Your Top 5 Movies That Should Have Had A Sequel/Prequel

[Enron]

Thought this would be in keeping with the recent "Top 10" craze here at DvdFile but due to all the sequels out there I thought it would be too hard to come up with 10 so I made it 5.

Here are mine in no particular order:

Independence Day
The Rock
Close Encounters
The Thing
Invasion of the Body Snatchers

[sub780lime]

I like this thread because their are so many movies I want to see their stories continued.

1. Serenity

and I really need to look at my collection to complete this. There are are too many coming to mind to list them.

[Brikar99]

Originally Posted by sub780lime

1. Serenity

Ditto.

[tomdkat]

None, for me. Given how bad sequels tend to be (generally speaking), I think the movies I've enjoyed that don't have sequels should remain that way. I can't see how a sequel for Independence Day could work nor could I see a sequel for Event Horizon really working.

I can understand wanting a sequel to Serenity but I would think the TV show better suits that.

Peace...

[EM3]

I would like to see 2 prequels made and if done right I think they could be done right.

1) Nightmare on Elm Street (Laugh if you want) I think this could be done as a really good psychological thriller.

2) Underworld - I would like to see the backstory of the family split etc.

[Astrakan]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

I can't see how a sequel for Independence Day could work...

That depends entirely on your own imagination. For example, a sequel to ID could be very interesting if you were to take the movie in an entirely different direction than the original.

Set it 10-15 years after the events of ID. Those nations which had spaceships crash in them have been able to study these wrecks and from what they learned have managed to become incredibly advanced technologically.

And perhaps they're not sharing this technology, so you have a few super powers around the world with very advanced weaponry and transportation systems and whatever else you can cook up, and everyone else are left in the stoneage - comparatively.

Lots of potential for various stories there.

Or maybe mankind did learn from the events of ID, and have banded together. And, again using their newfound knowledge, launches a united counter attack on the alien's home world.

Anyway, my point is simply that there are very few movies that do not have potential for sequels. That doesn't necessarily mean they should be made, but "I don't see how it could work" is definitely not an argument for why they shouldn't be.

KM

[Astrakan]

As for my own sequels/prequels...

Well, the aforementioned Serenity for sure.

A Pretty Woman sequel could be very cool. Either as a comedy, or even an intimate drama could work.

A Sixth Sense sequel in 10-15 years, starring an adult Haley Joel Osment. Maybe he outgrew his ability, or maybe he still has it...

An outer space sci-fi prequel to The Hidden could be pretty interesting.

Despite how the prequels fared, I'd love sequels to the original Star Wars trilogy. Imagine uniting the original cast, and adding some new younger faces too... Could be very cool.

These are just a few off the top of my head, but I for one am not nearly as fed up with sequels as many others here are. If I enjoyed the original, I usually like the sequel well enough. Even it is indeed rare to like it as much or more.

KM

[BADBRAD]

Sneakers (either prequel or sequel)

[TylerD]

Doctor Detroit 2: The Wrath of Mom

[umainebearman]

Return of the Jedi

The Truman Show

Not really my top 5 but 2 that have a big story to continue.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Astrakan

That depends entirely on your own imagination. For example, a sequel to ID could be very interesting if you were to take the movie in an entirely different direction than the original.

I'm sure many here will tell you I have a very vivid and active imagination.

Your examples of a sequel to ID certainly would take the story in a different direction but that direction would result in a movie that loses the theme presented in ID4, "the world" fighting to protect its "independence". I think it's the "creativity" in the interest of forcing a sequel is the reason we have sequels that suck.

Peace...

[Astrakan]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

Your examples of a sequel to ID certainly would take the story in a different direction but that direction would result in a movie that loses the theme presented in ID4, "the world" fighting to protect its "independence".

What's wrong with that? I for one would be interested in seeing an example of how the world might change in the aftermath of events like in ID.

KM

[JakeLipson]

1) The Incredibles

2) Men in Black II - yeah, essentially I am saying they should make a third one. The second one was bad, but not bad enough for me to think that a good third one would fail to redeem the series.

[Al Pacino]

Unbreakable = I know he wanted to make 2 more and it didnt make enough money, but it needs to be done!

The Cable Guy = I miss Jim Carrey doing movies like this, I wish he would do them more often.

A History of Violence Prequel!!! I would love to see some Viggo dominating people back in his early years.

Forrest Gump I really loved this movie, I havent seen it in a few years, but I guess this is like The Truman Show and how I too feel like there is more story to be told.

[Astrakan]

Originally Posted by Al Pacino

A History of Violence Prequel!!! I would love to see some Viggo dominating people back in his early years.

Oooh! Good one.

KM

[El Lancito]

Glitter

[NotEd]

Originally Posted by BADBRAD

Sneakers (either prequel or sequel)

Actually that could've been interesting. Frankly if you wanted a sequel a TV series could've done it too....


How about Buckaroo Banzai?
And before anyone asks Big Trouble in Little China doesn't really count, I think.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by El Lancito

Glitter

And I'm sure you'd like to see a Gigli one too.

[El Lancito]

Originally Posted by ganthc

And I'm sure you'd like to see a Gigli one too.

Now you're being silly. However, I'd really like to see Leonard part 8. That's right, skip part 7, and just go right to part 8.

[ganthc]

Ishtar needs a sequel. As well as Cutthroat Island.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Astrakan

What's wrong with that? I for one would be interested in seeing an example of how the world might change in the aftermath of events like in ID.

