ReelSociety Forums

Endgame was shot back-to-back with Infinity War so a follow-up was always meant to happen.

But to answer your question, I have to go with The Godfather Part II. The world that Mario Puzo created and Francis Ford Coppola adapted led us wanting more from the Corleone family. For a non-adaptation example, I'm going to go outside the box and say Austin Powers. The Spy Who Shagged Me was every bit as fun and entertaining as International Man of Mystery and it came in a time when we needed a parody of the James Bond movies.

Totally agree with you on Austin Powers. Brilliant parody - and yes I honestly think it helped the Bond franchise as it helped them see how ridiculous they had become. Great pick.

The whole necessity of sequels argument is completely silly. As Walleye said, you could easily argue that the only "necessary" sequels are stuff like Lord of the Rings, Star Wars and Harry Potter where the story was intended to be told over multiple films.

Whether or not sequels are worthwhile is a completely different matter that only their existence can answer. Every single movie fan on the planet has ones that they end up liking more than the originals (Empire Strikes Back, Terminator 2, John Wick 2 and 3 are some of mine), others they wish they never happened (Taken 2, Mission Impossible 2, A Good Day to Die Hard) and plenty more that are somewhere in between. They're really the ultimate gamble in the world of movies that yields results that land all over the map, which is really poetic since traditional gambling tends to spawn the same multitude of possible outcomes

I'd say Taken 3 was worse than Taken 2. At least Taken 2 continued the first film's story. Taken 3 was just a generic Fugitive imitator.

I hated Taken 2 so much that I never even bothered with the 3rd one.

Walleye413 wrote: ↑

June 19th, 2021, 12:04 pm

Hmm curious phrase - and one I've said myself. I wonder how many movies I can think of that really "needed" a sequel. Lots of movies earned a sequel. Needing a sequel feels more compelling to me. Like the story was both so good - and yet also incomplete in that you needed to know more. They built a world that you knew was just the beginning and you wouldn't be satisfied until they saw it through.
I can see this more with books - The Two Towers after The Fellowship of the Ring.
But for movies I think I'd go off the top of my head:

Star Wars needed Empire Strikes Back
Alien needed Aliens
Infinity War needed Endgame
Toy Story needed 2

Hmm - am I just arguing semantics? Any come to mind for youi?

Most "original" films tell a mostly complete story, so it could be said that they don't really need sequels. The reason why most comedy sequels underperform is because of this - part of the reason I'm glad Bridesmaids 2 was never made, even though I love that movie. The only ones that really leave room open for a sequel are the high-school movies, because you can show what happens at college, as opposed to something like, I don't know, Horrible Bosses 2 where the premise is so far removed from the original.

Horror is generally suited for sequels, because the threat is generally still out there. Most horror sequels are awful, though. Sinister 2 immediately comes to mind as a prime example of wasted potential.

F9 debuted with $7.1 m, an improvement from Hobbs And Shaw's previews (5.8 m).

So-o-ooo... I'm still in this thing, right?

Good to be back, y'alls, after history's longest rain delay.

I remain, as always...

THE CONFIRMED LOSER OF THE 2019-2020 FY B.O. LEAGUE.

So who's drafting Trevor Lawrence? And does the Heisman winner fall to me?

And I know someone's panic-picking Mac Jones because their tentpole last time didn't pan out.