Okay, well,

See I had come to the point with good'ol george that it simply wasn't worth paying full price to see him do stupid stuff on a large screen, so I didn't see it until the dollar theater, which it just came to and . . .

I agree with this general statement I've heard; it's the best of the last III films, but still a bad movie. The worst had to be the first 30 minutes with R2-D2 flying around and roasting robots like RAMBO-D2 or something. Secondly worse were the robots that would die at the end of a cool scene and then make some dumb cartoon-like sigh as they fizzled out. Third was probably Obi-wan who always gets his butt kicked/man that was lame that he gets knocked unconcious and then Anakin has to save him like he's a school girl or something (of course the whole first 30 min could have been cut out and it would have brought the movie up at least 2 points out of 10). Boy that was some great filmmaking though when the emperor suddenly pulls out his sabre for the first time, and INSTANTLY kills 3 jedi . . . just kidding. Man, my grandmother could have fought better than those 3/so lame. Then of course, since Samuel J. got paid a sum, he had to get some fight time on screen, so then he and he alone manages to get the emperor almost dead? Oh, and after all that, what stops him is Anakin walks in the door and cuts off his hand, and then this ALMOST DEAD emperor suddenly lightning bolts Sammuel out the window. (???????) And surely since Yoda has always been the weakest of the Jedi, he doesn't come nearly as close as Sammuel to killing the emperor. (????????) Wow, I knew Lucas was going to have to write himself out of the corner he was in with Yoda later being in hiding and all, and I always feared he'd do it by Yoda losing to the Emperor, but, man, did he REALLY have to do it? After all this time Yoda's just a wuss. I mean, if he HAD to do it, he did it as best he could I think, but . . . wuss. Well, but I guess maybe it was right for him to later send Luke to do the job . . . ummmm . . . I guess, uh. Obi-wan fights a 4 sabred robot king who learned from Count Dooko; mmmmmstupid. Then he almost loses, and still gets Anakin at the end; mmmmmstupid. But he got his butt kicked by Dokoo right off the bat and Anakin took dokoo with little problem then gets his but kicked by Obi-wan . . . mmmmmmstupid.

Other bad flaws include that Lucas ever made another movie after Episode I. Worst flaw of the whole series was that Lucas made money off all the films.

Now.

Good stuff. Performances were good. Well, I don't know about Sammuel J. I kind of expected a veggie burger to pop out or somehing, with everyone in space speaking Brittish accents but him. (He was actually ok, just didn't like what they did with him).

Ummm, really the good stuff was with Anakin though. Hayden Christenson or whatever actually pulled it off reasonably well, a task very hard to do after being directed by Lucas, or coming off as VERY annoying and in need of puberty in episode II. Killing all the kids was cool. Killing off the Jedi at the Jedi fort was cool. A little underplayed, maybe. Best scene was undoubtedly the surprisingly violent lava-man. Quite shocked by Lucas' choice there. And then Obi-wan was a surprise when he just walked off and left Anikin there to die! Burning alive!!!! I hate to say I was impressed by anything Lucas did after Raiders, but, well, that scene and building up to it was good. Gave the Frankenvader breaking out of the shackles later a little more validity I guess.

Frankenvader would have been the cheeziest scene in existence if it had not been so dark earlier. Felt for the guy suddenly becomming this shell of a man and all. Still a bit cheezy. But because of lavaman, frankenvader went from 10 on the cheese scale to maybe a 4 or 5. It was surely better than RAMBO-D2. Only Jar-Jar can compete with that.

Over all a piece of Junk, but one with enjoyable surprises.

Rating 1-10 for Episode I was 1, II was 2 and III I think was 3.

Not good, but . . . okay, not good.

Comments?

(Warning: full of spoilers, since initial post did the same):

Basically, I suffered through 3 pretty terrible movies just to see the climactic lava scene and to actually witness Obi Wan chop Anakin's arms-and-legs off and then see him burn alive. It was grotesque and horrifying. It actually gave me a nightmare that evening I saw it. The "I hate you!" scream from the burning, chopped-up Anakin haunted me for weeks.

It was worth it. :-)

That's another thing... you couldn't really see him chop the arms and legs off in that nonsensical final moment of the duel. The filming of all the duels was terrible in this, with the possible exception of Yoda vs. Sidious... which was mostly CG anyway.

