PDA

View Full Version : Sequels That Should Not Be



Man on Fire
2012-07-23, 10:28 AM
I think that most, if not every long-runing franchiche has an example of sequel, prequel or any other installment in the series that probably shouldn't be made. Sometimes such sequel twist everything fans loved about the original (Metroid: Other M), sometimes it has numerous errors that turns them into great offense for serie's fans (Ultima 9), simetimes it's telling you it was wrong to enjoy previous installments of the franchiche (Ursula Le Guin's Tehanu), sometimes had put an minimum effort into it, so it doesn't live up to exceptations (all Land Before Time sequels), devolves the story into series of meaningless puns (later books in Xanth series) or is jsut plain bad (Dark Knight Strikes Again). That's some most common examples bought up by fandoms (your's trurly haven't yet touched most of them). And what are sequels that you wish never came to be?

Eldan
2012-07-23, 10:31 AM
What's so bad about Tehanu? I don't remember anything like that.

Tiki Snakes
2012-07-23, 10:38 AM
There were no sequels to the movie Highlander. Nor TV tie ins.

Similarly, for some reason they never made any follow-ups or tie-ins to the Matrix.

comicshorse
2012-07-23, 10:47 AM
There were no sequels to the movie Highlander. Nor TV tie ins.

Similarly, for some reason they never made any follow-ups or tie-ins to the Matrix.

Now I actually like the Highlander TV series

and some sections of the Animatrix were pretty good

For me the Robin Hood TV series stopped when Michael Praed left, they didn't do any more with Jason Connery and they DEFINITELY didn't do any more modern one with Keith Allen overacting like he'd been told the more ridiculous he was the more he got paid

And there was no fourth Indiana Jones movie

Fragenstein
2012-07-23, 10:52 AM
There was always ever one and only one Police Academy movie. And it was pretty darn good. Nobody ever devalued the franchise with endless mockeries.

Same goes for Caddyshack, though there were actually far fewer mockeries that never happened. Like only one, and it never even really existed.

Plus they never made that fifth light. There were only four lights.

Thialfi
2012-07-23, 10:56 AM
It's kinda weird that after Ridley Scott's triumphant masterpiece and James Cameron's epic sequel, they just stopped making Alien movies. You would have thought that franchise would have been set up to continue for years to come.

JetThomasBoat
2012-07-23, 11:57 AM
After making Edward Scissor-Hands, Nightmare Before Christmas, and the Michael Keaton Batman, I wonder why Tim Burton never made any more movies where everything was either all dreary and gray or everything was overly colorful. He probably could have done well with them if he got some respected actor to be in a lot of them. Someone like Johny Depp.

Lord Seth
2012-07-23, 12:10 PM
There were no sequels to the movie Highlander. Nor TV tie ins.Yes there was.
Similarly, for some reason they never made any follow-ups or tie-ins to the Matrix.Yes there were.
For me the Robin Hood TV series stopped when Michael Praed left, they didn't do any more with Jason Connery and they DEFINITELY didn't do any more modern one with Keith Allen overacting like he'd been told the more ridiculous he was the more he got paidYes they did.
And there was no fourth Indiana Jones movieYes there was.
There was always ever one and only one Police Academy movie.No there wasn't.


Same goes for Caddyshack, though there were actually far fewer mockeries that never happened. Like only one, and it never even really existed.Not true.
After making Edward Scissor-Hands, Nightmare Before Christmas, and the Michael Keaton Batman, I wonder why Tim Burton never made any more movies where everything was either all dreary and gray or everything was overly colorful. He probably could have done well with them if he got some respected actor to be in a lot of them. Someone like Johny Depp.He did make more movies.

Come on people, this kind of "I'm pretending these films don't exist!" is nonsensical and annoying. If you don't like them, you can say so, you can even say you don't consider them to have happened in-universe if you hate them that much, but whining about how they don't exist just makes you look like the kid who puts his hands in his ears and screams "LALALALALALALA!" or people who insist the world is flat. The question was about sequels that shouldn't be--in other words, ones that you do exist but you think shouldn't--not "sequels that exist but for some reason I'm arbitrarily declaring they don't exist and making myself look stupid while doing so."

Fragenstein
2012-07-23, 12:11 PM
Weird. Lord Seth hasn't posted in this thread yet. I'd have expected to see him by now.

SaintRidley
2012-07-23, 12:17 PM
Come on people, this kind of "I'm pretending these films don't exist!" is nonsensical and annoying. If you don't like them, you can say so, you can even say you don't consider them to have happened in-universe if you hate them that much, but whining about how they don't exist just makes you look like the kid who puts his hands in his ears and screams "LALALALALALALA!" or people who insist the world is flat. The question was about sequels that shouldn't be--in other words, ones that you do exist but you think shouldn't--not "sequels that exist but for some reason I'm arbitrarily declaring they don't exist and making myself look stupid while doing so."

You know what people tend to do when they feel a sequel or prequel shouldn't exist? They don't acknowledge it as existing.

Turn off the pedantry, dude. It gets pretty annoying after a while.

Rake21
2012-07-23, 12:20 PM
"Blues Brothers 2000"

Here's an idea. Let's remake one of the most beloved comedies of all time, remove all of the comedy, and call it a sequel. What's that? John Belushi's dead? Well, ****, just replace him with John Goodman.


Also, while not really a sequel, "The Thing" (2011)

Trapped in the shadow of one of the best thrillers of all time, The Thing prequel gets everything wrong.

The monster, a shadowy, intelligent hunter in the original, is reduced to a standard roaring monstrosity that reveals itself at every opportunity. The characters, with the exception of Ramona Flowers and Lars, receive no development, and serve as nothing but monster fodder.

It's really just a mess. Then, at the end, it roles into the opening of John Carpenter's film, just to remind us that there is actually a better movie that you should be watching instead.

*Edited for other Belushi

TheTick
2012-07-23, 12:26 PM
My biggest pet peeve with sequels is when they have to undo the ending of the previous movie or what not to allow them to happen. Men In Black 2 and Highlander 2 are a couple of examples for this. MIB2 really bothered me because instead of continuing on with Will Smith and a new partner (whoever that ended up being because whatsherface didn't want to be in it), you've gotta pull back in Tommy Lee Jones and just obliterate his happy ending. Ugh.

Ravens_cry
2012-07-23, 12:30 PM
Remember that dinosaur movie where these kid dinosaurs went on a quest to find a place with food?
I'm glad they never made any more of those.
It's also too bad they couldn't make a Blues Brothers sequel, what with John Belushi dead.

Fragenstein
2012-07-23, 12:32 PM
MIB2 really bothered me because instead of continuing on with Will Smith and a new partner (whoever that ended up being because whatsherface didn't want to be in it), you've gotta pull back in Tommy Lee Jones and just obliterate his happy ending. Ugh.

That's actually one of the things I liked about MiBII. It showed why there are so few true retirements from the agency, outside of being killed of course. K had been so changed by the things he'd seen and done for so much of his life that he couldn't ever go back to being one of the unwashed ignorants.

That was one of a thousand memories that you don't want to have any more? Too bad, not even a neuralizer can get rid of them at this point. You'll be feeling this way for the rest of your life.

What I didn't care for was that all of MiB headquarters could be taken over by some chick with stretchy fingers. Way to defend the planet, guys.

DarthArminius
2012-07-23, 12:38 PM
Highlander 2
Aliens Revere Holy Ground

:smallconfused:

Lord Seth
2012-07-23, 12:44 PM
You know what people tend to do when they feel a sequel or prequel shouldn't exist? They don't acknowledge it as existing.Which is nonsensical. Just because you think something shouldn't exist doesn't mean it doesn't. If anything it gets in the way of your actual point that it shouldn't. It just makes you look dumb and out of touch with reality rather than confronting the fact something was badly done.

I mean, a lot of people throw the Voyager episode "Threshold" out of continuity for a number of good reasons, but it's stupid to somehow claim that the episode was never made.


Turn off the pedantry, dude. It gets pretty annoying after a while.You mean like how it's annoying when people insist things that are in obvious contradiction to actual fact?

LordRahl6
2012-07-23, 01:03 PM
Remember that dinosaur movie where these kid dinosaurs went on a quest to find a place with food?
I'm glad they never made any more of those.
It's also too bad they couldn't make a Blues Brothers sequel, what with John Belushi dead.

I remember that Movie, the sequels to it came out YEARS later. I was like five or six whem it came out, and the sequels were made like ten to twelve years later. To me its an example of any movie that goes direct to video (now DVD) shouldn't have been made in the first place.:smallsigh:

JetThomasBoat
2012-07-23, 01:07 PM
Come on people, this kind of "I'm pretending these films don't exist!" is nonsensical and annoying. If you don't like them, you can say so, you can even say you don't consider them to have happened in-universe if you hate them that much, but whining about how they don't exist just makes you look like the kid who puts his hands in his ears and screams "LALALALALALALA!" or people who insist the world is flat. The question was about sequels that shouldn't be--in other words, ones that you do exist but you think shouldn't--not "sequels that exist but for some reason I'm arbitrarily declaring they don't exist and making myself look stupid while doing so."

Well, here's one that doesn't actually exist. Rules in the OP saying that we can't express our dislikes of certain sequels in such a way. So while we may look stupid saying these things, at least we're serving the purpose of the thread. You obviously get what we're intending and I imagine everyone else reading it does, too, so I would say we are answering the question in our own fashion, unlike you, who only posted to whine about it.

Man on Fire
2012-07-23, 01:14 PM
What's so bad about Tehanu? I don't remember anything like that.

Haven't read it yet, I just wrote down many sequels I know many people don't liked and common reasons they give why.

You know what I don't get? Men in Black 3 bringing up time travel. Because the setting wasn't rich enough to make hundreds of stories, right?

generousmoblin
2012-07-23, 01:45 PM
I think the argument against Tehanu was that some people felt it was UKlG tacking on feminism onto the end of the Earthsea series.

She wrote it decades later than the rest of the books, which might be the feeling of disconnection between this book and the original ones.

Personally I like it, and feel it balances the rest of the tales well. It's much darker than everything else, and was kind of frightening when I read it as a young teen.

LordRahl6
2012-07-23, 01:56 PM
About Earthsea and Ursula Leguin remember that she multiple series/novels that she is writing besides those in Earthsea. Also Tehanu is not the last Earthsea book that I am aware of as there is one after it that is disconnected from the rest called The Other Wind. Finally remember all sequels, good or otherwise, are written ultimately to make Money. This is especially true of direct to DVD movies.:smallfrown:

Mr.Silver
2012-07-23, 01:57 PM
Terminator 3
(Salvation to a lesser extent, but the damage was pretty much already done by that point)

Alien 3+ 4
(and pretty much the entire Aliens Versus Predator film franchise, which should really have never moved out of videogames).

Cars 2

Men in Black 2 and 3.

Spy Kids 3 and 4
(unofficially subtitled: 'Robert Rodriguez has not even seen a videogame since 1985' and 'Please, please stop!')

Tehanu
(and probably The Other Wind, but mostly Tehanu)

Foundation's Edge and Foundation and Earth.
(Not terrible, but just really unnecessary)

All the Ice Age sequels
(the second I could conceivably have given a pass on, inferior though it is to the original. The 3rd and 4th are just pure cash-grabs and it's really quite saddening to see how far the series has fallen since the original)

Shrek 3 (and 4)
(Shrek 3 would be terrible even if it wasn't following 2 films which were actually fairly good. Shrek 4 was not as utterly appalling as 3, but that's really the only good thing that can be said about it)

X-men 3
(Pretty much the 'worst case' example of what happens when a series loses it's Director-producer and main screenwriter. The Wolverine spin-off can also be thrown in here too.)


I may add more later.


What's so bad about Tehanu? I don't remember anything like that.
The thing about A Wizard of Earthsea is that, prior to Tehanu, it had effectively ended. The Farthest Shore was pretty much the final note. Sparrowhawk's story was done, and it remained so for nearly 20 years. Then Le Guin went back to it. To tell a very different story. With her previously established characters.

The results aren't good, given that most of the novel is given over to forcing her old characters (many of whom are no longer consistent with their previous depictions) into a story there really don't much seem to fit into. Specifically, a story that tries to be about 'the ordinary folk' and gender politics, neither of which are bad subjects to write a book about but which are not themes that the established characters lend themselves towards. The best example of this is Sparrowhawk himself, who spends basically the entire novel doing basically nothing because there's very little for him to do and precious little he could actually accomplish even if there was.
That's really the fundamental problem with Tehanu: it's unnecessary and very little really happens in it. Which is a problem when the book was originally* subtitled 'The Last Book of Earthsea'.