Nothing is "wrong" with that, per se, except people would expect a common theme to run throughout all the sequels, with that theme being established in the first installment (the original movie). As you move away from that, people start to use words like "suck". Look at the sequel to Behind Enemy Lines. It had absolutely nothing to do with the first movie other than our soldiers being caught "behind enemy lines". Most comments I've read on that movie were negative even though it perfectly fits into the example you illustrated above. They went in a completely different direction and that direction just didn't work for a lot of people. Personally, I enjoyed the movie but I didn't have the first movie in mind at all when I watched it. In fact, the sequel to Behind Enemy Lines would have stood on its own just fine as an original movie.

I just have an issue with "forcing" a sequel that isn't naturally there in the interest of preserving a feeling we got with the original presentation of the story.

Peace...

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by ganthc

And I'm sure you'd like to see a Gigli one too.

I would. I loved J-Lo in Gigli. In fact, she's the reason I bought Gigli.

Peace...

[Astrakan]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

I just have an issue with "forcing" a sequel that isn't naturally there in the interest of preserving a feeling we got with the original presentation of the story.

Who says that have to be the interest?

If someone were to make the sequel to ID per one of my outlines above it would definitely not preserve the feeling we got with the original. But that doesn't mean investigating how the people of earth would behave in the aftermath of ID-like events doesn't have merit.

And if they were to make such a movie, why not make it a sequel to ID? It would have lots of benefits, such as characters and their backgrounds having already been established in ID. The disastrous events we're depicting the aftermath of have also been established and shown in all their glory.

I think you're getting too hung up on the traditional definition of a sequel and not keeping an open mind to the benefits of making sequels that may not share the spirit of the original, but are still set in the same universe.

And sure, many people may not like it, because they would go in expecting something akin to ID, but as long as the movie on its own has merit, who cares what those people think?

I know, I know, Hollywood studios and their bottom lines do, but considering I'm not making a case that could realistically be applied to our current conditions, that doesn't really matter. I'm only arguing the merits of sequels, and interpreting that term as widely as can be.

KM

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Astrakan

Who says that have to be the interest?

Those who want "the story to go on" do. Going in a completely different direction doesn't "continue" the story, it changes the story.

If someone were to make the sequel to ID per one of my outlines above it would definitely not preserve the feeling we got with the original. But that doesn't mean investigating how the people of earth would behave in the aftermath of ID-like events doesn't have merit.

I don't have a problem with this. They can be their own movies not related to ID in any way, other than possibly a similar title.

And if they were to make such a movie, why not make it a sequel to ID? It would have lots of benefits, such as characters and their backgrounds having already been established in ID. The disastrous events we're depicting the aftermath of have also been established and shown in all their glory.

Why not? Because the ID story is already finished. You're talking about making NEW movies with the familiar faces of the original movie, which is fine but they should be new movies. Once you start continuing a story that's already been finished it's very hard to do that well. History has demonstrated when the original story doesn't naturally lend itself to future continuations of that story, the future tellings tend to suck. Look at American Pie. They've made 5, maybe, movies when they really could have stopped after the second one. But someone wanted to keep riding that wave (to make money, of course) but the longer they rode the wave, the worse the ride got (for the movie viewers, that is).

Some things are just better left alone.

I think you're getting too hung up on the traditional definition of a sequel and not keeping an open mind to the benefits of making sequels that may not share the spirit of the original, but are still set in the same universe.

I believe I am keeping an open mind about this and what you're describing is forcing something that really isn't there. Now making movies set in the same universe is something that makes far MORE sense than a "sequel" since the universe is broad enough to allow for the telling of different stories that the same cast can participate in and in ways that make sense for that particular story.

And sure, many people may not like it, because they would go in expecting something akin to ID, but as long as the movie on its own has merit, who cares what those people think?

Well, those who post on boards like this who defend the movies others slam certainly do care what others think. The potential for this "sequel" to do well at the theater is something who make the movie will take into consideration, so they obviously care what people will think. If someone chose to make a sequel to ID in the manner you're describing, that's fine as long as those advocating and supporting that project don't get their feathers ruffled if their work is rejected and slammed. I mean look at Sony's response when that projectionist slammed the new Fantastic Four movie in his online review.

I know, I know, Hollywood studios and their bottom lines do, but considering I'm not making a case that could realistically be applied to our current conditions, that doesn't really matter. I'm only arguing the merits of sequels, and interpreting that term as widely as can be.

I hear ya it's just I don't agree with ya. Some stories are told in a way they lend themselves to continue to be told. Some stories aren't told in such a manner. It's when people "force" the story to continue to be told when it really doesn't need to be that things go downhill.

The Hannibal Rising movie is a PRIME example, IMO. Hannibal Lecter was so "well received" by people (almost akin to Darth Vader) that two movies were made, Hannibal and Hannibal Rising, to tell Mr Lecter's tale and both movies were a waste of time and money (with Hannibal Rising being far WORSE of a movie). Manhunter/Red Dragon (which I really didn't like either but will leave in this discussion) introduced Hannibal Lecter. Silence of the Lambs exposed Lecter to far more people, thanks to Anthony Hopkins. What's needed know is the "how Lecter got caught in the first place" movie which isn't being made, for whatever reason and instead we're getting movies like "Hannibal Rising" instead.

I guess if what you're proposing really worked, we wouldn't be plagued with as many horrible sequels as we've been over the past several years.

Peace...

[Chris Knight]

Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo

[Hockey Mask]

I always expected a sequel for True Lies. THat time has passed.

[cxc273]

A sequel to the Rocketeer might have been interesting to see. I'm also curious to see what a sequel to Daredevil might have been like ... would it have been an improvement over the first or worse than the original?