Thankfully, Ong Bak is coming out on DVD this month, and Tom Yung Goong later.

-Steve

I have vowed not to see epIII. this thread further validates this choice.

My sentiments exactly. It's been ages since suffering through the Ewoks introduction but that one was the closing episode on a wonderful trilogy; I could take Wicket with a grain (hard to swallow them turnjing Han Solo into a nanacy dawson though)

And then there were 3 more................

And they all have just outright sucked. Yes; this third one was better than the last 2 but still horrible.

I don't know how many CGI backgrounds I can take; or cartoony sounding droids or just plaine lame filmmkaing.

Lucas ruined the SW mystique.

Wow, I knew Lucas was going to have to write himself out of the corner he was in with Yoda later being in hiding and all, and I always feared he'd do it by Yoda losing to the Emperor, but, man, did he REALLY have to do it? After all this time Yoda's just a wuss. I mean, if he HAD to do it, he did it as best he could I think, but . . . wuss.

That's pretty cynical. Anyone that loses in a fight is automatically a wuss? If Yoda can't beat everyone in a fight, then he's lessened as a character?

No

He is saying that Yoda running away into exhile is weak (wuss). Yoda should have been hell bent on coming back.

In fact; now that I think about it; why was Ben hiding on some desert planet?

Both of them are wusses.

Jeez. I liked it.

Er, Ben wasn't hiding on just *any* desert planet, but a very particular one.

Sigh. I must say I, like most here, though Episode III sucked.

I had to go see it, along with the other 2, simply because I wanted to see how the technology would affect the story on screen, which it obviously did.

The first trilogy had so much more scope, there were bonafide scenes where you thought you were seeing another planet man, VISTAS man. Then, we get some HD and things shrink considerably and we forget we are experiencing a galactic story man. Where was the scope? Lost I say, Lost in the thrill of playing with new toys!

Ok, so now that my moment of madness has, almost passed :-), I can be a bit more serious.

I think Episode I sucked with no redeeming qualities. Episode II sucked, but the ending fight scene was cool. Episode III was better put together and gave some closure, but I thought the chemistry between Anakin and Padme sucked. The fight between Palpatine and Yoda really did suck: Yoda was supposed to be better than everyone man, even Mace-Windu, so how could he get his butt whupped like that? It would have been more exicting for Palpatine and Anakin to beat him - but, c'est la vie.

Do I think, Yoda or Obi-wan are wusses? Hmmm...not really. I think they had no choice; if they attacked they ran the risk of being eliminated totally, so they decided retreat was the better part of valor.

HOWEVER, I'm not liking that fall-back on the prophecy to be realized through Anakins offspring thing that happened at the end - poor writing to me (not saying poor writing wasn't a weakness throughout all).

It could have been so much better, sigh, much like the Matrix sequels, sigh.

If we ever see episodes 7, 8, and 9 I hope we get good writers and directors.

Wow! I guess I forget I'm on the dvinfo threads and not some sci-fi geek thread. It catches me off guard when so many people agree with me.

Shame about the whole thing, huh?

And I've got no more hope for the next Indiana Jones flick, because, I've heard that after Lucas tried out screenwriters like M. Night Shamalyn (is that how you spell it?) and a few promising others, he came to the conclusion that it would be best if he himself wrote the screenplay because none of the writers that tried for it really "knew the Indy character".

Please.

Even after creating him, if Temple of Doom or Last Crusade were any indication of Lucas' idea of Indy's character, I'd say we're in for another promising cameo from Jar Jar Binx.

. . . oh wait . . . You didn't know the Indy universe collided with the Star Wars universe? Hey, get a load of this man. Ok, Indy, being chastized so much from the barage of "Junior! Junior! Junior"s from his stupid dad, finds a time machine and travels forward in time to the Star Wars universe, only to find out that Marcus has slowly evolved over centuries into Jar Jar Binx. Here, I'll let you read you a quote from the screenplay . . . .

ahem . . .

. . . INDY---Hey Marcus! Your not gonna act as stupid as you did in Last Crusade now are you? I mean, after all, you were pretty cool in Raiders!