*It was dropped because 11 years later we got The Other Wind, which is another discussion in and of itself.



Finally remember all sequels, good or otherwise, are written ultimately to make Money.
This is not actually true of all sequels. At least, no more so than any work is produced to make money.

JetThomasBoat
2012-07-23, 02:19 PM
Another one for me is that I had high hopes going into the first Pirates of the Caribbean and the first one was pretty good or whatever, but I was a little turned off when in the second one, they were like "Well, we need to up the ante from an undead pirate guy. Squid man? Yeah, that'd be good" and by the time they were rolling around in the wheel from the mill, I was ready to walk out of the theater.

LordRahl6
2012-07-23, 02:21 PM
There is one thing Worse in Foundation category than the Foundation's Edge and Foundation and Earth. That is all the Psychohistorical novels that are written by different authors after Asimov's death, and allowed by his Estate.:smalleek:

One, known as Psychohistorical Crisis, is so convoluted its almost impossible to understand what's happening in the book.

Sipex
2012-07-23, 03:15 PM
To me, a movie (or game) really REALLY has to stink in order for me to consider it for this thread.

Disney is pretty good at this formula, Hunchback of Notre Dame 2, The Lion King 2 and Aladdin 2 are striking examples of sequels that never (ever) should have been made. (Oddly enough, The third installments for The Lion King and Aladdin are good)

Joel Schumacher's batman movies should probably be included in this list as well, although I'd at least put Batman Forever at 'passable, but only barely'.

The Journey to the Center of the Earth 2 (the recent reboot with Dwayne Johnson) should never have been made. The first one was barely watchable as it was, it didn't do well enough to justify a sequel.

Pokonic
2012-07-23, 03:25 PM
Another one for me is that I had high hopes going into the first Pirates of the Caribbean and the first one was pretty good or whatever, but I was a little turned off when in the second one, they were like "Well, we need to up the ante from an undead pirate guy. Squid man? Yeah, that'd be good" and by the time they were rolling around in the wheel from the mill, I was ready to walk out of the theater.

Well, the second one was where they said "Hey, no one actualy cares about Will, and most people liked the funny parts of the first movie. Why not?"
I actualy liked the second one better than the first, because Jonesy was, to be frank, a more attention-grabbing foe then the undead pirates in the first.
The third movie was okay, but the fourth? Passable.

Xondoure
2012-07-23, 04:10 PM
Well, the second one was where they said "Hey, no one actualy cares about Will, and most people liked the funny parts of the first movie. Why not?"
I actualy liked the second one better than the first, because Jonesy was, to be frank, a more attention-grabbing foe then the undead pirates in the first.
The third movie was okay, but the fourth? Passable.

In my opinion the first is brilliant, the second just set up with little pay off, and the third good because it pays off, while not as good as the original. The fourth was enjoyable, but had lost something along the way.

McStabbington
2012-07-23, 04:40 PM
Weirdly enough, the first movie that came to my mind when I saw this thread hasn't been mentioned yet: The Descent 2. I refuse to spoil the original for those who haven't seen it yet, but I will offer this glowing recommendation: The Descent is, at its least and slightest, the 2nd best horror film of the last two decades. The only horror movie that might beat it in terms of quality is "Let the Right One In". And it earns that pedigree not simply by being an outstanding horror film, but also an outstanding character study of the disintegrating friendship between two young women.

The sequel not only fails to maintain the ratcheted tension of the original, but also reintroduces us to both young women and reboots their friendship. Thereby rendering all the characterization and development over the course of the story meaningless and water under the bridge. Which completely bites.

Tiki Snakes
2012-07-23, 04:46 PM
Weirdly enough, the first movie that came to my mind when I saw this thread hasn't been mentioned yet: The Descent 2. I refuse to spoil the original for those who haven't seen it yet, but I will offer this glowing recommendation: The Descent is, at its least and slightest, the 2nd best horror film of the last two decades. The only horror movie that might beat it in terms of quality is "Let the Right One In". And it earns that pedigree not simply by being an outstanding horror film, but also an outstanding character study of the disintegrating friendship between two young women.

The sequel not only fails to maintain the ratcheted tension of the original, but also reintroduces us to both young women and reboots their friendship. Thereby rendering all the characterization and development over the course of the story meaningless and water under the bridge. Which completely bites.

And gets worse from there.
I can only agree.

BiblioRook
2012-07-23, 04:52 PM
http://www.gingersbread.com/comics/2012-07-05-354.png

Leecros
2012-07-23, 06:46 PM
The fourth was enjoyable, but had lost something along the way.

the half-assed "Romance" story that they just kind of shoved in there until they made it fit didn't really help.

I couldn't help but feel that the only reason the whole preacher/mermaid "love" story in there was to say that they had one. Pirates of the Caribbean is a film about pirates. Bring me my rum, Action/Humor, and surly wenches any day over that silly side plot.

GolemsVoice
2012-07-24, 12:09 AM
Rambo!
The first was an action movie for sure, but it made some sense, and Rambo had some personality. While the story wasn't a nobel prize candidate, it was also not bad.

The second? Let's just say we didn't even bother with the third and fourth.

Man on Fire
2012-07-24, 04:46 AM
Another one for me is that I had high hopes going into the first Pirates of the Caribbean and the first one was pretty good or whatever, but I was a little turned off when in the second one, they were like "Well, we need to up the ante from an undead pirate guy. Squid man? Yeah, that'd be good" and by the time they were rolling around in the wheel from the mill, I was ready to walk out of the theater.

I have a friend for whom the problem was that they did one plot dragged out through two movies, instead of making a series of standalones about Jack's wacky adventures. He didn't liked fourth movie but was softer for it than second and third.


There is one thing Worse in Foundation category than the Foundation's Edge and Foundation and Earth. That is all the Psychohistorical novels that are written by different authors after Asimov's death, and allowed by his Estate.:smalleek:

One, known as Psychohistorical Crisis, is so convoluted its almost impossible to understand what's happening in the book.

Oh, this is always a problem. Even for people who like second half of Book Of Amber (Merlin books), like me, cannot speak of prequels written by completely different guy. Hell, even Zelazny's friends, like George R. R. Martin and Neil Gaiman, are quite vocal about their existence Martin even said Zelazny told him pretty straight that Amber is his and he doesn't want anyone else to write about it. Same with Dune prequels, through there the problem is also that they have many plot holes.

Omergideon
2012-07-24, 06:01 AM
I actually quite liked the concept of Foundation's Edge and Foundation and Earth. Especially as they contributed to the writing of Prelude to Foundation and fleshed out the later history of Daneel Olivaw. In short they may have been unnecessary but honestly I really enjoyed almost every aspect of the stories that was presented. The Venabilli/Seldon relationship was especially good in fleshing out Seldon as well. Then again they were the inspiration for my current RPG I am GM'ing

Though I dislike the fact that the novels imply that Gaia would win in the end. This is not fun.


As for genuine sequels, every Direct to DVD Disney sequel, with a partial exception for the Return of Jaffar. They range from the barely tolerable to the outright insipid.

And the erasure of closure from a happy ending in sequels is also a massive Pet Peeve of mine. It is the same with many ongoing series as they cannot seem to allow any happy ending they produce to stick around. Tis a shame.

Hopeless
2012-07-24, 06:16 AM
So why hasn't anyone mentioned the Phantom Menace?

I understand if that movie was never made and the next two were it would have been much better... well then there was the alteration of the original trilogy...:smallconfused:

TheWombatOfDoom
2012-07-24, 06:23 AM
Most likely because it's a prequel. :smallwink:

Tengu_temp
2012-07-24, 06:31 AM
I kinda agree with Lord Seth here. It's okay to say "X is an awful sequel, I wish it never happened" or "as far as my personal canon is concerned, X is not canonical". But saying that X doesn't exist? You're not fooling anyone, and it's not witty.


What's so bad about Tehanu? I don't remember anything like that.

Too many "women are awesome, men suck and/or are evil" themes in it, though nowhere near as bad as further Earthsea stories Le Guin wrote. And that aside, it's just a dry, boring book to read, with very little of the wonder and charm of the original trilogy.

Raimun
2012-07-24, 06:52 AM
Only the very first Robocop was good. The sequel was too grimdarkdrugs. The sequel to that was too PG-13. I don't even want to watch/read anything else Robocop-related.

But the first Robocop? Pure genius.

Dienekes
2012-07-24, 07:20 AM
I kinda agree with Lord Seth here. It's okay to say "X is an awful sequel, I wish it never happened" or "as far as my personal canon is concerned, X is not canonical". But saying that X doesn't exist? You're not fooling anyone, and it's not witty.

Ehh, it's not hurting anything, and everyone reading understands what they mean. Not seeing much point in knocking it. For instance, I've been called a pony about half a dozen times on this board, despite the fact I am human, it's not clever, and I do not like the show it's referencing. But why put a stink about it? If they want to express themselves in that way, let them.

Anyway to the OP:

The Godfather Part III
Batman and Robin, Superman III, IV, and Returns.
Star Trek V
Conan the Destroyer

Hopeless
2012-07-24, 07:42 AM
Most likely because it's a prequel. :smallwink:

And yet I wonder how many would have suggested it under the heading of "Should not be":smallwink:

Hopeless
2012-07-24, 07:45 AM
Ehh, it's not hurting anything, and everyone reading understands what they mean. Not seeing much point in knocking it. For instance, I've been called a pony about half a dozen times on this board, despite the fact I am human, it's not clever, and I do not like the show it's referencing. But why put a stink about it? If they want to express themselves in that way, let them.

Anyway to the OP:

The Godfather Part III
Batman and Robin, Superman III, IV, and Returns.
Star Trek V
Conan the Destroyer

Conan the Destroyer hardly deserves that response you try watching Prometheus and wonder whether they considered making a sequel after that!:smalleek:

Man on Fire
2012-07-24, 07:46 AM
Only the very first Robocop was good. The sequel was too grimdarkdrugs. The sequel to that was too PG-13. I don't even want to watch/read anything else Robocop-related.

But the first Robocop? Pure genius.

Live-Action TV series was decent.

Thialfi
2012-07-24, 07:55 AM
I kinda agree with Lord Seth here. It's okay to say "X is an awful sequel, I wish it never happened" or "as far as my personal canon is concerned, X is not canonical". But saying that X doesn't exist? You're not fooling anyone, and it's not witty.



Too many "women are awesome, men suck and/or are evil" themes in it, though nowhere near as bad as further Earthsea stories Le Guin wrote. And that aside, it's just a dry, boring book to read, with very little of the wonder and charm of the original trilogy.


When something has offended you to such a great degree, there is a desire to do more than just call it a bad movie. Saying Highlander 2 or Alien 3 were some of the worst movies ever made and their creators are incompetent buffoons that deserve to be flogged just doesn't go far enough. Now, a movie that is so bad that your subconscious has blocked your memory of it to prevent lasting trauma, there is a statement of pure disgust.

Your telling the creators that their efforts were so pathetic that their garbage isn't even worthy of a place in your memory. Every moment spent considering their filth is a moment wasted. Mankind would be far better off if everything related to their efforts was destroyed and permanently erased from our culture.

The Troubadour
2012-07-24, 07:59 AM
Eh, some of the sequels you guys have mentioned aren't bad - and they're certainly nowhere near Highlander 2 level of suckitude. For instance, The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull may not be as good as Raiders of the Lost Ark or The Last Crusade, but it IS good - I'd rate it as better than Temple of Doom, myself.

Likewise for Blues Brothers 2000. It doesn't have John Belushi or the charm and overall quality of the original, but it's not so bad so as to be erased from existence. At the very least, it's enjoyable.

In general, though, I think any sequel that doesn't add anything new to the genre/mythos/story/characters/etc. is one that shouldn't be made. So yes, while I enjoyed Blues Brothers 2000, I don't believe there was any point in making it.

TheTick
2012-07-24, 08:02 AM
I enjoyed Blues Brothers 2000 for the music at the very least. One of the very few movies I own the soundtrack for. Despicable Me and O Brother Where Art Thou being the others.

TheWombatOfDoom
2012-07-24, 08:08 AM
And yet I wonder how many would have suggested it under the heading of "Should not be":smallwink:

Indeed. Although I'm one to say that that one (aside from jar jar) is the best of the prequels because it doesn't have Hayden Christiansen and Natalie Portman's unconvincing chemistry, which was central to plot. Plus Phantom had Maul and Quigon.

