Movies that should not have franchises

Watching TV and I came across an advert for [REC]3: Genesis. This brought me to look reviews up on rottentomatoes.com, imdb.com and trailers and it seems like they have moved completely from the original [REC]. For me, the first was excellent and suited itself perfectly as a standalone movie, with the others being more or less pointless.

What other movies should have been standalone, but then became a franchise?

The King of Moo

The Matrix.

The first film works perfectly on its own and comes to a logical and satisfying conclusion.

The sequels are completely unnecessary, and I don't believe that a trilogy was always planned.

jclally

Saw. The first one was good and took everyone by surprise.

They were rubbish from thereon in. A twist is good when youre not expecting it. When you wait all through the movie waiting for a twist you know is coming, its pointless. Not to mention, the later ones were like bad 90s made for TV movies

WatchWolf

Silence of The Lambs.

Hannibal was a catastrophe and Red Dragon was mediocre at best.

FortuneChip

They stretched Rocky a fair old distance!

JohnFalstaff

Jaws

krudler

jclally wrote: »

Saw. The first one was good and took everyone by surprise.

They were rubbish from thereon in. A twist is good when youre not expecting it. When you wait all through the movie waiting for a twist you know is coming, its pointless. Not to mention, the later ones were like bad 90s made for TV movies

What I was going to post, saw the first one and liked it, new, half decent American horror film, yay. then the sequels got more and more ridiculous.

krudler

The King of Moo wrote: »

The Matrix.

The first film works perfectly on its own and comes to a logical and satisfying conclusion.

The sequels are completely unnecessary, and I don't believe that a trilogy was always planned.

the sequels should have been the Second Renaissance section from the Animatrix, thats what I wanted to see. How it all came to being. Reloaded has some great action scenes interrupted by crappy philosophising and some guff about keys but Revolutions is mostly cack. was a crime to have the only three people we care about offscreen for the best part of an hour in the middle, watching hippies fight flying robots in a mouldy hangar.

pixelburp

Admittedly, expectations were fairly low given it was an adaptation of a theme-park ride, but the first Pirates of the Carribean surprised most by being a relatively fun, breezy swashbuckler with some decent wit & spirit. One of those 'lightning in a bottle' films; perfectly serviceable on its own and left most people happy. Then they tried to recreate the magic with 3 increasingly abysmal sequels that were never needed in the first place.

My other vote would be for the James Bond movies; obviously everyone has their favorite Bond but remove Casino Royale, Goldeneye and maybe the two Dalton films & the franchise has been utter garbage since the days of Connnery, and even then his last film was pretty rotten.

Icarus Wings

Jurassic Park - thought the original was brilliant but the other two (and possibly a third in the future) are just unnecessary.

Ocean's Eleven - the 1960 original with The Rat Pack was very enjoyable. Felt that the remakes were just excuses for Clooney, Pit and Damon to walk around in suits spouting utter nonsense.

krudler

Icarus Wings wrote: »

Jurassic Park - thought the original was brilliant but the other two (and possibly a third in the future) are just unnecessary.

Ocean's Eleven - the 1960 original with The Rat Pack was very enjoyable. Felt that the remakes were just excuses for Clooney, Pit and Damon to walk around in suits spouting utter nonsense.

christ yes, Oceans 12 was bascially us paying a tenner to watch movie stars on holidays and laughing at their own awesomeness. The Julia Roberts beng Julia Roberts bit is just cringe inducing. And the house raising part, ridonkulous!

Galvasean

+1 for The Matrix and Pirates of the Caribbean. I really like the first film in both franchises, but the follow ups were just made for money kack.

don ramo

Icarus Wings wrote: »

Jurassic Park - thought the original was brilliant but the other two (and possibly a third in the future) are just unnecessary.

Ocean's Eleven - the 1960 original with The Rat Pack was very enjoyable. Felt that the remakes were just excuses for Clooney, Pit and Damon to walk around in suits spouting utter nonsense.

krudler wrote: »

christ yes, Oceans 12 was bascially us paying a tenner to watch movie stars on holidays and laughing at their own awesomeness. The Julia Roberts beng Julia Roberts bit is just cringe inducing. And the house raising part, ridonkulous!

the new oceans 11 was brilliant, 12 and 13 were bad alright, but 11 is one of those films i enjoy watching every other year or so,

the upcoming hobbit, 1 book turned into 3 films that will probably have an over run time of just over 10 hours

KenSwee

That bloody Final Destination.

niallon

Shouldn't have been franchised.....Halloween

I'm an absolute Halloween nut and I've watched every one of them umpteen times, but even I will admit that what started off great with John Carpenter's original chilling flick has now become such a parody thanks to its own sh**y sequels. The canon has been screwed with twice in the original series, and then the remakes just decided to go against everything Carpenter went for with his original.