MARCUS---Meeeesa Say, Meeeesa Say, I not lika at all de way I be from Raiders! Now my ears be all floppy and we all treat your friend Salla like a slave instead of your good friend! Meeeesa try to get Sean Connery a new umbrella though. Last time he flop away seagulls and save Indy's butt a whole bunch!

. . . ?

. . . Whatchya guys think? Sounds promising to me.

Yes, I'm cynical. But at least some of you see the light with me.

finds a time machine and travels forward in time to the Star Wars universe

Wait a minute.... I thought Star Wars was "long ago in a galaxy far away?" Or maybe I've got that wrong, I forget....

I would have gone to see episode 3 out of curiousity, but I was busy and never got around to it. All these spoilers tend to bring me around to Michael's way of thinking, but I'm sure I'll watch the DVD someday when I'm looking for a bit of escapist entertainment.

Laurence, although I too thought Episode III sucked (well, the complete new trilogy actually), but I don't agree with what you are saying about the Indiana Jones movies.
First I thought the two sequels were very good, especially the Last Crusade which I actually found to be the best of the three - my personal opinion.
But why I'm not agreeing with what you are saying is because you forget... SPIELBERG!!

Sorry, but I haven't lost my trust in Spielberg.
The man uses his special fx in service of his story and not the other way around.

Whoa whoa whoa

Indiana Jones. Heres' the problem with Indiana Jones.

Raiders of the Lost Ark was so epic and wonderful beyond words it was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture. In fact it was nominated for:

Art Direction - WIN
Cinematography
Director
Editing - WIN
Picture
Score
Sound - WIN
Visual Effects - WIN
Special Achievement - WIN

AFI calls it one of 100 Greatest American Movies

It won Best Director at the Golden Globes, the DGA, the British Academy Awards and Library of Congress selected it as well for the U.S. National Film Registry.

That's how cool RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is. The other 2 don't and did not come close to this level of achievement. To this day I cannot believe they gave the Best Picture to CHARIOTS OF FIRE. Maybe ON GOLDEN POND but not CHARIOTS over RAIDERS. And giving Beatty the nod over Steven man; aye yae yae.... (and how can you give the Best Film and Best Director away to two different projects anyway?)

I'm 100% with Laurence Maher on this issue. I am so concerned they are going to scrw up part 4. They already screwed up INDY III which was so bad and absurd it reduced the series to one big f***** joke. "Junior!? Junior!?" and Marcus being a complete nincompoop; how do you go from the coolness that was Marcus in Raiders to a complete moron? The entire film is just one big bad dream and caters towards the 8 year olds; and that's the problem.

This new one is probally going to suck and Geroge get's far to much credit for Indiana Jones as it is; good or bad.

I think INDY 4 should be taken down to it's roots and shot legit and not for some childrens comedy hour. I say bring in a story about the bomb and Imperial Japanese Forces. Yeah baby. GIve me the Pacific Theatre. The NAZI story has gotten old.

I'm with John on this.

"Raiders of the Lost Ark" still holds up to repeated viewings. To me it belongs in the pantheon of nearly flawless adventure pictures. Exciting, tight with memorable set pieces.

Each sequel was several statures below Raiders. "The Last Crusade" I thought was mediocre and poorly-made whereas "Temple of Doom" was competent but didn't really have an interesting concept or conflict.

I believe a good Indy film could still be made but I'm not holding my breath.

I am also on the bandwagon. Spielberg strikes me as a director who is capable of making good action/adventure movies, but who doesn't really understand what is great about his own best work.
Take Jurrasic Park, you have some great ingrediants, dinosaurs, slightly mad scientist, jungle island...ect. but the end result was decidedly mediocre and disappointing. He even reuses the severed arm gag from jaws.
as an aside it's strange to me that with all the effects available now that the original King Kong still has, what I beleive to be, the most exciting dino sequences. I am not very hopeful that the remake will improve upon the original.

In general, it's not at all uncommon for sequels to fail to live up to the original, especially when the original is truly "greatness", such as Raiders, Star Wars, Rocky, Jaws, etc. And while I don't think the Indy series has been quite as--ahem--"pimped out" as many other franchises, I can't exactly say that I'm looking forward to Indy 4.