Oh Starwars. Poop on my childhood. Oh wait, for many the prequels ARE their childhood...

On behalf of existance, I am sorry.

The Succubus
2012-07-24, 08:26 AM
I'm going to go with a book series that should not have been - Kevin J Anderson's take on the Dune universe. Mediocre to start with and increasingly terrible.

....I liked the Matrix sequels and Animatrix.....

Tengu_temp
2012-07-24, 08:31 AM
When something has offended you to such a great degree, there is a desire to do more than just call it a bad movie. Saying Highlander 2 or Alien 3 were some of the worst movies ever made and their creators are incompetent buffoons that deserve to be flogged just doesn't go far enough. Now, a movie that is so bad that your subconscious has blocked your memory of it to prevent lasting trauma, there is a statement of pure disgust.

Your telling the creators that their efforts were so pathetic that their garbage isn't even worthy of a place in your memory. Every moment spent considering their filth is a moment wasted. Mankind would be far better off if everything related to their efforts was destroyed and permanently erased from our culture.

Honestly, it doesn't sound like that to me. To me, it's usually more like rocking a crying baby in your hands, whispering "shush, shush, it's okay, the movie that traumatized you doesn't really exist". Only you're both yourself and the baby.
Or maybe it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth after TV Tropes abused Discontinuity (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FanonDiscontinuity) too much. I dare you not to be annoyed after reading some of the examples here.

PS. Alien 3 wasn't too bad. Alien Resurrection, on the other hand...

Nerd-o-rama
2012-07-24, 08:36 AM
In this thread, Tengu comes down on the no-fun side. I think I'll declare this thread non-canonical, which is different from facetiously ignoring its existence somehow.

Also was the old one too old to bump, I guess?

Man on Fire
2012-07-24, 08:52 AM
There was an old thread like this?

Also, I think that prequels are fine, bad prequels suffer the same problems as bad sequels.

Scowling Dragon
2012-07-24, 08:54 AM
People are just having a giraffe Tengu!

Its just for the giggles.:smalltongue:

Tengu_temp
2012-07-24, 09:22 AM
In this thread, Tengu comes down on the no-fun side.

I'm the bad guy from a children's cartoon in the vein of Care Bears. I'm the old man who looks at people celebrating at the street, goes "bah humbug!" and closes the window. No-fun is what I have in my veins instead of blood. You know that.

By the way, remember Martian Successor Nadesico: Prince of Darkness? I sure do! And I wish I haven't.

Also, I not only own Master of Orion 3, but actually received it as a birthday gift.

Mr.Silver
2012-07-24, 09:24 AM
In general, though, I think any sequel that doesn't add anything new to the genre/mythos/story/characters/etc. is one that shouldn't be made.
So then why are you taking issue with other people applying that exact same line of reasoning in their suggestions :smallconfused:

GolemsVoice
2012-07-24, 11:47 AM
Eh, some of the sequels you guys have mentioned aren't bad - and they're certainly nowhere near Highlander 2 level of suckitude. For instance, The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull may not be as good as Raiders of the Lost Ark or The Last Crusade, but it IS good - I'd rate it as better than Temple of Doom, myself.

I actually didn't find it so bad, either, and I would rate it above ToD, too. Sure it had it's silly parts, but all things considered, Indiana Jones is silly. Travelling to Berlin, meeting Hitler, getting the book with the map to the GRAIL signed by him, all without speaking a single word of German, anyone?

BiblioRook
2012-07-24, 02:07 PM
By the way, remember Martian Successor Nadesico: Prince of Darkness? I sure do! And I wish I haven't.

"I can never cook ramen again!!"
So much angst.

Kris Strife
2012-07-24, 02:18 PM
Does the American version of Godzilla count?

Calemyr
2012-07-24, 02:21 PM
Also, I not only own Master of Orion 3, but actually received it as a birthday gift.

Oh, there's one that brings a tear to my eye. MoO 3, the only let-down to rival ME3 (the original ending only, love the game itself) in my book.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-07-24, 02:25 PM
Also, I not only own Master of Orion 3, but actually received it as a birthday gift.

Which would neatly explain the rest of your post.

LordRahl6
2012-07-24, 02:26 PM
I'm going to go with a book series that should not have been - Kevin J Anderson's take on the Dune universe. Mediocre to start with and increasingly terrible.


I'm not going to lie to you, and say that it was like the original six by Frank Herbert, but in my mind at least it was more readable for me. That is most likely acountable for the different periods they were written in. I know there was contention on whether Hunters and Sandworms should have been published, and instead only the outline published. However, while I'll admit that certain things like Ominius as evermind in Legends of Dune Prequel trilogy was his and Brian's idea, there is a lot that Frank himself most likely developed.

For example:That Norma Cenva was the real brains behind the Holtzmann engines (which Leto II tells his current Duncan-Ghola or other underlings in God Emperor) as well as the Oracle of Time was most likely Frank's conception.

Hopeless
2012-07-24, 02:31 PM
Does the American version of Godzilla count?

Only if you ignore the ending.

I actually liked that movie, just not the end since I'm more used to Godzilla surviving which is why there should be sequels, the American version was just their way of saying they'd do a better job of fighting Gojira when everyone knows all they proved was their military could only hit a 50' tall reptile whilst it was physically bound by a bridge across the water... not that impressive when you recall the Tokyo based movies had them adapt when it became obvious they couldn't rely on something like working for the simple fact a reptile that could burrow through the wall surrounding Manhatten from beneath the water isn't going to have problems with those cables...

I still say had they made that clear Matthew broderick would have still escaped since there was all those conveniently armed soldiers and the like to distract it momentarily so they could get out of sight and have a shower... of course making sure they were nowhere within sight or scent og the taxi they were driving would help too!

Now imagine a sequel where Gojira goes on a road trip through the US and the USA are hunting Matthew Broderick so they can use him to draw it to the middle of the desert and a convenient site for a multiple nuclear detonation...

Would be interesting if another kaju appeared and the French "encourage" Broderick to lure Gojira toward the new monster...

Now THAT is a worthy sequel!

Ravens_cry
2012-07-24, 02:44 PM
....I liked the Matrix sequels and Animatrix.....
Animatrux had many good moments.
I don't really count it as a sequel in and of itself.
It's like the equivalent of an anthology of short stories set in the same universe as the original novel.

Omergideon
2012-07-24, 03:10 PM
The American Godzilla movie, if a sequel, did lead to an extremely good animated television spin off. So I forgive it much. Not the pregnant Godzilla thing, but much of the movie. And the Ending. I forgive it for the series

Man on Fire
2012-07-24, 03:20 PM
American Godzilla has worthy much better sequel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b2CtgkwJQA).

Tiki Snakes
2012-07-24, 03:31 PM
Conan the Destroyer hardly deserves that response you try watching Prometheus and wonder whether they considered making a sequel after that!:smalleek:

I think I'm going to have to agree that Conan The Destroyer really was that bad.

SaintRidley
2012-07-24, 03:53 PM
Also, I not only own Master of Orion 3, but actually received it as a birthday gift.


Own is in present tense so all I need say here is that I weep for your soul. So many menus.

Mr.Silver
2012-07-24, 04:02 PM
American Godzilla has worthy much better sequel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b2CtgkwJQA).
Good lord, someone else actually remembers that.

mangosta71
2012-07-24, 04:51 PM
It's kinda weird that after Ridley Scott's triumphant masterpiece and James Cameron's epic sequel, they just stopped making Alien movies. You would have thought that franchise would have been set up to continue for years to come.
It's odd (to me, at least) to see a first installment of a franchise and its sequel belong to different genres. Alien was a survival horror movie (one of the best such ever made), while Aliens was an action movie with horror elements (still a lot of fun). I don't recall enough from 3 or Resurrection to comment on those - I only ever saw each of them once, because they weren't good enough to keep seeing over and over, so I'm probably mixing bits of them together in my mind.

The Predator franchise did something similar - the first was survival horror, the second was action horror. But this time, the second movie was awful while the first was fairly entertaining. Had the creature been killing at random or as opportunity presented itself instead of focusing on criminals, the movie would have been more horrific. As it was, I couldn't help but wonder why they didn't just let it runs its course and purge the city before they went after it. I was rooting for the horrible alien, and I'm pretty sure that that's not what the production team was going for.

The Star Wars prequels were a good idea poorly executed. Anakin's story couldshould have been an epic tragedy.

hamishspence
2012-07-24, 04:56 PM
The Star Wars prequels were a good idea poorly executed. Anakin's story couldshould have been an epic tragedy.Might be the limitations of the movie format. The RoTS novel always felt more convincing, to me, than the film.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-07-24, 05:15 PM
Might be the limitations of the movie format. The RoTS novel always felt more convincing, to me, than the film.

Probably the limitations of having a bad director that no one can say no too. The first Star Wars movies were good because a) they were camp and not Serious Business Guaranteed Blockbuster, b) several of the actors knew how to just act in spite of George Lucas, and c) he didn't direct Empire or Jedi anyway.

Contrast the prequels where George Lucas directed all three, had actors who, while talented, are easily bossed around, and had people throwing infinite amounts of money at him to do whatever he wanted because they knew that between the nerds and the merchandise they'd make back a mint.

In a ghost-written book, absolutely none of that is a factor. Other than the fact that you're making free money.


On another note, I liked Predator 2. I'd also argue with Predator not being action-horror but in a survival-horror setting. It's the home of the man-portable minigun, "I ain't got time to bleed", and "Get to da choppa!", after all.

Man on Fire
2012-07-24, 05:51 PM
Predator 2 has one advantage over the first movie - with Schwarzenegger you jsut knew he's going to live through, with Danny Glover it's not so obvious.

Velaryon
2012-07-24, 07:18 PM
Terminator 3
(Salvation to a lesser extent, but the damage was pretty much already done by that point)

Men in Black 2 and 3.

X-men 3
(Pretty much the 'worst case' example of what happens when a series loses it's Director-producer and main screenwriter. The Wolverine spin-off can also be thrown in here too.)

I agree with these (I might agree with some of the others you posted but I haven't seen many of them). Terminator 3 undid the great ending to 2 and failed to make up for it by being a good movie. I choose to excise it from my personal canon. Salvation was pretty unmemorable, so I don't really care one way or the other about it.

Men in Black did not really leave much room for a sequel, and again they had to undo the ending of the first film in order to make it possible. This is something that in general should not be done, IMO.

As for X-Men 3... honestly the first two movies weren't that great either, but they look like absolute classics compared to the garbage heap that is part 3. The ONLY redeeming feature of this film is Juggernaut's funny line.



the half-assed "Romance" story that they just kind of shoved in there until they made it fit didn't really help.

I couldn't help but feel that the only reason the whole preacher/mermaid "love" story in there was to say that they had one. Pirates of the Caribbean is a film about pirates. Bring me my rum, Action/Humor, and surly wenches any day over that silly side plot.

I agree that it felt forced, and I never felt like we had much reason to care about either of the characters. The thing is, I think the movie needed something more, because Jack Sparrow is fun to watch and all but doesn't really move the plot. Will and Elizabeth's story arc in the previous films kept things moving while Jack just got to be Jack and keep everyone entertained. Once you remove them from the equation, somebody needs to pick up the slack.



Batman and Robin, Superman III, IV, and Returns.
Star Trek V

I don't think Superman 4 was anywhere near as bad as 3, but it still wasn't good. And Superman 3 absolutely should NOT have been made. Never saw Returns but I haven't heard anything good about it so I don't feel compelled to waste my time.

Star Trek V was pretty awful, but I'd still rank it above Insurrection and Nemesis. I could have done without either of those.

LordRahl6
2012-07-25, 10:01 AM
The problem with Star Trek V was the director, Nuff said.:smallsigh: If you want to know who that is look up Scene Stealing Jerk:smallamused:.

Zelkon
2012-07-25, 10:36 AM
I just hate the whole Earthsea series.
Pirates 4 was the second best one.

Sith_Happens
2012-07-25, 04:17 PM
Not a sequel, but...

As awesome and amazingly popular as Avatar: The Last Airbender was, you'd think they would have made it into a movie by now. Alas, I guess I shall be left only to dream.

Why yes, Lord_Seth and Tengu, I am making that joke. Because it's just that, a joke. J-O-K-E, joke. Deal with it.

The Troubadour
2012-07-26, 07:06 AM
So then why are you taking issue with other people applying that exact same line of reasoning in their suggestions :smallconfused:

I'm not. :-) In terms of bringing new things to the series, Crystal Skull has just as much value as the other three. Now, people might not like the movie, sure; but I think it's fun, and I can't really understand why people dislike it so much.

