


----------



## mystictrunks (Dec 27, 2008)

Son of The Mask, worst sequel ever.


----------



## Grape (Dec 27, 2008)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I think had they made Teen Titans an extension of the DCAU, it'd probably be more interesting.
> 
> 
> Evan Almighty. I guess you could include most films Jim Carrey has refused to do a sequel in. Ace Ventura 3 is gonna suck...



Oh God, they're doing Ace Ventura 3 without Jim Carey?

/suicides


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 27, 2008)

Yes. Ace Ventura, Jr.: Pet Detective.


----------



## Naruko (Dec 27, 2008)

mystictrunks said:


> Son of The Mask, worst sequel ever.



This is true. A lot of "worst of/best of" lists for various critics have been done and this hits the worst of sequel list near or at the top every time. There are times when someone wants to squeeze the money out of a franchise and forget what pulled people there in the first place. In this case, Jim Carrey. Like it or hate it, you don't get him, you have no sequel. There's a reason so many sequels are straight-to-video.


----------



## Hatifnatten (Dec 27, 2008)

I'd say 98% of any sequels - but nothing shettered my brain more then matrix 2 and 3... I dare people to find something worse, both as stand alone movies and sequels than that.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 27, 2008)

[YOUTUBE]YN5GfY-UEAk[/YOUTUBE]

A-alrighty then?


----------



## Chee (Dec 27, 2008)

Seto Kaiba said:


> [YOUTUBE]YN5GfY-UEAk[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> A-alrighty then?



 Why is that kid so damn fat? xDD


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 27, 2008)

Doctor Dolittle 3 and 4.



Chee said:


> Why is that kid so damn fat? xDD



He consumed his mother at birth.


----------



## Chee (Dec 28, 2008)

Oh god, they made a fourth Dr. Dolittle?


----------



## MartialHorror (Dec 28, 2008)

I remember seeing a poster for Dr. Doolittle 3 at the theaters, only to see it on DVD a few weeks later.......


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 28, 2008)

MartialHorror said:


> I remember seeing a poster for Dr. Doolittle 3 at the theaters, only to see it on DVD a few weeks later.......



Why make a sequel if they can't get the lead actor of the original?


----------



## dilbot (Dec 28, 2008)

Home Alone 2+ were all lame. People loved Home Alone 2, but fuck it was a shitty rehash of the first film. 

Predictable, boring, they took the exact same characters from the first film, gave them different names and diff. occupations and gave them same FUCKING LINES! Marv was a fucking retard in the film, resorting to humour only kids would find funny, pranks were not funny or clever at all... and the thing that I hate most - the pigeon lady. THE SHOVEL SLAYER FUCKING OWNS PIGEON LADY WITH A SHOVEL AND HAULS HER DEAD CORPSE BACK TO IRELAND!


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 28, 2008)

The second Iraq War...


----------



## Lilykt7 (Dec 29, 2008)

Ok how about when sequels ruin your childhood memories? 

The little mermaid 2? 

The fox and the hound 2. 

Disney's pretty bad. OH WHAT ABOUT THE LAND BEFORE TIME SERIES  the first one made me friggen cry. Now the 15th one or something is crap. Balto too. 

People need to not touch childhood classics.


----------



## Reety☆ (Dec 30, 2008)

Jaws, Pirates Of The Carribean and Cheaper By the Dozen *bangs head*


----------



## Canute87 (Dec 30, 2008)

What was wrong with pirates of the Caribbean? I loved the second and third movies.

Anyway Matrix 3 was a disappointment to me.


----------



## Rukia (Dec 30, 2008)

The Dark Knight ruined Batman Begins.

Seriously, am I supposed to pretend that the first movie never happened when I watch the second one?

Katie Holmes and Maggie G look nothing alike.  Maggie G didn't even try to make her Rachel similar to Katie's Rachel.  She played the role in a sassy manner like she plays every role.  Katie Holmes was a lot more career motivated as Rachel.  She would never have suggested cutting out of work early for sex.  Bad casting of Rachel, bad writing for Rachel.


----------



## Captain Pimp (Dec 30, 2008)

99.9998% of Disney sequels.