But as to the movie that started this topic...yes it sucked, but at least it had the PAYOFF (even if we've known for 20 years what it was going to be).

:-)

Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of those movies that inspires me. Definitely on my list of gosh I wish that were my movie I'd made, sigh...

I do agree that the sequels were weaker, but sometimes I wonder if it is fair to expect the same level of wonder or excitement from a sequel? After all you can't quite beat that "first" time viewing/getting into a movie that blows you away, you know? Of course I do feel that once a sequel is happening, the filmmakers have a responsibility to really try for that level of reaction from the audience, and not just go for the pocket book: Matrix anyone?

I also didn't quite like the "junior", as it made my hero seem, well, less than heroic.

Indy 4. Well, I'm not holding my breath, but one can hope? Lol, it's funny. If one were to watch Star Wars from Episode I - never having seen the original trilogy - all the way through to Episode VI, you may think that Episode IV "A New Hope" signalled the beginning of good filmmaking for that series of films!!!

Imagine someone in the faaaaarrrrrr future doing just that man. Wow. Hmmm, maybe I'm rambling again? Dang, I seem to be doing that a lot these days, must be the anxiety of going back to school in a couple weeks!!

I do have to mention although I liked the sequels (I actually loved the junior-part, but opinions differ ;-)) I also don't really have the need to see an Indy 4, I thought it was a nice trilogy as it was, and I too don't really see the need to have that fourth movie, so late after the original trilogy.
Then you have what? The original trilogy and... one movie, made 25 years after the first one. Or they could make a new trilogy, but I don't know why that would be necessary. I have the feeling of: Spielberg did his Indiana Jones movies, now let him try other things.
He has been experimenting somewhat the last years (Minority Report was very dark, A.I., Catch me if you can was one of his very few comedies - 1941 was horrible) so I like how he is doing, even if he is going back to his old popcorn movies sometimes (War of the Worlds, which I also found to be very good, but anyhow).
I'm also looking forward to his next, Munich, which seems to be back a more heavy movie in substance.
Great to see Spielberg keeps having the same passion and energy about movies (in my eyes at least).

I don't think there is any rule that says a trilogy has to stay three movies. There wasn't really anything in the Indy films that thematically feels like it has to be three films, unlike the Lord of the Rings films which followed the trilogy of the books. Spielberg and Lucas patterned the Indy films after adventure serials, after all, which played every month or so.

Yes I know, but I still think it's nice, with the dvd box and so they brought out. You know, it's like a 1 whole, and if I don't know... they add a fourth, maybe I don't know...
Maybe I'm being too nostalgic.

I don't think there is any rule that says a trilogy has to stay three movies

... other the rule that "tri" indicates 3?

-Steve

Yes, but I think he just meant about the Indiana Jones trilogy. It was never a rule that it only had to be 3 movies.

... other the rule that "tri" indicates 3?


Sorry that was poor wording on my part.

Yes I know, but I still think it's nice, with the dvd box and so they brought out. You know, it's like a 1 whole, and if I don't know... they add a fourth, maybe I don't know...
Maybe I'm being too nostalgic.

It is also annoying when they have to debate what to call it. Quadrilogy?

It is also annoying when they have to debate what to call it. Quadrilogy?

...Series?

I do agree that the sequels were weaker, but sometimes I wonder if it is fair to expect the same level of wonder or excitement from a sequel? After all you can't quite beat that "first" time viewing/getting into a movie that blows you away, you know? Of course I do feel that once a sequel is happening, the filmmakers have a responsibility to really try for that level of reaction from the audience, and not just go for the pocket book: Matrix anyone?


You think the the W bros. were only going for the pocket book when they made the Matrix sequels and weren't actively trying to reach the same level of quality they did with the first film? Is that the major reason why sequels aren't as good as originals? Because the filmmakers aren't trying to make a good movie, just cashing a paycheck? Am I the only one who thinks that in cases like the Star Wars and Matrix sequels, the filmmakers involved ARE in fact actively trying to make the best movies they can, and if the final results don't quite meet audience expectations, it's not because of a lack of care on the filmmakers part. Maybe I'm just not cynical enough.

How about calling it "One cool movie and a couple other lame ones marketed at children for the sake of making money." ?