Now, Blues Brothers 2000... I thought it was a fun movie. Certainly, not one worth erasing from existence like, say, Highlander 2. But it's undeniable that there really wasn't anything new for the brothers to say, even if it had John Belushi - it's not like the music or the artists needed the exposure, after all.

So... Yeah, I'm being a bit contradictory, I'll admit. :-) I guess even the most unnecessary sequel can still be judged solely on whether it's a fun movie. Like Predator 2, which I think was even better than the first one.


Travelling to Berlin, meeting Hitler, getting the book with the map to the GRAIL signed by him, all without speaking a single word of German, anyone?

Or somehow sticking to the side of a submarine for hours and hours and not drowning or dying from hypothermia? :-)

Moak
2012-07-26, 08:21 AM
I'm not. :-) In terms of bringing new things to the series, Crystal Skull has just as much value as the other three. Now, people might not like the movie, sure; but I think it's fun, and I can't really understand why people dislike it so much.



Finally I find someone that shares my view on this movie.

If we can shut out Avatar:tLA movie (which I liked, probably because I don't know jack about the original Avatar, to the point I wanted the sequel to know how the story goes on), I toss my coin for the Eragon movie.

Expecially in the Italian adaptation, where the dragon voice is SO awful...that you don't want her to speak.

Also, "La casa 3" and all that "unofficial sequel" history. I... simply don't like it. Why on hearth they did these.

And.... my "beloved" Scream 3. Everyone, against a serial killer, survive being hitten by the HILT of a knife. Scream 2... already started to bore me. From 3 onward, they make the masked face crumble to dust.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-07-26, 08:41 AM
If we can shut out Avatar:tLA movie (which I liked, probably because I don't know jack about the original Avatar, to the point I wanted the sequel to know how the story goes on)

Alright. I want you to imagine the movie, but with characters that actually have personalities and development arcs, fight choreography that is even remotely exciting, and a consistent world setting that actually takes into account things benders can do rather than just retreading its original source with no thought to consistency (Earthbender concentration camp...in the middle of just...normal land? How did they think that was going to work out?)

Oh, and Aang has angst that makes sense instead of pulling a nonsensical motivation out of nowhere.

Also, while I can't say there is less focus on Zuko and Iroh (nor should there be, they're awesome), it doesn't overwhelm the story when it's more than two hours long, and the protagonists manage to be about equally awesome.


As for how the story goes...well, season 2 was the best part of the show and it would take too long to summarize. It does introduce the best hero and the best villain in the whole show, though.

TheTick
2012-07-26, 08:52 AM
I garnered some small bit of enjoyment from Shymalan's The Last Airbender, but having seen the entire run of the cartoon since then, I can see and agree with many of the reasons why people didn't like it. There ARE things that some of the fanboys wanted that wouldn't translate well to the big screen, and things HAD to be cut to make a season into a movie, but it really was poorly done. And I'd LOVE to see some of book 2's stuff on the big screen.

dps
2012-07-26, 12:23 PM
I kinda agree with Lord Seth here. It's okay to say "X is an awful sequel, I wish it never happened" or "as far as my personal canon is concerned, X is not canonical". But saying that X doesn't exist? You're not fooling anyone, and it's not witty.


The first time someone made a comment along the lines of, "Why did they never make a 3rd Aliens movie" it was actually pretty witty. Somewhere around the 10 millionth time the comment was made, it had crossed over to unfunny and downright tiresome.


It's odd (to me, at least) to see a first installment of a franchise and its sequel belong to different genres. Alien was a survival horror movie (one of the best such ever made), while Aliens was an action movie with horror elements (still a lot of fun). I don't recall enough from 3 or Resurrection to comment on those - I only ever saw each of them once, because they weren't good enough to keep seeing over and over, so I'm probably mixing bits of them together in my mind.

The 3rd one was a bad prison movie with a xenomorph tacked on. Resurrection was, well, whereas the original was a horror film in space, Resurrection was a SF film with horror and action elements. It was probably more of a "hard" SF work than any of the others, keeping in mind that the hardness of a SF work isn't a measure of its quality.

Tiki Snakes
2012-07-26, 12:28 PM
I can't help but forgive Ressurection. It's got touches of french oddness in there, but mostly I feel it's as good a movie as we could expect without retconning the third film, given the wrecking job 3 did to the franchise. (Killing off basically everything, everyone and all possible links as thoroughly as possible, some of them even before the start of the film, retconning 2 significantly and generally rehashing the first film rather than going forward and adding anything meaningful).

Man on Fire
2012-08-07, 09:03 AM
I could mention it in "What Breaks Your Suspension Of Disbelief" thread, but my friend hates Legend of Korra - he couldn't get behind the premise and refused to watch it and once my other friend wanted to complain to us about the ending she told him just one thing and he exploded in rage.

To elaborate his two issues with the how:

* First, the reason why he refused to watch the show what what he found to be unnecessary and stupid change in the setting. He just couldn't belive that during the hundred years long war there was no technological progress but during less than one generation they managed to jump from XIX-century-esque steampunk to the equivalent of prohibtion era.

* Second, he didn't liked
Making Spirit Bending a plot point. He had found it to be stupid Deus Ex Machina and couldn't stand making it of any importance in the sequel.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-08-07, 10:04 AM
I really want to see his opinion on where the real world went between 1850 and 1920, technology-wise, since that's just about the exact jump that happened in the show (roughly, steamships and airships to mass-produced automobiles and radio). And I don't see where he's coming up with technology being static during the hundred-year war period. What makes him think all the crazy steampunk stuff the Fire Nation pulled out wasn't stuff developed over the course of the war? Especially since most of what we see is weapons technology (tanks, steamships, watercraft, zeppelins which were obviously just invented in the last year of the war, etc.)

Give seventy years of peace to spread the technology and wealth around and there's no reason why we shouldn't see the exact same Industrial Revolution that we did in the second half of the real life nineteenth century.

No comment on the Spirit Bending, though.

Xondoure
2012-08-07, 10:16 AM
Legend of Korra Spoilers:

What's the alternative? Technological stagnation is a tired trope and one they already weren't using. The only way the progression level is different from our world is that you have people bending, and while I can believe that was enough for most of their history (just look at how many avatar's there have been, you'd expect the ones in the back to barely be wearing furs) once the tech ball get's rolling it's hard to stop barring societal collapse.

As for spirit bending, better they flesh it out than never talk about it again. Besides which, while the lion turtle is a deus ex, he's very well done within the concept (lion turtle meaning hand of god.) Of course I actually liked the final, thought that with the way chakra's worked being able to cut off bending makes sense, and didn't mind especially since "there is always a better way than murder" isn't a bad moral for a children's cartoon show. So I guess I lose the right to be a fan or something. :smalltongue:

nyjastul69
2012-08-07, 10:38 AM
I think that Rocky, Halloween, Friday the 13th and Jaws are all decent to excellent movies. None of the sequels to any of them are worth watching. I'll make an exception for Rocky III, maybe, it wasn't a terrible movie.

Aedilred
2012-08-07, 11:56 AM
I was a bit confused about how Rocky went from his huge mansion at the end of Rocky IV to living back in his old neighbourhood at the start of Rocky Balboa. Maybe they should make a linking movie to explain that?

(I actually think all the Rocky sequels, with one exception, are pretty good, for what they are.)

I'm also kind of surprised that they never made any sequels to Jurassic Park, considering how successful it was.

mangosta71
2012-08-07, 11:59 AM
If we consider Avatar:tLA to be a sequel of Futurama.... :smallbiggrin: Seriously, I can't see any of their powers written out without my mind going straight to the most awesome robot ever.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-08-07, 12:06 PM
I'm also kind of surprised that they never made any sequels to Jurassic Park, considering how successful it was.

I thought The Lost World was passable, albeit a far worse adaptation than the first film was (Jurassic Park, the film, changed a lot from the book, but it was generally somewhat positive. The changes in The Lost World, the film, just made no ****ing sense, but it was still an okay movie.)

Aedilred
2012-08-07, 01:13 PM
I get the impression that The Lost World was written largely to give the subsequent planned film release a bit more credibility. I've not read it; maybe I should. I didn't think the second film was terrible, although there were a couple of stupid bits, but I did think it was utterly forgettable and unnecessary.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-08-08, 08:36 AM
I get the impression that The Lost World was written largely to give the subsequent planned film release a bit more credibility. I've not read it; maybe I should. I didn't think the second film was terrible, although there were a couple of stupid bits, but I did think it was utterly forgettable and unnecessary.

That idea is possible (sci fi writers have done it before), but it doesn't explain all the plot and tone changes from the book to the film (primarily going from the already established villains at Biosyn to the...admittedly also already established villains at InGen), which I would put down primarily to the book being an excuse for a fairly mindless sequel movie, rather than actually getting adapted.

mangosta71
2012-08-08, 09:33 AM
The Lost World the book has nothing in common with The Lost World the movie aside from dinosaurs and a couple character names. Retconning Malcolm's death in the book version of Jurassic Park was bad enough - went back and reread it after reading The Lost World and was still sure he had died, even though it happened offscreen - but Hammond not only surviving Jurassic Park but having a significant role in The Lost World? At least he doesn't appear in the book - we saw him die in the book version of JP, but still. And since they were breeding the animals on Isla Nubar in JP, I can't figure out what the point of "Site B" was.

I'm fairly positive that all of the sequels to Jurassic Park, both book and movie versions, were simple cash grabs because people wanted to see more dinosaurs. You can tell, because the writing in TLW isn't even close to the standard Michael Crichton set when he did JP.

Man on Fire
2012-08-08, 10:26 AM
I really want to see his opinion on where the real world went between 1850 and 1920, technology-wise, since that's just about the exact jump that happened in the show (roughly, steamships and airships to mass-produced automobiles and radio). And I don't see where he's coming up with technology being static during the hundred-year war period. What makes him think all the crazy steampunk stuff the Fire Nation pulled out wasn't stuff developed over the course of the war? Especially since most of what we see is weapons technology (tanks, steamships, watercraft, zeppelins which were obviously just invented in the last year of the war, etc.)

Give seventy years of peace to spread the technology and wealth around and there's no reason why we shouldn't see the exact same Industrial Revolution that we did in the second half of the real life nineteenth century.


I'll ask him, but I have to say for myself that you really cannot compare technological jump made during seventy years in real world history, that was full of turmoils, conflicts, wars (including, among other things, Secession and World War One), mutinies, aassinations and many political and cultural events ad changes that all support technological progress, to seventy years of complete peace that was supposed to be the world of Avatar between TLA and LOK. More than that, there ain't even comparable number of countries - it's diffeent when you have loads of nations of different sizes, political power, traditions, histories and set on multiple continents, than having all of four nations.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-08-08, 10:55 AM
I'll ask him, but I have to say for myself that you really cannot compare technological jump made during seventy years in real world history, that was full of turmoils, conflicts, wars (including, among other things, Secession and World War One), mutinies, aassinations and many political and cultural events ad changes that all support technological progress, to seventy years of complete peace that was supposed to be the world of Avatar between TLA and LOK. More than that, there ain't even comparable number of countries - it's diffeent when you have loads of nations of different sizes, political power, traditions, histories and set on multiple continents, than having all of four nations.

The fact of the matter is that war doesn't actually drive technological progress any more than people having lots of disposable cash does. That's why, while a lot of technology was invented between 1935 and 1945, all of that raw technology progressed by unrecognizable leaps and bounds during the 1950's and again during the 1980's and 1990's. Things like the internal combustion engine, the assembly line, and radios honestly just take one person with a lot of time, knowledge, and backers and buyers with disposable capital, not the concerted effort of an entire country with something to prove or a war to win.

As for the number of countries, this isn't a game of Civilization where the more civs are on the map, the faster technology progresses thanks to everyone researching something different and trading it around (if they're not all rushing the same Wonder tech, I mean). States are a powerful force in terms of research, but they aren't the only one. We never see the whole world of Avatar, but we know it has Universities, private corporations, and tons of notable private citizens who can further research and technological development on their own - just as they did in the real world. Edison and Tesla and Marconi, all the creators and refiners of the Internal Combustion Engine, Ford Motor Co., the Wright Brothers...all of them were private people or organizations that didn't require a large number of competing state actors to motivate them or develop their technologies.

hamishspence
2012-08-09, 12:44 PM
And since they were breeding the animals on Isla Nubar in JP, I can't figure out what the point of "Site B" was.