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 30, 2008)

The Second Pirates movie was pretty average but the third was just plain shit. Worst sequels in comparison to original ever are Speed 2 and Batman and Robin.


----------



## Chee (Dec 30, 2008)

Pochohontas 2 pissed me off, even as a kid.


----------



## the_notorious_Z.É. (Dec 30, 2008)

How about the Highlander sequels?


----------



## Vonocourt (Dec 30, 2008)

the_notorious_Z.?. said:


> How about the Highlander sequels?



Do not speak such lies.

There were no Highlander sequels.


----------



## MartialHorror (Dec 30, 2008)

lol, but I remember the Highlander sequels. 

But I don't remember any good ones.......


----------



## the_notorious_Z.É. (Dec 30, 2008)

MartialHorror said:


> lol, but I remember the Highlander sequels.
> 
> But I don't remember any good ones.......



They had ALIENS and WIZARDS on it!


----------



## Freija (Dec 30, 2008)

the_notorious_Z.?. said:


> They had ALIENS and WIZARDS on it!



Not to mention that in each movie all other highlanders were killed only so 40 new ones appeared the next movie. 


The latest Highlander sequel even had a new main character and our beloved Christopher Lambert got keeled by some 20 year old fuck-up.


----------



## Rukia (Dec 30, 2008)

Damn.  Nel looks fucking hot there.

Star Wars Return of the Jedi was a piece of shit.  The Care Bears somehow defeated the Empire.

A New Hope and the Empire Strikes Back were both excellent films.  Every film since has been below average.


----------



## Freija (Dec 30, 2008)

Return of the Jedi fucking owned!


----------



## competitionbros (Dec 31, 2008)

Child's Play 3/Seed Of Chucky


My favorite horror villain ruined by these two.


----------



## Fire Ninja (Dec 31, 2008)

...I'm just gonna say it now... Mortal Kombat: Annihilation (Yes it's a movie)


----------



## Vonocourt (Dec 31, 2008)

MartialHorror said:


> lol, but I remember the Highlander sequels.
> 
> But I don't remember any good ones.......





the_notorious_Z.?. said:


> They had ALIENS and WIZARDS on it!





Freija the Dick said:


> Not to mention that in each movie all other highlanders were killed only so 40 new ones appeared the next movie.
> 
> 
> The latest Highlander sequel even had a new main character and our beloved Christopher Lambert got keeled by some 20 year old fuck-up.


_
You're all part of some mass conspiracy to fuck up my memories, aren't you._

*There were no Highlander sequels, ever. *


----------



## Sunuvmann (Dec 31, 2008)

Star Wars Episode 1-3.

I prefer to think they never existed.

@Rukia: No way, that was my favorite of the movies. I loved it so much. Well yeah, I always fast forward through those parts with the teddy bears. But besides that, it was too awesome


----------



## Espresso (Jan 1, 2009)

lol, you guys should see Carnosaur.


----------



## Castiel (Jan 1, 2009)

I loved Return on the Jedi  but yeah the prequels can go rot in hell.

anyways I hated the 2nd and 3rd Pirates movie, but I highly enjoyed the first.


----------



## The Juice Man (Jan 1, 2009)

Fire Ninja said:


> ...I'm just gonna say it now... Mortal Kombat: Annihilation (Yes it's a movie)



I always thought Annihilation was a comedy.


----------



## BAD BD (Jan 1, 2009)

Rukia said:


> Damn.  Nel looks fucking hot there.
> 
> Star Wars Return of the Jedi was a piece of shit.  The Care Bears somehow defeated the Empire.
> 
> A New Hope and the Empire Strikes Back were both excellent films.  Every film since has been below average.



I agree!

And clone wars > the originals. If it were original.

Not the animated one.


----------



## Castiel (Jan 1, 2009)

I loved the Tartakovsky Clone Wars


----------



## Seany (Jan 2, 2009)

Batman & Robin
Speed 2 
Jaws 2 3 4 5
Home Alone 3 4 
Matrix 3
Shrek 3
Jurrasic park 2 3
The Mummy Returns, and TotDE


----------



## Starrk (Jan 2, 2009)

The Juice Man said:


> I always thought Annihilation was a comedy.



