The Best Sequels Ever Thread!

[Drtooth]

If I may...

In my own opinion...

Shrek 1: Good
Shrek 2: Best
Shrek 3: Okay for laughs
Shrek 4: Meh...

If I may...

I feel that Shrek 4 ended the series on a high note, considering that they actually planned on making several more. And don't forget we still have Puss in Boots's movie.

There's a lot of stuff I noticed about the fourth one... there seemed to be a LOT less references to other movies and the plotline, while taken from another movie anyway, seemed a LOT sharper and more focused than the third. When it comes to the third movie, I liked the princess liberation front, but the whole thing had several things wrong with it. Especially the fact that the movie was nothing more than a revenge plot.

Revenge plot (n). In a series of movies, the villain from one or more films spends an entire sequel trying to get revenge for the events of a previous film.

That's why Batman killed off all his villains in his other movies. At least this way, you get NEW villains wanting to destroy the hero.

The fourth one... I dunno... seemed a LOT more grown up than the older ones. Shrek, as a rule, relies on 2 things... gross out humor and "why me?" stories (even the Christmas special). The grossy stuff seemed to be WAAAY toned down to the point there wasn't an audible fart in the entire thing. And In fact, the entire movie happened BECAUSE of Shrek's selfish "Why me?" attitude. Effectively turning the movie on its ear. Seems like Dreamworks has grown up and started making deeper films, and Shrek got to experience it. Heck, we didn't even get a "Everyone is beautiful" type hypocritical Hollywood message. We got something deeper... you don't appreciate what you have until it's gone.

And the Puss and Donkey hating each other stuff was knocked down to ONE line. Nice!


EDIT:

Might as well get to this too...

From what I can get, she didn't sue solely because Jim Cummings was impersonating Louis Prima, she sued because she wasn't being reimbursed. As a result, Disney stopped using the character to avoid having to deal with her.

Reimbursed? I'm sorry... but that's ridiculous on every single level there is. HELLO! This is DISNEY. They OWN your SOUL when you work for them, especially during the "Uncle Walt" era. It's not like they used any of his songs or records... or even archival recordings. I'm sorry, but NO ONE owns a voice. Otherwise, Rich Little would have been sued to the stone age, and Maurice LaMarce wouldn't have been the go to guy for celebrity VO impersonations. The only one who should be paid for Jim Cummings's impersonation IS Jim Cummings, especially since he meant it with a LOT of respect. Louie was apparently one of his favorite Disney characters.

 

[ryhoyarbie]

Nightmare on Elm Street 1 Great/Scary
Nightmare 2: Meh
Nightmare 3: Good
Nightmare 4: Goofy
Nightmare 5: Bad
Nightmare 6: What the heck were thinking/Horrible
Nightmare 7: Good (should be the sequel for the first one)
Remake: Meh

 

[D'Snowth]

If I may...

I feel that Shrek 4 ended the series on a high note, considering that they actually planned on making several more. And don't forget we still have Puss in Boots's movie.

There's a lot of stuff I noticed about the fourth one... there seemed to be a LOT less references to other movies and the plotline, while taken from another movie anyway, seemed a LOT sharper and more focused than the third. When it comes to the third movie, I liked the princess liberation front, but the whole thing had several things wrong with it. Especially the fact that the movie was nothing more than a revenge plot.

Revenge plot (n). In a series of movies, the villain from one or more films spends an entire sequel trying to get revenge for the events of a previous film.

That's why Batman killed off all his villains in his other movies. At least this way, you get NEW villains wanting to destroy the hero.

The fourth one... I dunno... seemed a LOT more grown up than the older ones. Shrek, as a rule, relies on 2 things... gross out humor and "why me?" stories (even the Christmas special). The grossy stuff seemed to be WAAAY toned down to the point there wasn't an audible fart in the entire thing. And In fact, the entire movie happened BECAUSE of Shrek's selfish "Why me?" attitude. Effectively turning the movie on its ear. Seems like Dreamworks has grown up and started making deeper films, and Shrek got to experience it. Heck, we didn't even get a "Everyone is beautiful" type hypocritical Hollywood message. We got something deeper... you don't appreciate what you have until it's gone.