I think the retcon in the book was that they weren't breeding them on Nublar- they were transporting the eggs to Nublar for the "showcase" but all the real work was done on Sorna.

The idea being that cloning is very unreliable- so you need a huge industrial operation.

mangosta71
2012-08-09, 02:13 PM
That invalidates Nedry's entire character. It was a crucial plot point that they had the embryos on Isla Nublar. If they weren't there, Nedry couldn't steal them, so wouldn't have any reason to shut down the system, which means the entire thing wouldn't have spiraled out of control. Making that change blows a huge hole in the story, unless the claim is that they were cloning the embryos on Nublar, shipping them to Sorna to be implanted in eggs, and then shipping them back to Nublar to hatch. But that's so convoluted as to be nonsensical.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-08-09, 02:18 PM
It's been a while, but my 11 year old mind, at least, assumed that Sorna was a testing ground of some kind. The main lab and the main "park" were on Nublar, but Sorna is where they did further cloning experiments and tested species out that didn't necessarily have a habitat ready for public display. Or something.

EDIT: Now I've just completely forgotten which island is which.

hamishspence
2012-08-09, 03:30 PM
That invalidates Nedry's entire character. It was a crucial plot point that they had the embryos on Isla Nublar. If they weren't there, Nedry couldn't steal them, so wouldn't have any reason to shut down the system, which means the entire thing wouldn't have spiraled out of control. Making that change blows a huge hole in the story, unless the claim is that they were cloning the embryos on Nublar, shipping them to Sorna to be implanted in eggs, and then shipping them back to Nublar to hatch. But that's so convoluted as to be nonsensical.

Or they just kept a few samples on Nublar for testing purposes.

The Lost World book characterised Sorna as the industrial facility and Nublar as the "public showpiece".

Kris Strife
2012-08-09, 05:29 PM
That invalidates Nedry's entire character. It was a crucial plot point that they had the embryos on Isla Nublar. If they weren't there, Nedry couldn't steal them, so wouldn't have any reason to shut down the system, which means the entire thing wouldn't have spiraled out of control. Making that change blows a huge hole in the story, unless the claim is that they were cloning the embryos on Nublar, shipping them to Sorna to be implanted in eggs, and then shipping them back to Nublar to hatch. But that's so convoluted as to be nonsensical.

Maybe the DNA was extracted from mosquitoes and the embryos created on Sorna (Not particularly interesting to watch), then shipped to Nublar for implantation and incubation (Somewhat better as a show). The dinosaurs on Sorna were test populations/back ups in case of some need, like the triceratops eating toxic plants would be taken somewhere else and new ones moved in from Sorna.

Or they could have had two separate sites for the processes, in case of an emergency at one, say power failure that causes the embryos/eggs at one site to die, they're not completely ruined.

smuchmuch
2012-08-10, 08:18 PM
Has 'Addams family 3' been mentioned already ?
(didn't saw it but might just have missed it)
because yeah, that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_HuHt8En3I), should have never existed

Gnoman
2012-08-10, 11:58 PM
Maybe the DNA was extracted from mosquitoes and the embryos created on Sorna (Not particularly interesting to watch), then shipped to Nublar for implantation and incubation (Somewhat better as a show). The dinosaurs on Sorna were test populations/back ups in case of some need, like the triceratops eating toxic plants would be taken somewhere else and new ones moved in from Sorna.

Or they could have had two separate sites for the processes, in case of an emergency at one, say power failure that causes the embryos/eggs at one site to die, they're not completely ruined.

The little lab that we see in JP is barely large enough to handle compys. There's a very logical explanation. The lab work was done on Site A, which included birthing live specimens to test for genetic abnormalities (that's why there's embryos and poisons availiable.) Once a viable version was obtained, Site B did the actual manufacturing and raising of the dinosaurs until they were ready to be released into the habitat.

Man on Fire
2012-08-16, 02:45 PM
I really want to see his opinion on where the real world went between 1850 and 1920, technology-wise, since that's just about the exact jump that happened in the show (roughly, steamships and airships to mass-produced automobiles and radio).

I asked him. He said "Sure not from middle ages to modern day". What you saw as move from XIX to XX century for him was more akin to jump from XIV to XX century.

[/quote]And I don't see where he's coming up with technology being static during the hundred-year war period. What makes him think all the crazy steampunk stuff the Fire Nation pulled out wasn't stuff developed over the course of the war? Especially since most of what we see is weapons technology (tanks, steamships, watercraft, zeppelins which were obviously just invented in the last year of the war, etc.)[/QUOTE]

He didn't found the idea that they almost completely didn't advanced or advanced very slowly for 100 years and then in one year invented steampunk tanks, airships and quite advanced naval fleet much better.

He also mentioned two more points for why he dislikes Legend of Korra.

* He liked the setting of original series and didn't understood why they decided to change it, for him it was unnecessary and gimmicky, fixing what hasn't been broken. And before you mention that the world should have changed before the coming of new Avatar and how cliche technological stasis is, see next point.
* He doesn't like the idea of Avatar. As he said, he belives the setting was so rich it could sustain many other stories about other characters, but another story about, to quote him, "omnipotent Avatar" just wasn't what he wanted to see.

nedz
2012-08-16, 06:07 PM
Its a pity that they never got to finish Plan 9 after the principle actor died.

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

The problem with most sequels is that you start with a work which has been written to leave the viewers wanting more. After this proves successful, which is always a lottery, a sequel is written; this delivers less than the original.

The ones which work are those which were written as a multiple part piece upfront (E.g. LoTR), or just use the first one as a setting and attempt something new (E.g. Alien/Aliens)

Don't get me started on the Dune Prequels.

pita
2012-08-16, 06:18 PM
They should've quit after The Dark Knight. They announced they would, because of Heath Ledgers' death. They weren't willing to recast the Joker (Nor should they have), and they weren't even willing to comment on the character's existence. The entire trilogy is tainted by the third movie's refusal to have anything to do with the main villain of the second movie, one who specifically survived for a sequel.
How's that for controversial?
I guess, playing it safe, that they really shouldn't be making a second Thor. Or a second Captain America. Just the Hollywood movie-factory working its magic...

Gnoman
2012-08-16, 07:06 PM
Umm, no they never said that. They said that they would not include the Joker out of respect. The sequel was already confirmed to not be Joker-centric before Ledger died.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-08-16, 07:08 PM
I asked him. He said "Sure not from middle ages to modern day". What you saw as move from XIX to XX century for him was more akin to jump from XIV to XX century.

Then he wasn't paying attention to, among other things, the fact that steam engines and modern iron-hulled ships were already common, which tells you a lot about the general tech level that the Fire Nation had, and which would be shared around, especially in the ex-Fire Nation colonies, after the war.

Fourteenth Century? Really? Did he watch the show? The only thing that was even close to that was personal weapons tech, which I think was that way just because gunpowder seems to have been overlooked by everyone. For that one, I blame the wuxia aesthetics and the fact that it's a kids' show.


He also mentioned two more points for why he dislikes Legend of Korra.

* He liked the setting of original series and didn't understood why they decided to change it, for him it was unnecessary and gimmicky, fixing what hasn't been broken. And before you mention that the world should have changed before the coming of new Avatar and how cliche technological stasis is, see next point.
* He doesn't like the idea of Avatar. As he said, he belives the setting was so rich it could sustain many other stories about other characters, but another story about, to quote him, "omnipotent Avatar" just wasn't what he wanted to see.

So basically, shows should not have sequels, only spinoffs. Is that what he's saying?

Man on Fire
2012-08-17, 04:12 PM
So basically, shows should not have sequels, only spinoffs. Is that what he's saying?

No, what he's saing is that Avatar shouldn't have a sequel, please, don't turn his opinion about one specific show into generalized opinion about everything, such generalisations and putting words in people's mouths are two pet peeves of mine.

Keldrin
2012-08-20, 10:18 PM
The Crow film franchise.

The comic had some sequels that were... odd, and some book adaptations, again some uneven entries, but people explored the concept of the need for revenge from beyond the grave, and coming back to enact it in strange/horrible ways. And how it might differ from person to person.

The movies though? They kept trying to catch lightning in a bottle and find another Brandon Lee.

And failed miserably every time.

Kitten Champion
2012-08-21, 02:12 AM
The movies which followed Jaws, both the continuation of the Jaws franchise and any like it. None improved upon the original in any way, and the shock factor was over.

For similar reasons, everything after Planet of the Apes (save the one that came out last year) were just needless fluff.

I was not fond of Bay's Transformers to begin with, but Revenge of the Fallen was just painful. I never got to third one.

Speed 2 suffers similar failings.

Batman and Robin felt like a Batman parody, and Batman Forever was heavy on the cheese as well.

I thought the original Saw was at least interesting, the subsequent films were far less endearing.

I think I liked two of the Superman films, and there were how many?

Watching Jurassic Park II and III was a mistake on my part, I never read reviews.

Mission impossible: Ghost Protocol was surprisingly disappointing.

As for books

Sword of Truth gets worse with each successive book.

Narnia, though that may be due to my maturity.

I was muddling through the Inheritance books, but I couldn't get past the second.

The Shannara series, though again, it's probably my tolerance than any dip in quality.

Rockphed
2012-08-21, 02:47 AM
Spy Kids 3 and 4
(unofficially subtitled: 'Robert Rodriguez has not even seen a videogame since 1985' and 'Please, please stop!')

Spy Kids was so horrible that I wanted to rip my eyes out to make the horror stop. It is intellectually degrading on every level.


Foundation's Edge and Foundation and Earth.
(Not terrible, but just really unnecessary)


Yeah, Asimov's attempt to link all his books together was depressing.

Winter_Wolf
2012-08-21, 02:53 AM
The Batman movie starring Kevlar Nipples. I don't even remember which one it was, but that really didn't need to be. Or any Batman movie between the first Micheal Keaton one and the first Christian Bale one. Having not seen the third Christian Bale one, I'm holding off judgment on whether they should have just stopped at two.

If Pirates of the Caribbean would have just skipped over the second and third movies, and gone straight to the fourth, in my book that would have made it a stronger series of movies overall. Will and Elizabeth should have either lived happily ever after, or died in the first one. I watched Pirates for crazy pirate action and Jack Sparrow (and to a slightly lesser extent Hector Barbossa), not for "twoo wuv."

Nerd-o-rama
2012-08-21, 07:42 AM
Narnia, though that may be due to my maturity.

No, honestly, the allegory had gotten pretty belabored and damn offensive by the last book. I still like the first six, though, for what they are (more entertaining Children's Bibles).

The Succubus
2012-08-21, 07:49 AM
The Batman movie starring Kevlar Nipples. I don't even remember which one it was, but that really didn't need to be. Or any Batman movie between the first Micheal Keaton one and the first Christian Bale one. Having not seen the third Christian Bale one, I'm holding off judgment on whether they should have just stopped at two.

If Pirates of the Caribbean would have just skipped over the second and third movies, and gone straight to the fourth, in my book that would have made it a stronger series of movies overall. Will and Elizabeth should have either lived happily ever after, or died in the first one. I watched Pirates for crazy pirate action and Jack Sparrow (and to a slightly lesser extent Hector Barbossa), not for "twoo wuv."

I'm afraid you do the rather excellent Batman Returns a great disservice. I do agree that the Batmen after that were lacking until Christopher Nolan shoved a mains cable into the franchise but Danny De Vito was a terrific and oddly touching Penguin and the Catwoman was easily the equal of Anne Hathaway's.

As for Pirates of the Carribean, I confess I rather like the series as a whole. Granted, the gumf about love and family could have been ratchetted down a few notches and the later films lacked the menace of the first. All that said though, it was an incredibly silly series that didn't take itself seriously. And that was its major strength.

Lvl45DM!
2012-08-21, 09:22 AM
Mummy 3.
Bourne Legacy.
About half of the James Bond Films over the years
Iron Man 2
Half of the Star Trek movies.

Actually i have a question for the Playground. Is there any movie series that goes past 3 movies without having awful awful movies?

WalkingTarget
2012-08-21, 09:31 AM
The problem with most sequels is that you start with a work which has been written to leave the viewers wanting more. After this proves successful, which is always a lottery, a sequel is written; this delivers less than the original.

The ones which work are those which were written as a multiple part piece upfront (E.g. LoTR), or just use the first one as a setting and attempt something new (E.g. Alien/Aliens)

Only case I can think of that kind of straddles the gap in this is Back to the Future: written as one film, was popular enough to get sequels which they then wrote to be contiguous as one story - I think successfully. (The original three Star Wars films might also qualify - depends on how much you believe Lucas when he says that he envisioned one grand story from the outset.)