In general, it's not at all uncommon for sequels to fail to live up to the original,

Seems this is a sad truth, huh? But maybe not entirely uncommon?

What about these sequels? (Not so lame IMHO)

The Godfather II - Better than 1st
Terminator 2
The Bourne Supremacy
Aliens - Better than 1st
Lethal Weapon 2
Empire Strikes Back (could make an argument for better?)
Evil Dead II - Better than 1st
Halloween II - Competent I thought in that it continued the evening and didn't just whore the name out
Friday the 13th Part II
Spider-Man 2
Harry Potter Films -
Lord of the Rings Films
Shrek 2
X-Men 2
MI 2
Scream 3
Kill Bill 2
Austin Power's
Jaws 2 - Jaws is epic (one of my favortie films ever) but I always felt 2 was underrated. Maybe it's the 70's grainy stock or that during this time Holyywood hadn't made too many sequels? I don't know; I like Part 2 and do not consider it crap (although competing with the original seems impossible.)
Rush Hour 2
Ace Venture 2
Shanghai Knights 2

(These last 3 films listed in the sense that the sequels are no more better or worse than the original; I found them at least as entertaining and do not consider the orginals great works obviously; a kind of 'if you've seen the first one you've seen the second one'.)

So, it can be done

Gotta like how Short Round was beating up 200lb thuggies in DOOM though

well said.

Of that list (most of which I've seen) I'd agree that many of them are as good, and in some cases BETTER, than the originals. I certainly prefer many of them to the original.

Empire is definately my favorite Star Wars film, but it does lack some of the "magical charm" of the original.

Aliens is an AWESOME movie...but I don't know if I'd say is BETTER....it's just completely different. I find it difficult to decide which is better.

MI2 was definatley better, but I'm biased; I realy dig John Woo films. ;-)

How about calling it "One cool movie and a couple other lame ones marketed at children for the sake of making money."

Well isn't that just what I said? That you think that the sequels were made for monetary purposes and only for monetary purposes and that the directors involved didn't try very hard because they were only interested in doing it 'for the sake of making money?' Aren't you saying that you think that's the truth of the situation?

Seems this is a sad truth, huh? But maybe not entirely uncommon?

What about these sequels? (Not so lame IMHO)

The Godfather II - Better than 1st
Terminator 2
The Bourne Supremacy
Aliens - Better than 1st
Lethal Weapon 2
Empire Strikes Back (could make an argument for better?)
Evil Dead II - Better than 1st
Halloween II - Competent I thought in that it continued the evening and didn't just whore the name out
Friday the 13th Part II
Spider-Man 2
Harry Potter Films -
Lord of the Rings Films
Shrek 2
X-Men 2
MI 2
Scream 3
Kill Bill 2

Well, I'd argue with you about several of these (Terminator, Alien, LW, MI, Scream, Kill Bill), but it doesn't matter. I think if you compared these to all of the sequels ever made, you'd find you've listed about 1% of sequels or so - so yeah, fairly uncommon.

Well isn't that just what I said? That you think that the sequels were made for monetary purposes and only for monetary purposes and that the directors involved didn't try very hard because they were only interested in doing it 'for the sake of making money?' Aren't you saying that you think that's the truth of the situation?

What? No serious; I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Well, I'd argue with you about several of these (Terminator, Alien, LW, MI, Scream, Kill Bill), but it doesn't matter. I think if you compared these to all of the sequels ever made, you'd find you've listed about 1% of sequels or so - so yeah, fairly uncommon.

1%? So. You're one of those type's are ya? ;)

What's to argue? You can argue all you want; it's not going to change my opinion on it.

Look; I have no idea how many sequels have been made. If you do, hook up with the list and we can go through it. My underlying point is that chalking it up to 'well, sequels generally suck' is a cop out and a poor excuse for a film to be bad. It doesn't matter if ole George is trying hard or the W Bros are trying; the final result is ass on a stick.

The list I provided is arguably a good list but I ain't gonna argue with you over it. It may be uncommon for a film sequel not to live up to the original's standard's but we can come up with a laundry list of competent sequels for sure. It's not simply one or 2 anamolies we're talking about. So yeah; I'd definately say it's not entirely UNCOMMON.

To be clear; I'm not saying any of those sequels are better (unless I point it out) but they sure are right up there.