I lol'd when Cage died.


----------



## Yacoob (Jan 4, 2009)

oceans 12/13


----------



## Alice (Jan 4, 2009)

Star Wars prequels 
Quantum of Solace 
Pirates of the Caribbean 
Matrix 2 & 3 
Mummy 2 & 3


----------



## Federer (Jan 4, 2009)

Wishmaster sequals.
Saw 3 and the rest. 
Rush hour 3
Men in Black II
Superman III and IV
Spider-man 3
Basic instinct II 
Catwoman (not a remake but Michelle in the Batman movie was better)
Analyze this or that, which one was the sequal. :rofl
Meet the fockers (the first one was epic)

And many more. I just can't think any right now.


----------



## Stan Lee (Feb 11, 2009)

Spider-Man 3
Mortal Kombat: Annihilation 
Batman and Robin
Charlie's Angel 2


----------



## Randir (Feb 11, 2009)

Mortal Kombat: Annihilation
Jaws 2 to >9000
Highlander II/III/Endgame
The Neverending Story II/III
The Crow II
And basically any given sequel of a comic cook adaptation


----------



## Comic Book Guy (Feb 11, 2009)

Randir said:


> And basically any given sequel of a comic cook adaptation



Dark Knight, Spider-Man 2, and X-Men 2 were better than the prior film.


----------



## Federer (Feb 11, 2009)

Comic Book Guy said:


> Dark Knight, Spider-Man 2, and X-Men 2 were better than the prior film.



And I totally disagree with this, and I'm probably one of the few who claims this.

Batman Begins had a great depth in Batman's mind, how he becomes a "hero", his trouble with his past, his training, Bale was good as Bruce Wayne and as Batman. 

The Dark Knight was Batman with cum in his throat or something, Joker with his licking and shit (Mark Hamill owns Ledger, if you compare cartoon with real life), Rachel was boring, Two-face was unneccesary, end the ending sucked. I had really high expactations, but it was ahhh ok. And Morgan Freeman was on an auto-pilot.

Spider-man was much better, Peter Parker having trouble with his new powers, his loss of uncle Ben, always failing to bang Mary Jane, you feel sorry for him. His beloved ones are attacked by Green Goblin, who is the father of his best friend, more drama. And a better story. Green Goblin > Doc Ock.
Only the costume of the Goblin sucked.

And X-men II missed the "argues" of Wolverine and Cyclops. Rogue, Iceman, Pyro are boring and not even worthy to mention. The only good thing in the movie was, Nightcrawler beating the living shit out of every agent from the secret service. Obama watch out.


----------



## Zeroo (Feb 11, 2009)

Sabakukyu said:


> And I totally disagree with this, and I'm *the only one* who claims this.
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...



fixed...


----------



## Federer (Feb 11, 2009)

Zero x said:


> fixed...



Lol.


----------



## Boromir (Feb 11, 2009)

Not sure 'bout films, but this is certainly true for games:
1. Tales of Symphonia 2 (Not a film, but it had to be)
2. FF7: Advent Children (Oh, so Sephiroth ISN'T dead, and it turns out Cloud can kill him all on his own?)


----------



## Talon. (Feb 11, 2009)

ugh. mortal kombat annihilation.


----------



## Rampage (Feb 12, 2009)

pirates of the carribean 2 was shocking and 3 was okay.. i herd they r making a 4th aswell and high school musical star troy blolton kight be in it..haha that will ruin the movie for sure lol

he 1st one was AWESOME


----------



## Kusogitsune (Feb 12, 2009)

Boromir said:


> 2. FF7: Advent Children (Oh, so Sephiroth ISN'T dead, and it turns out Cloud can kill him all on his own?)



No way, the fact that anyone other than RedXIII survived Meteor and Holy is what ruined it. What I liked initially about FF7 is how, unlike other games that have happy endings, where everyone is saved and blah blah, this one seemed to have ended with everyone being wiped out by the thing that was supposed to save them. Or at least that's what most of us were led to believe. It was different. Then we find out it wasn't.


----------