Omergideon
2012-08-21, 01:24 PM
Actually i have a question for the Playground. Is there any movie series that goes past 3 movies without having awful awful movies?

Any movie series with NO awful films......I can't think of any that by common consensus are there*. A long enough series will always have a few clunkers in there by the end. Or at least a film or 2 that fall below the standard level of the rest and so seems awful by comparison.

Then again few film series outside of horror ever get to 4 films or more. And those that do end up very highly contested.

*As a note I think all the Star Wars films are at least decent, and enjoy all 4 Indiana Jones movies. Each group has one that is sub standard compared to the others no doubt, but for me none that I could honestly call bad.

Triscuitable
2012-08-21, 01:42 PM
No, honestly, the allegory had gotten pretty belabored and damn offensive by the last book. I still like the first six, though, for what they are (more entertaining Children's Bibles).

Whoa, whoa, whoa, there were more than SIX?!
EDIT: Research! Weird, I don't remember there being a seventh, but I guess it makes sense.



*As a note I think all the Star Wars films are at least decent, and enjoy all 4 Indiana Jones movies. Each group has one that is sub standard compared to the others no doubt, but for me none that I could honestly call bad.

I recommend you rewatch episode 1. It's so horribly ignorant of who it's fans are, that it felt like a slap in the face. Had I not been slapped by a lady-friend prior to seeing it again, I still would've felt that slap.

Seriously, she has a swing.

Velaryon
2012-08-21, 02:40 PM
I seem to be in a minority, but I actually really liked the second and third Pirates of the Caribbean films. While none of them have been as good as the original, that's true of most film series. I really don't understand the dislike of Will and Elizabeth's characters and story, since to me it adds a lot to the films, and without that plot my favorite character, Norrington, wouldn't be able to go through his awesome character arc ending with his noble sacrifice. The fourth film, on the other hand, felt like a soulless, empty cash-in. It still had its moments, but was IMO nowhere near the level of the first three films.

But then I actually sort of enjoyed the fourth Indiana Jones film, so maybe I'm just a loony.

Aedilred
2012-08-21, 03:25 PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa, there were more than SIX?!
EDIT: Research! Weird, I don't remember there being a seventh, but I guess it makes sense.
The first and third books (chronologically, not in publication order) aren't so well known. The third one in particular tends to get glossed over and I don't think has been adapted for television or film at any point - it's pretty tangential and irrelevant to the main characters' plot and development, and (although I haven't read it in ages and can't remember the truth of it) supposedly comes quite close to outright racism at times as well.

Actually i have a question for the Playground. Is there any movie series that goes past 3 movies without having awful awful movies?
I'm going to have to point to Rocky again here. Of course, there are some people who'll say that none of the films past Rocky II were any good, or that there shouldn't have been any sequels at all, but I think common consensus is that Rockys I-IV were pretty good, as was Rocky Balboa.

When it comes to Rocky V, I think that, although not a great film in its own right, the main reason it's disliked is because they don't like the direction it takes with the character. I think if you try to look at it as a standalone film, rather than as the character we've watched, for four movies, climb out of the gutter and to the top of the world being thrown right back to where he started for no particularly good reason and through no fault of his own, it's actually alright. I still don't particularly like it (for the aforementioned plot reasons), but I don't think it's an awful film.

I didn't think any of the Die Hard films was atrocious, either; although the last one (which got a much better title in the US than internationally) wasn't anything special, it was a watchable action film, which makes it better than average for the genre.

Usually, though, three movies is the cut-off point, and very few franchises make it past the second before they start to suck.

Rockphed
2012-08-21, 05:27 PM
The first and third books (chronologically, not in publication order) aren't so well known. The third one in particular tends to get glossed over and I don't think has been adapted for television or film at any point - it's pretty tangential and irrelevant to the main characters' plot and development, and (although I haven't read it in ages and can't remember the truth of it) supposedly comes quite close to outright racism at times as well.

First is Magician's Nephew. Third is "The Horse and his Boy", yes? The Horse and his Boy is actually my favorite in the series. I honestly don't remember anything racist about it. I suppose the dark skinned southerners versus the light skinned northerners might seem slightly racist. As memory serves, however, the villains were always distinguished by their actions and attitudes, never by their place of origin.

Man on Fire
2012-08-21, 05:39 PM
No, honestly, the allegory had gotten pretty belabored and damn offensive by the last book. I still like the first six, though, for what they are (more entertaining Children's Bibles).

Through it's pretty funny how easily you can turn entire message on it's head and make it anti-Christian.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-08-21, 06:14 PM
Through it's pretty funny how easily you can turn entire message on it's head and make it anti-Christian.

From what I've heard, Lewis started on The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe as a criticism of Christianity before, in the middle of writing it and through personal correspondence with J. R. R. Tolkien, having a religious epiphany. I am not 100% on how true that is, though.

As for The Horse and His Boy, it's not really racist at all. Some national stereotypes make it in, but no one is seriously treated as just a caricature of their race. (Their social standing...maybe.)

Now, the other book featuring a large number of Calormenes? The Last Battle? That's where the genuine offenses to ethnicity and religion kick into full gear. For some reason, the more religious the person writing an adaptation of the Book of Revelation, the more offensive it is. Compare that one or Left Behind to, say, The Stand.

HOWEVER! This is edging up to religious discussion if we go any deeper. Just a warning.

Related to Left Behind in a non-religious way, authors.

Please.

Stop.

Writing.

Twelve- or Sixteen-novel series.

No story worth reading can possibly need to be that long. Trim it down to three or five and learn to budget yourself on the royalties from that many, seriously.

Kitten Champion
2012-08-21, 06:23 PM
I felt the Harry Potter movies got better when the actors entered maturity and Rowling became more sophisticated in her story-telling. The third, in my mind, was the weakest one in the series, the last 3-4 were quite enjoyable.. though more grimdark.

If you don't include the Star Trek and Bond reboots as sequels.

Emmerask
2012-08-21, 09:28 PM
Have to go with a book series too,

The Sword of Truth by Terry Goodkind, the only thing in my opinion one could argue would be that the first book even shouldn´t have been.

Though I think while far from good Debt of Bones was at least bearable, everything thereafter ranged from boring to disgusting.

Sith_Happens
2012-08-21, 10:51 PM
I recommend you rewatch episode 1. It's so horribly ignorant of who it's fans are, that it felt like a slap in the face. Had I not been slapped by a lady-friend prior to seeing it again, I still would've felt that slap.

Eh, while Phantom Menace certainly isn't any good, it's also not nearly as bad as people seem to like to remember it as being. I saw the 3D release back in February, and the main problems are just that it's terribly slow and contributes laughably little to the overall plot of the series/franchise.

Squark
2012-08-21, 11:28 PM
Not a sequel by strict definition, but I really would rather Forgotten realms had never gotten updated to 4th edition. Or they could have actually not gutted the setting.

Omergideon
2012-08-22, 02:39 AM
Eh, while Phantom Menace certainly isn't any good, it's also not nearly as bad as people seem to like to remember it as being. I saw the 3D release back in February, and the main problems are just that it's terribly slow and contributes laughably little to the overall plot of the series/franchise.

Whilst I would say it is one of the weaker PT films (still one I like), and certainly that it does have a number of problems in terms of pacing, I disagree with that last point about it contributing little. The introduction of Padme, Shmi, The origin of Anakin and Palpatine's initital rise to power et al all do end up being significant to how the PT develop. You of course could establish all of those things seperately or in an opening scrawl but I thought them worthy tales to tell. Anakin's origin as a slave in the end does overall drive how his character responds to Jedi Training a lot.

Plus it was the Prequel that had it's own story to tell most of all, as opposed to place setting for the later films. For me it was AOTC that was the weakest of the films. Worst storytelling, patience and a romance plot both predictable and poorly written. Seriously, if someone else was allowed to rewrite Lucas' dialogue I can think of no sane person who could complain.



Though for Narnia, yeah book 7 got a bit blatant and serious with the allegory thing. I never found it offensive but even as a massive Lewis Fan, including of his non-fiction, I thought it more a sermon than a good story. But the C.S.Lewis story seems false to me as Lewis was a commited Christian long before he wrote the Narnia Books. His offical conversion and first apologetics books were done in the 30s, and Narnia was not written until well into the 40s. His book Mere Christianity was based on lectures he gave in WW2, several years before he began on The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe.


For PoTC, my problem with the later films is Jack Sparrow. Yes him. Now I enjoy Jack as a supporting character with other people to react to. He is a good foil and very entertaining in that role. But when HE is the focus I just zone out. I found his antics, persona and role grating when he is presented as our main protagonist and that he lost a lot of the Edge and seriousness (when needed) in films 2 on that he had in the original.

mangosta71
2012-08-22, 09:21 AM
For PoTC, my problem with the later films is Jack Sparrow. Yes him. Now I enjoy Jack as a supporting character with other people to react to. He is a good foil and very entertaining in that role. But when HE is the focus I just zone out. I found his antics, persona and role grating when he is presented as our main protagonist and that he lost a lot of the Edge and seriousness (when needed) in films 2 on that he had in the original.
I'm confused. Who exactly do you think the main character of the first movie is?

The biggest problem I had with the second and third movies was that the pirates went from being anti-heroes to heroes. In the fourth at least they dropped the "the pirates are good guys fighting for freedom!" schtick, even though they retained the "corporations are bad, mkay?" bit and the "stable employment is for losers" thing.

Man on Fire
2012-08-22, 09:42 AM
Related to Left Behind in a non-religious way, authors.

Please.

Stop.

Writing.

Twelve- or Sixteen-novel series.

No story worth reading can possibly need to be that long. Trim it down to three or five and learn to budget yourself on the royalties from that many, seriously.

Agree with this. That's the most important about makin sequels - you need to know when to stop. Many writers and moviemakers just don't know where the line in case of their work lies.

Kitten Champion
2012-08-22, 10:15 AM
I've never read Left Behind, but I understand it's a fanfiction version of the Christian Apocalypse, which it follows faithfully based on a particular denominations' dogma. It's difficult to conceive of 16 books where the conclusion is inevitable and obvious, even to the villains, and the deaths of the heroes are utterly irrelevant given the established cosmology.

Surprise... or significant consequences simply doesn't seem to factor into such a plot.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-08-22, 10:18 AM
Agree with this. That's the most important about makin sequels - you need to know when to stop. Many writers and moviemakers just don't know where the line in case of their work lies.

It's worse with novelists, especially in the sci fi and fantasy genres, where they will just keep putting off wrapping up the story so they can sell books full of nothing but filler to people waiting for the climax. Film, at least, never seems to go beyond three installments without wrapping up the plot, with the possible exception of Saw, which is a rare combination of splatter horror (which never knows when to stop) and an involved serial killer crime drama (which has actual plot).

I'm talking about things like the Wheel of Time (so long even the author couldn't finish it) and Inheritance series, where a lot of it is just obviously tacked-on word count before finishing the story. Authors that are simply prolific but write self-contained stories like Pratchett or King I have absolutely no problem with - although as I understand it the Dark Tower series was in need of some chopping, now that I think back.

Eldan
2012-08-22, 10:20 AM
Well, the Dresden Files is at 13 novels (and novel-length shortstory collection) now, and planned to go to 20 or over, and so far, it's still good. So, I don't think that's a universal rule.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-08-22, 10:26 AM
Well, the Dresden Files is at 13 novels (and novel-length shortstory collection) now, and planned to go to 20 or over, and so far, it's still good. So, I don't think that's a universal rule.

Are all the books fairly self-contained with an overarching plot, or is there one big main story that takes up the bulk of every installment without ever really getting resolved?

If it's the latter, I guess I'll just steer clear of the Dresden Files based on personal preference.

Emmerask
2012-08-22, 11:00 AM
It mostly is self contained with an overarching plot, though with a few subplot points that take a few books to be resolved. (ie the "main" story/problem/quest of the book is always resolved in that one book^^)

So somewhat inbetween but more leaning towards the first I think.

Aedilred
2012-08-22, 12:35 PM
I'm confused. Who exactly do you think the main character of the first movie is?
The reason the first movie works so well (in the opinions of many, including quite a few who were involved with the project, apparently) is that Jack wasn't written as or supposed to be the main character. The original intention was for Will to be the protagonist, but Johnny Depp remorselessly steals every scene. He's also playing a completely different character to the one intended, which was meant to be a white-teethed Errol Flynn-type, apparently.