1%? So. You're one of those type's are ya? ;)

What's to argue? You can argue all you want; it's not going to change my opinion on it.

Look; I have no idea how many sequels have been made. If you do, hook up with the list and we can go through it . . . the list I provided is arguably a good list but I ain't gonna argue with you over it. It may be uncommon for a film sequel not to live up to the original's standard's but we can come up with a laundry list of competent sequels for sure. It's not simply one or 2 anamolies we're talking about. So yeah; I'd definately say it's not entirely UNCOMMON.

Sure - according to IMDB, there are 6,569 sequels registered with them. You can find the whole list here http://www.imdb.com/List?tv=on&&keywords=sequel&&heading=19;sequel

Your list of 23 films consititutes .3% of all sequels ever made, though granted you picked some more well known, and more recent sequels, and weren't attempting to go through the entirety of film history.

However, if you go through that list in its entirety, I think you'll be hard pressed to find 150 good sequels. Yes, I would say that good sequels are exceeding uncommon, if for no other reason than genuinely good movies are fairly uncommon as well, most films being of average quality.

That being said, I wouldn't suggest it as a reason why it's okay for sequels not to be good films, I'm just saying it's not surprising. My point was that the people making the sequels are generally trying to make good films when they're making sequels, and if the movies aren't as good as they might want them to be, well, that's the way it goes. Everyone wants their story to be great, but that is often outside of a persons individual control.

Okay there Josuha. You need to take a long look at that list/link you just provided. I have to throw this out and declare it inadmissable.

If you wan't to add up and count all of those films listed (including the epic Made For Video A.n.a.l. 2: Not for P***ies) then that's fine. Not sure of the validity of the list as it is? It list straight to video porn titles, made for television, television series, video game titles, cartoons, foriegn films of which I cannot pronounce nor have heard of...

Find us a Valid movie sequel list will ya? And I sure as hell ain't talking about American Ninja 4 or Anal Intruder 7. We're talking film sequels to films that were good in the first place not 'Who's your Daddy 3'.

As far as finding 150 films on the list; I can't think of 100 great films in the first place much less a 150 sequels; jeez.

Awesome.

Find us a Valid movie sequel list will ya? And I sure as hell ain't talking about American Ninja 4 or Anal Intruder 7. We're talking film sequels to films that were good in the first place not 'Who's your Daddy 3'.

As far as finding 150 films on the list; I can't think of 100 great films in the first place much less a 150 sequels; jeez.


I'm pretty sure we were just talking about sequels being good in the first place, and how many good sequels there are versus sequels made - which I did.

So now you want to change the criteria to how many sequels to good movies are good, which first of all becomes extremely subjective when determining what is a good movie in the first place, much less a sequel to a good movie. Certainly there are plenty of people who would place Evil Dead II and Friday the 13th part 2 in with American Ninja 4.

If you want to place specific limits on the films involved in order to find the sequels - and it seems you want to talk specifically and only about major Hollywood releases - your percentage of sequels as decent films will go up, but not a huge amount.

Am I missing something here?

You seem to be fixated on this. Is something going on here? You seem bothered; manic almost.

Why don't we let this go, huh? Not sure if I said something that got to you here or maybe somewhere else? It's appearing to be a pissing contest on your end; trollish. Your hanging onto words, spouting stats, latching on with no intention of ever letting go....

I replied simply to your 'it's not uncommon for film sequels to lack' with a 'too true' reply but thought a bit more about it and came up with arguably a laundry list of solid sequels (not better than ever; but competent sequels) with my underlying point being "Hollywood is more than capable of making good sequels..." and now your going Rainman on me.

I think we can all generally agree what is considered a 'Good Hollywood Film' and what sequels spawned were of quaility, hmmm?

Should I just say 'You're right' about whatever it is you wan't to be right about? (You tell me.)

I'll make this easy for you

Let's move on. Jeez.

Should I just say 'You're right' about whatever it is you wan't to be right about?