And the Puss and Donkey hating each other stuff was knocked down to ONE line. Nice!

Yeah I agree.

I think it was a good idea to go ahead and end it now, because the more movies they carried on with, the more people were going to learn to hate Shrek... like those Air Buddies sequels and it took them forever to do a TV series based on all those Land Before Time movies (which I guess I can't knock too much, considering they were developed by SST writers Judy Freudberg and Tony Geiss).

 

[Drtooth]

Too many sequels is a bad thing. Even if you do your best with them, people will HATE you for making more than 3 movies. Unless their hard core horror fans.

Still wonder why the heck we need more than 3 Saw movies.

But yeah, the original plan was to keep making more Shrek films, like some pathetic attempt to make it a series like James Bond or something. And they all would have had a movie 3 or worse quality to them.

But remember, these plans came out just before the third movie, and we perhaps planned when they were in the business of doing ripoffs of Pixar films.... which I SWEAR was some sort of crap Katzenberg was pulling because he wanted Toy Story to suck when he was with Disney. But it seems they're growing up as far as their movies go, and they're in the business of making animated movies, and not just making animated movies to one-up Disney. And that's something they were doing LONG before they hit CGI.

That said, I HATE how Dreamworks is sitting on the Toonsylvania cartoon and not even giving it a DVD release.

 

[Sgt Floyd]

I think I'm the only person in the world who hated Toy Story 2. Anyway, I take back what I said about Final Destination 2 being the worst. THE Final Destination (aka FD 4) what definatly the worst waste of my life ever. I only saw the 2d one, but 3d could not redeme it. And the special effects looked like CGI from the early 90s (like Blade, but Blade was good).

 

[JJandJanice]

I think I'm the only person in the world who hated Toy Story 2.

Yes, yes I think you are, Sgt, .

I for one LOVED Toy Story 2 and 3. In fact Toy Story has OFFICIALLY become my favorite trilogy in movie history and yes that includes Star Wars.

 

[Sgt Floyd]

I havn't seen Toy story 3 yet. Maybe I'll like that one

 

[Nick22]

I havn't seen Toy story 3 yet. Maybe I'll like that one

trust me, youll love it. hahahaha.

and i also think that the toy story trilogy is the best ever made. i love all three movies.

 

[ryhoyarbie]

Take the Austin Powers trilogy, in my opinion, each one was better than the one before it, and I believe that Goldmember was the best of all three of them.

I thought each of the Austin Power sequels got worse from the first one. I thought the first one was great when I saw in back in 97 or so. But I believe the sequels were trying to add a lot of toliet humor because it seemed like Mike Myers couldn't quite pull a rabbit out of his magic hat like he did with the first one.

 

[D'Snowth]

Home Alone 3 is both a winner and a bomber for the exact same reasons.

The first two movies were in 1990 and 1992, respectively... the third however was in 1997, which is quite a gap apart... by that time, Macaulay Caulkin would've been a little too old to play the "cute yet mischevious little kid who can outwit the dumbest of grownup crooks" role; on top of that, he foiled Daniel Stern and Joe Pesci once, then twice... how could he possibly foil them a third time (in spite of rumors that John Hughes wanted to write a third installment where Harry and Marv went straight, and a teenaged Kevin came to hunt them down)?

In order to make the third one as fresh and appealing at the first two, they had no choice to bring in a new cast of characters in a new plot... this is where the movie hits and miss at the same time: on one hand, it's hard to successfully replace characters with new actors, which is why it's a good idea to bring in replace actors with new characters (hence why shows like M*A*S*H and Cheers remained successful, albiet cast changes). The problem is, because of that, often times audiences are reluctant to accept a new cast of characters, so on that level, it loses, BUT, if they brought in new actors to play the same parts (ala the fourth one), then people would accept that even less; on top of that, the third movie had most of the same production staff as the first two, and was even created/produced/written by John Hughes, so on that level, it wins as well.