(Mark Kermode actually considers this a reason for cricitism, not for praise. Paraphrasing: "Depp's performance (in PotC1) is that of an undirected man... Gore Verbinsky couldn't direct traffic".)

Part of the problem, I think, with the later Pirates films is that they deliberately switched the spotlight to Jack and wrote the character to fit Depp's portrayal, rather than writing him as a straight character for the actor to subvert. By the third film, where we've got multiple Jacks on screen at once, the franchise is getting submerged by its own all-star wackiness.

Mainly, though, I thought the second and third films were just too darn long (I've not seen the fourth). Further, although Tom Holland and Bill Nighy are welcome additions to the cast, the absence of some of the character actors from the first film really hurts the second one in particular, I think.

Eldan
2012-08-22, 01:02 PM
Are all the books fairly self-contained with an overarching plot, or is there one big main story that takes up the bulk of every installment without ever really getting resolved?

If it's the latter, I guess I'll just steer clear of the Dresden Files based on personal preference.

Both, really. There's one story per book. In the earlier book, it's detective cases, in the newer ones it's "supernatural thing is threatening Harry/Harry's family/Chicago/the council/the world". But a fan nickname is "The Foreshadowing Files", and he sometimes picks up plot threads from six books ago. And there's an overarching plot that seems to connect most of the random bad guys that show up.

Thialfi
2012-08-22, 01:12 PM
Not a sequel by strict definition, but I really would rather Forgotten realms had never gotten updated to 4th edition. Or they could have actually not gutted the setting.

I have heard a lot of complaints about this by more modern players than myself. I have played with the same D&D group since 1979. We never moved away from 1e/2e, so our printed material ends about 2000. So, for us, this sequel literally does not exist. Toril is a big part of our ongoing campign. How widespread is this dissatisfaction? I just know we hate it and I haven't tallked to anyone that cared for it in my admittedly small sample size.

I can't see us even considering D&D next without the return of the Great Wheel (Planescape is by far our all time favorite setting) or a recognizable Faerun.

DaedalusMkV
2012-08-22, 01:41 PM
Sequels that shouldn't exist, eh? Let's see...

Well, I think most people can agree that while the Mummy was a good, if somewhat brain-dead, action flick, the sequels were both tacked-on, unnecessary and nonsensical even in the setting of the first movie. From the admittedly not entirely terrible first sequel was spawned a spin-off movie starring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, called The Scorpion King. It had even less to do with anything than the Mummy Returns, and is probably the worst movie that The Rock has ever starred in. In all honesty, it should not exist. But, we aren't done yet. Because, you see, there's actually a sequel to The Scorpion King (despite ending on a note which effectively eliminated any possibility of a sequel), only the aforementioned Rock (and the entire rest of the cast) wanted nothing to do with it, which left this travesty of a direct-to-video movie with a horrible cast to go with its abysmal script. So, we've got a sequel that should not be, following a prequel that should not be to a sequel that should not be. Is that good enough for you? No? Okay then, how about The Scorpion King 3? It's a thing. That exists. Came out earlier this year. A sequel to a sequel to a prequel to a sequel, none of which fit into the context established by the previously released movie. Not only are they bad, but the events they depict literally should not be happening in-universe.

Also, Bloodrayne 2. Uwe Boll's only sequel. No further explanation needed.

Aedilred
2012-08-22, 03:11 PM
Sequels that shouldn't exist, eh? Let's see...

Well, I think most people can agree that while the Mummy was a good, if somewhat brain-dead, action flick, the sequels were both tacked-on, unnecessary and nonsensical even in the setting of the first movie.
I didn't even like the first Mummy film... I made the mistake of seeing The Mummy Returns (not at the cinema), and The Scorpion King (on television)... yeah, I'm inclined to agree with the rest of your analysis.

Gnoman
2012-08-22, 03:54 PM
From what I've heard, Lewis started on The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe as a criticism of Christianity before, in the middle of writing it and through personal correspondence with J. R. R. Tolkien, having a religious epiphany. I am not 100% on how true that is, though.


Not certain about whether or not Narnia was intended as critical satire, but it's a confirmed fact that Lewis converted mid-series. That's why the books morphed as much as they did.



Related to Left Behind in a non-religious way, authors.

Please.

Stop.

Writing.

Twelve- or Sixteen-novel series.

No story worth reading can possibly need to be that long. Trim it down to three or five and learn to budget yourself on the royalties from that many, seriously.

The problem with that series isn't really the length, though the length is possibly a byproduct of the real problem. The authors simply are not suited to writing fiction, as they have no grasp of pacing, characterization, or a coherent plot.

Omergideon
2012-08-22, 05:34 PM
Not certain about whether or not Narnia was intended as critical satire, but it's a confirmed fact that Lewis converted mid-series. That's why the books morphed as much as they did.

I repeat that in all my reading Lewis was a confirmed Christian and Anglican during the 30s and certainly by WW2, when he did a radio show that became his book Mere Christianity. The First Narnia book was not written until years after the war Ended. The idea he converted mid series seems untenable to my knowledge. Though in his own words the idea of the books was to write a fantasy world, and to speculate how Jesus et al would interact with such a place. Wikipedia contains the relevant quote I am sure.



As for PoTC, I always saw Elizabeth and Will as the main characters. Sparrow was an interesting and useful secondary (but still major) character. Jack is not the Protagonist of the first film. But again I just find him uninteresting as the protagonist and the scenes where he is not playing off another person are excruciating to me.

Dienekes
2012-08-22, 05:35 PM
Uhh, not to get into religion overmuch. But C. S. Lewis converted to Christianity almost 19 years before The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was published, and the entire story is rather blatantly religious allegory. I don't really see how anyone can call it less religious than the rest of the series. Honestly it's about as blatant a Christ story as the Last Battle was a blatant Apocalypse allegory.

Terraoblivion
2012-08-22, 05:47 PM
I didn't even like the first Mummy film... I made the mistake of seeing The Mummy Returns (not at the cinema), and The Scorpion King (on television)... yeah, I'm inclined to agree with the rest of your analysis.

Personally I found Scorpion King awful in that hilarious way. It was somewhat of a cult classic in Denmark when I was in high school purely from how ridiculously bad everything about it was.

Gnoman
2012-08-22, 06:36 PM
Uhh, not to get into religion overmuch. But C. S. Lewis converted to Christianity almost 19 years before The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was published, and the entire story is rather blatantly religious allegory. I don't really see how anyone can call it less religious than the rest of the series. Honestly it's about as blatant a Christ story as the Last Battle was a blatant Apocalypse allegory.

Hmm. He must have lapsed, then. I've seen several statements written by him that Narnia was vastly changed as he joined the faith. It's not important.

turkishproverb
2012-08-22, 07:27 PM
Related to Left Behind in a non-religious way, authors.

Please.

Stop.

Writing.

Twelve- or Sixteen-novel series.

No story worth reading can possibly need to be that long. Trim it down to three or five and learn to budget yourself on the royalties from that many, seriously.

Dresden Files would like a word with you.

As would DiscWorld.

Mind you, I freely admit these are the exception. And Discworld comparatively loose series.

Dresden meanwhile is a detective series, and they tend to be a bit..."episodic" by nature. Might help explain the consistency.


Hmm. He must have lapsed, then. I've seen several statements written by him that Narnia was vastly changed as he joined the faith. It's not important.

...where? I ask because everything credible I've read about (or by) him suggest otherwise. He had plenty of times of "searching" but those had more to do with his disagreements with the contemporary church than real "losses" of faith. Less "lapsed from faith" and more "lapsed catholic with faith", even if he wasn't really a catholic (much to Tolkien's dissapointment).

Nerd-o-rama
2012-08-22, 08:45 PM
Yeah, the Dresden Files aren't the kind of thing that I'm talking about, because unlike Wheel of Time or Inheritance, they are not apparently not telling one continuous story, but multiple connected ones.

I think Twilight might have run into the same complaint because based on descriptions I can never remember whether there are three books or four, a good sign of padding.

And there is not enough storage space on the entire internet for me to detail everything wrong and horrifyingly awful about the Left Behind series, I was just using that sixteen-book unedited abomination as a segue.

Gnoman
2012-08-22, 08:47 PM
In the introduction to at least one edition of The Screwtape Letters. Sorry I can't narrow it down, I see three or four copies of that a week.

turkishproverb
2012-08-22, 10:04 PM
Yeah, the Dresden Files aren't the kind of thing that I'm talking about, because unlike Wheel of Time or Inheritance, they are not apparently not telling one continuous story, but multiple connected ones.

It's...more complex than that. Story structure is kinda...episodic.

Omergideon
2012-08-23, 04:41 AM
In the introduction to at least one edition of The Screwtape Letters. Sorry I can't narrow it down, I see three or four copies of that a week.

This is total news to me, as my versions indicate different. The foreword in mine talks about the relative ease, but spiritual cramp, he felt writing the screwtape letters. And as said Mere Christianity was adapted from a lecture series he gave during the Blitz (1941) and book version released throughout the mid 40s. He certainly had some issues with the heirarchy of the Church from what I know but other works he produced in the time period between the 2 such as "Miracles" are consistent in being fairly orthodox Christianity.


And the critique of Jack Sparrow is in my mind accurate. In the first his "major character" status was a happy accident of the performance. But as it wont in Hollywood they took the good from it and ran it into the ground with overexposure and less intelligent writing.


Also a sequel that should not exist is the second DnD movie. But then again, neither should the first one exist :smallamused:

Winter_Wolf
2012-08-23, 05:55 AM
I'm not going to say that the Dresden Files has sequels that should not be, but I think that for the way he chose to pursue the series, he could wrap it up any time now. The overarching plot needs to wrap up. I don't plan on reading any more of his novels until he actually finishes the Dresden Files. Like, DONE. I made it up to finishing Changes, but until the end is written and published, I can't just keep on getting strung along. The way that novel ended may have been integral to the continuation of the series, but it was still a jerkass move.

I may still be a "little" pissed that he went that way, since I got it when the hardback just came out and so I would have to wait for a hella long time. :smallannoyed: I am aware that Ghost Story is out, and have a pretty good idea of what the plot is about, but still going to wait it out. Eventually there will either be a complete set of Harry Dresden books I can enjoy start to finish, or it'll die out and I will feel better for no having contributed money to a series that doesn't make it to the finish line.

paddyfool
2012-08-23, 06:34 AM
Ehh, it's not hurting anything, and everyone reading understands what they mean. Not seeing much point in knocking it. For instance, I've been called a pony about half a dozen times on this board, despite the fact I am human, it's not clever, and I do not like the show it's referencing. But why put a stink about it? If they want to express themselves in that way, let them.


He had a fair point, but could have made it better, e.g. by simply saying "I'm getting very tired of this rhetorical device, and wish people would stop using it", rather than going off on a longwinded rant about a trifle.

Man on Fire
2012-08-23, 09:39 AM
From the admittedly not entirely terrible first sequel was spawned a spin-off movie starring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, called The Scorpion King. It had even less to do with anything than the Mummy Returns, and is probably the worst movie that The Rock has ever starred in.

It's nothewhorty that it, however, has a big fanbase among people who replace every mention of Scorpion King's name with "Conan".


I think Twilight might have run into the same complaint because based on descriptions I can never remember whether there are three books or four, a good sign of padding.

My buddy, the same one who hates Legend of Korra, once told me he enjoyed how the first book unintentionally made entire romance to be a lie ( I don't remember how he described it, haven't read the book myself, something to do with Bella's pieroid and Edward's vampiric hunger or whatever, anyway, book pretty much states they aren't in love, their brains just mess with them) so it was okay for him in "so bad it's good" manner. Sequels retconned that apect and made it to be true love, he didn't liked that.


Also a sequel that should not exist is the second DnD movie. But then again, neither should the first one exist

I heard that sequel is actually much better and feels like an actual DnD.

mangosta71
2012-08-23, 10:18 AM
RE C. S. Lewis: Wikipedia says that he was born in the Church of Ireland, became an atheist at 15, a theist at 30, and converted to the Church of England at 32 (in 1931). It further states that The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was first conceived in 1939, finished in 1949, and originally published in 1950. Clearly, his conversion predates the Narnia books. Perhaps his convictions evolved as he wrote the series. Or perhaps his relationship with the woman he later married changed his views somewhat - the article isn't clear on when she entered his life, though it does state that his autobiography (Surprised by Joy - published in 1955, but no mention of when he worked on it) was written before they met.