\
Wow, I could use some of that.
I think I should argue more with you John.
:)

Hey Joshua, don't want to get off topic, but to answer your question, yes I do think the main emphasis with the two matrix sequels was to make money. Looking at the two sequels, it's not hard to visualize one movie without a lot of the fluff and irrelevant parts each contained. More to the point, after the sleeper success of the original "Matrix" it was well publicized that WB had asked the W Bros. to decide on sequel or sequels; they decided on two sequels. Why? Obviously for the money, since there hadn't even been talk of sequels before the film had been screened and most thought it would have amounted to "just ok." But, feel free to disagree.

On topic.

The list John provided is a pretty good list and I think we all agree that good sequels can be done, though I will submit that we were speaking of feature films and not straight to video releases; there is an obvious difference in the quality of discussion one can have with a name like "Anal Intruder 7."

My rumination about sequels illustrates my thinking that it is harder to create the same reaction to a sequel because the awe factor is lessened; think Jurassic Park. In my opinion, a sequel is always made for money, unless the source material requires a sequel (LOTR), or the original story was crafted to be one in a series (any superhero movie). Don't even get me started on Sin City, which I think was visually good, but a poor movie (and I did own the source comics at one point). I've already said in another RR thread that I think RR rips himself off, so he's always on the lookout to create money, not original movies.

Off Topic

One series no one mentioned, Austin Powers. What do you guys think of those movies? How about American Pie? I heard there's to be a part 4? Do we really need a part 4?

On Topic

Star Wars was such a classic in so many ways and had so much to draw from, it's hard for me to believe that George messed up so badly with Episodes I, II, and III (here I am without a feature film credit to my name criticizing a film Icon, the internet is so great huh!). Lots of people said the pay off was worth it, but was it really?

From a purely technical perspective, I'm always going to have respect for what George has accomplished, but I do feel he lowered Star Wars from that pedestal it's been on since we first visited that galaxy far far away with those prequels.

I will always be sad about that nagging question, what if?

But to come back to reality, would anyone want to see episodes 7, 8, and 9? Regardless of whether George was involved or not?

(here I am without a feature film credit to my name criticizing a film Icon, the internet is so great huh!).?

I don't think that you should feel that your opinion is any less valid because of this. In some ways, i would think that it is quite the opposite. I would think that most of the people laying down $10 haven't made a feature either, and it's their opinion that makes or breaks a film, and in more than just a financial sense.

I think from a creator's standpoint, a good reason to make a sequel is that you want to continue the story of characters and settings that you love.

"Aliens" for one. James Cameron moved that series in a different direction. It had a new theme, it had a different style, yet it was the same universe. He did it very well. Now, I prefer the original "Alien" but I still respect "Aliens" a lot. It blew me away as a 16 year old.

Hey Michael. Yeah I hear yah man, and I agree. The internet has really allowed people to interact in more ways - not all good of course - but, I think it's great!

Hey Keith. I agree and Alien/s I also like - Alien scared the $h!t out of me, I was only what, maybe 7 when I saw it, that darn alien bursting outta the guys stomach had me almost peeing my pants man! Another sequel which I think is as good as the orginal is T2. Both Terminator and T2 rocked!

But, I do think that somewhere along the line most sequels get made for money and not so much for the merit of the story. I wouldn't care really provided they were all great, or even good, movies.

Personally I would jump at the chance of doing a sequel to any number of films on my list of favorite movies.

I think Free Willy 2 was better then the first... :-)
I know it sounds stupid, but I mean it though :-p

But to come back to reality, would anyone want to see episodes 7, 8, and 9? Regardless of whether George was involved or not?

I woudn't mind seeing them. Surely they couldn't be any worse than Episodes 1, 2, and 3. He-he! :-D

Say, have you seen the plot synopsis ("supposedly" written by Lucas himself, wink-wink-nudge-nudge) for Episodes 7/8/9 over on www.supershadow.com ... they're worth checking out, if only for the fanboy aspect.

LINKS:
Star Wars Episode 7 - The Fallen Hero (http://www.starwarssequeltrilogy.com/)
Star Wars Episode 8 - The Republic in Crisis (http://www.supershadow.com/starwars/episode8/plot.html)
Star Wars Episode 9 - Victory of the Force (http://www.supershadow.com/starwars/episode9/plot.html)

;-)

When are they gonna have another "Big Trouble In Little China"? The ending of that movie left it open ended, what with the Sasquatch thingy hitching a ride on Kurt Russell's rig.