Back on topic, I remember liking the first Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie, and thinking the second was a lot of fun, but the magic had gone out of the series by the time the third was made. Maybe I'd just reached the age where it wasn't my thing any more. Or maybe the plot was too convoluted and nonsensical to hold my interest. Either way, they should have stopped after the second.

Omergideon
2012-08-23, 11:19 AM
I heard that sequel is actually much better and feels like an actual DnD.

Much better does not mean good however. The fact that it is a sequel is something shameful, I think we can agree.

Maxios
2012-08-23, 11:27 AM
The third Mummy movie.

Fallout Tactics. Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel.

The final Chronicles of Narnia book. I remember reading the entire series book after book when I was like seven, and I got really excited to read the final book to see how it all ended. And then everyone dies. Worst. Ending. Ever.

Mystic Muse
2012-08-23, 01:18 PM
Worst. Ending. Ever.

I disagree. "It as all just a dream" Is a much worse ending than "Everyone dies." and there are a lot of worse ways it could have ended.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-08-23, 10:49 PM
The third Mummy movie.

Fallout Tactics. Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel.

The final Chronicles of Narnia book. I remember reading the entire series book after book when I was like seven, and I got really excited to read the final book to see how it all ended. And then everyone dies. Worst. Ending. Ever.

Well, he was just about word-for-word plagiarizing John's Apocalypse at that point, so I'd put the blame on John of Patmos for the bad ending, and Lewis for phoning in The Last Battle in general.

Goosefeather
2012-08-23, 11:51 PM
Well, he was just about word-for-word plagiarizing John's Apocalypse at that point, so I'd put the blame on John of Patmos for the bad ending, and Lewis for phoning in The Last Battle in general.

'Everyone dies' was about the least objectionable part of that book. It's telling that the most sympathetic character was Susan in absentia.

The first six or so books were fun, and could be enjoyed both with or without the allegorical aspect. However, 'The Last Battle' didn't so much 'jump the shark' as 'beat you round the face with the shark whilst shouting "THIS IS A SHARK, LISTEN TO THE SHARK"'. Even ten-year-old me, who was well into sharks at the time, thought that was a bit too much shark.


As for other sequels that should not be, Hitchhiker's Guide should have stopped before it did, I'm just not sure when exactly. Probably somewhere around/between the fourth or fifth volume, and definitely before Eoin Colfer got his hands on the series.

Xondoure
2012-08-24, 12:12 AM
As for other sequels that should not be, Hitchhiker's Guide should have stopped before it did, I'm just not sure when exactly. Probably somewhere around/between the fourth or fifth volume, and definitely before Eoin Colfer got his hands on the series.

Hitchhiker's Guide should have been given the last book it deserved. Unfortunately Douglas Adams was pulled away from us too soon.

Aedilred
2012-08-24, 09:24 AM
I disagree. "It as all just a dream" Is a much worse ending than "Everyone dies." and there are a lot of worse ways it could have ended.
It managed to combine the worst elements of both those sucky ending forumlae, along with a pretty dodgy moral to top things off.

Mr.Silver
2012-08-25, 07:32 PM
I disagree. "It as all just a dream" Is a much worse ending than "Everyone dies." and there are a lot of worse ways it could have ended.

It's a fair bit more than just 'everyone dies'. You're leaving out the parts where the muslim-analogues are depicted as worshipping the satan analogue and that Susan goes to hell for wanting to be an adult. It's a bit of a screwed-up book, is what I'm saying.

Mystic Muse
2012-08-25, 08:23 PM
It's a fair bit more than just 'everyone dies'. You're leaving out the parts where the muslim-analogues are depicted as worshipping the satan analogue and that Susan goes to hell for wanting to be an adult. It's a bit of a screwed-up book, is what I'm saying.

I read it a long time ago, so I don't recall a large amount of it.

Also, from what I recall, Susan decided to stop believing in something that, for her, should have been objective reality. Unless almost everything in the books is supposed to have been a dream somehow (Wouldn't really make any sense if it were), Susan wasn't growing up, she was stuffing her fingers in her ears, closing her eyes and saying "Nah Nah! Not listening! Can't see or hear you!"

It was definitely from out of left field, and not a very good ending, but I recall it better than it's being made out to be. I'll read it again sometime and see though.

I'm not going to say anything more because I'm working off of vague memories, and I don't want to break any board rules, which could be rather easy given the nature of the books.

Tiki Snakes
2012-08-25, 08:35 PM
As far as I understand, it wasn't so much that she no longer believed, as she was no longer "A Friend of Narnia", and was much more interested in Boys and getting on with her mundane life or something.

Which, depending on how you want to interpret it, can lead to some very different theories, including the one espoused in Neil Gaiman's short story "The Problem With Susan" (If I recall the name correctly).

A short version of one of the less charitable interpretations is that, as she wasn't as interested in Narnia anymore, she wasn't involved in the horrific train-crash that got them all to Narnia that one last time, which is to say she escaped. But then, I've never re-read the book, and only vaguely remember the details at this point, beyond vague mental images and stuff I've picked up by reading around the issue.

Lord Seth
2012-08-26, 01:27 AM
and that Susan goes to hell for wanting to be an adult.Except for the part where that doesn't happen in the book, as far as I remember...

Sir_Chivalry
2012-08-26, 01:42 AM
Except for the part where that doesn't happen in the book, as far as I remember...

And you remember wrong. Only one of the children ever to not get saved from the horrible train crash. So little girls, don't you dare fool around with nylons and lipstick, or you'll be shut out of heaven!

Lord Seth
2012-08-26, 01:45 AM
And you remember wrong. Only one of the children ever to not get saved from the horrible train crash.And the fact that she was in the train crash is stated...where?

Mr.Silver
2012-08-26, 04:10 AM
And the fact that she was in the train crash is stated...where?

I don't believe it's explicitly stated, but the fact that the explanation given as to her absence focusses entirely on why she's not allowed there (rather than simply saying 'she wasn't in the train crash') does give a fairly strong implication. Even if she was not though, the book is pretty clear that's where she's eventually going to end-up.

Omergideon
2012-08-26, 08:23 AM
Not to put a downer in the chat, but Lewis did state on occasion that she was not in the crash, and could indeed become a friend of Narnia once more. Plus they don't even twig to the Train Crash until some time after they mention Susan for the last time.

Man on Fire
2012-08-26, 09:16 AM
No, wasn't in the crash, but...


“I don’t know about the girl in the books,’ says the professor, ‘but remaining behind would also have meant that she was available to identify her brothers’ and her little sister’s bodies. There were a lot of people dead in that crash. I was taken to a nearby school—it was the first day of term, and they had taken the bodies there. My older brother looked okay. Like he was asleep. The other two were a bit messier.’
‘I suppose Susan would have seen their bodies, and thought, they’re on holidays now. The perfect school holidays. Romping in meadows with talking animals, world without end.’

‘She might have done. I remember thinking what a great deal of damage a train can do, when it hits another train, to the people who were traveling. I suppose you’ve never had to identify a body, dear?’

‘No.’

‘That’s a blessing. I remember looking at them and thinking, What if I’m wrong, what if it’s not him after all? My younger brother was decapitated, you know. A god who would punish me for liking nylons and parties by making me walk through that school dining room, with the flies, to identify Ed, well… he’s enjoying himself a bit too much, isn’t he? Like a cat, getting the last ounce of enjoyment out of a mouse.”

— Neil Gaiman, The Problem of Susan

So, yeah.

Dienekes
2012-08-26, 09:29 AM
Uhh, it might have just been me, but wasn't the problem with Susan not that she liked nylons or whatever, but because she firmly denied Narnia's existence then wrapping it up in a little saying that she choose being all grown up meant living in self delusion and the two were not normally mutually exclusive, also she was a little vain.

I'll probably have to go read it again.

Man on Fire
2012-08-26, 09:42 AM
Uhh, it might have just been me, but wasn't the problem with Susan not that she liked nylons or whatever, but because she firmly denied Narnia's existence then wrapping it up in a little saying that she choose being all grown up meant living in self delusion and the two were not normally mutually exclusive, also she was a little vain.

I'll probably have to go read it again.

And that would be enough to earn the punishment of having to identify bodies of her entire family and being left completely alone in the world?

Dienekes
2012-08-26, 09:53 AM
And that would be enough to earn the punishment of having to identify bodies of her entire family and being left completely alone in the world?

Nope, but I believe folks were throwing around she was damned to Hell for liking adult things. Not she wasn't for sure going to Heaven for denying the existence of the literal Biblical land of Narnia. Whether you think one is worth punishing more than the other is up to you, but I do ask for accuracy in statements.

I also assume she has friends and is not completely closed off from society except for family. Of course, it still sucks, but is not "completely alone in the world." Again, accuracy. In any case, yeah, it's pretty dark.

Lord Seth
2012-08-26, 10:15 AM
I don't believe it's explicitly stated, but the fact that the explanation given as to her absence focusses entirely on why she's not allowed there (rather than simply saying 'she wasn't in the train crash') does give a fairly strong implication.Except that's not an explanation as to why she's not "allowed there," it's why she wasn't with them at the time of the crash. The reason the group was together in the first place was because they were trying to get the rings the Professor had (see The Magician's Nephew) to head to Narnia because he thought they might be needed there.


Even if she was not though, the book is pretty clear that's where she's eventually going to end-up.Except for the fact it isn't.

Omergideon
2012-08-26, 04:05 PM
And that would be enough to earn the punishment of having to identify bodies of her entire family and being left completely alone in the world?

Of course the book itself never describes what happens as a punishment, or states that it is such. Certainly not the stuff from the Problem With Susan, which interesting a read as it is is effectively Narnia Fan Fiction.


One theme of Mr Lewis' work overall is that the bad things that happen in life are purely to be expected, and they happen as often by simple chance as for any other reason. To suppose he ascribed the leaving out of Susan, and deliberate Murder of her Family, to an act of Aslan to punish her is to ignore the tenor of his entire body of work. The consequence of her choices is to not die with her family etc, but based on Lewis philosophical work it would be reasonable to suggest he viewed it as a natural and not supernatural consequence.

The ethics of THAT probably draws a little close to a long and involved religious debate, the types of which should not be had.

Sith_Happens
2012-08-26, 08:17 PM
Speaking of questionable book sequels, Maximum Ride: The Final Warning. The first three books are an entertaining action/comedy/drama trilogy about a group of genetically engineered bird-kids dealing with the realities of their lives while evading their sinister makers. The Final Warning is a stale global warming PSA that happens to have the same protagonists.

Apparently there have been another four books after that, but I haven't read them yet.

Rockphed
2012-08-29, 07:36 PM
Speaking of questionable book sequels, Maximum Ride: The Final Warning. The first three books are an entertaining action/comedy/drama trilogy about a group of genetically engineered bird-kids dealing with the realities of their lives while evading their sinister makers. The Final Warning is a stale global warming PSA that happens to have the same protagonists.

Apparently there have been another four books after that, but I haven't read them yet.

The best author ever could have made a global warming PSA interesting. In fact, the best author made an interesting, if slightly juvenile, PSA. His name was Theodore Guisel.

Antonok
2012-08-29, 07:45 PM
Starship Troopers 2 and 3.

3 wasn't as bad as 2 but still not as good as the first one, and I beg whatever supreme being of mercy willing to listen would erase 2 from my memory...

Sith_Happens
2012-08-29, 08:47 PM
The best author ever could have made a global warming PSA interesting. In fact, the best author made an interesting, if slightly juvenile, PSA. His name was Theodore Guisel.

I wasn't saying that you can't make a global warming PSA into a good story, I was saying that James Patterson didn't.

Rockphed
2012-08-30, 12:56 PM
I wasn't saying that you can't make a global warming PSA into a good story, I was saying that James Patterson didn't.

I think I started saying that even the best author couldn't, then I remembered Dr Seuss. Then I didn't add as many qualifiers as needed.

ShneekeyTheLost
2012-09-03, 12:50 PM
The biggest problem with the Avatar: The Last Airbender movie is... well... they tried to cram an entire season into a single movie. Too much slips through the cracks. There was no chance to develop rather important characters (like Zuko), which will feature prominently in the later chapters.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Dances With Wolves 2: The Big Blue Change. A.K.A. Avatar. Sure, it was pretty special effects and graphics, but the plotline didn't change, or advance, in the slightest. You had the exact same cardboard cutout characters (the money-grubber, the warmonger, the Noble Savages, the One Caught In The Middle), the exact same plotline, only with even worse acting.

Lord Seth
2012-09-03, 01:39 PM
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Dances With Wolves 2: The Big Blue Change. A.K.A. Avatar.Because it's not a sequel.