The sequels to the original film provide nothing but more opportunities for fans to ooh and aaah at the Michael Myers Boogeyman moments, and that's exactly why I watch them, but man there is such a law of diminishing returns, with a missed opportunity in the form of Halloween 6 thrown in for good measure.

johnny_ultimate

Pretty much everything? I could probably count on one hand the amount of 'franchises' that weren't distilled to within an inch of their life by numerous sequels. Even popular favourites like Star Wars / Trek or Bourne / Bond have failed to retain their initial freshness, even after managing a generally successful extended runs. Not to mention horror films - original ideas in that genre always seem to be run into the ground promptly and shamelessly. The amount of series that have managed two or more consistently quality sequels is very small indeed.

I'm also concerned about The Hobbit. I worry they're going to try and emulate LotR without realising they're dealing with a very different tale (and personally I think one solid film would have been a welcome, nostalgic return to Middle Earth). Too early to call though, and we may end up being proven wrong for doubting Jackson. But for now cautious pessimism for me.

CJ_

niallon wrote: »

Shouldn't have been franchised.....Halloween

I love Halloween IV!

Alien franchise became a bit ridiculous. I love Aliens now, but after that, just leave it alone.

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Pretty much everything? I could probably count on one hand the amount of 'franchises' that weren't distilled to within an inch of their life by numerous sequels. Even popular favourites like Star Wars / Trek or Bourne / Bond have failed to retain their initial freshness, even after managing a generally successful extended runs. Not to mention horror films - original ideas in that genre always seem to be run into the ground promptly and shamelessly. The amount of series that have managed two or more consistently quality sequels is very small indeed.

I'm also concerned about The Hobbit. I worry they're going to try and emulate LotR without realising they're dealing with a very different tale (and personally I think one solid film would have been a welcome, nostalgic return to Middle Earth). Too early to call though, and we may end up being proven wrong for doubting Jackson. But for now cautious pessimism for me.

Agree, I was, well still am, excited to see another movie set in Middle Earth, but a new trilogy? The Hobbit book isn't exactly War & Peace, its a relatively short children's novel. There's no need for three movies. You can tell the original three were a labour of love for Jackson and the writers and cast and they were the definition of event movies, this just stinks of padding the story out for extra box office.

Sleepy

Most of them tbh.

norrie rugger

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Pretty much everything?

Except Back to the Future

HavingCrack

norrie rugger wrote: »

Except Back to the Future

I felt the 3rd one was definately a bit weaker than the first two though but still a great film.

Mickeroo

I don't agree saying the likes of Star Trek, Bond etc. (Bourne to a lesser extent) shouldn't have been franchises, they were all franchises before they were movies, there was always going to be more than one movie made if the initial ones were successful.

I agree with Matrix and POTC to a point but only because their sequels sucked. Both films definitely left me feeling like I would like to see what happens next (in the case of the matrix) or just that I wouldn't mind revisiting these characters again in another story (POTC).

The clearest example of a sequel that shouldn't have happened under any circumstances I can think of is Alien: Ressurection (though Alien 3 arguably was nearly as unwarranted for what it did to the ending of Aliens) considering how the third one finished so conclusively.

I like sequels, I get excited about them provided i liked the first film and felt the characters had another story to tell. There's been sequels since before there was films and I have no problem with them. I don't really want to see them stop making movies about star trek, bond, batman etc. provided they can still manage to make them well and re-invent them if necessary.

I'm worried about The Hobbit too though.

kitakyushu

HavingCrack wrote: »

I felt the 3rd one was definately a bit weaker than the first two though but still a great film.

I used to think that myself but my opinion has changed over time to consider the second one the weakest.

I think growing up I was just turned-off by Westerns so a BTTF movie working in that genre was going to have to have a hard time capturing my interest. The second one seemed a lot cooler on the surface because it has trips into the future and all those time paradoxes and a large chunk spent in the arenas we were all familiar with from Part 1. I think it just has an easier time winning over fans.

Still love all three tho. A solid trilogy!

cian68

They're making a third hangover. Let that sink in.

cian68

cian68 wrote: »

They're making a third hangover. Let that sink in.

Completely agree. One was bad enough.

saintsaltynuts

WatchWolf wrote: »

Silence of The Lambs.

Hannibal was a catastrophe and Red Dragon was mediocre at best.

Silence Of The Lambs was a sequel of sorts to Michael Mann's Manhunter its well worth a watch.

who_me

Alien? How many times can you - essentially - re-make the same movie?

mikhail

pixelburp wrote: »

... My other vote would be for the James Bond movies; obviously everyone has their favorite Bond but remove Casino Royale, Goldeneye and maybe the two Dalton films & the franchise has been utter garbage since the days of Connnery, and even then his last film was pretty rotten.

So, you think about half of the Bond films are good, including half of the last eight? And you think that's an argument against the franchise?

saintsaltynuts wrote: »

Silence Of The Lambs was a sequel of sorts to Michael Mann's Manhunter its well worth a watch.

It is. In fact, Red Dragon is the same story, told less well.

mikhail

who_me wrote: »

Alien? How many times can you - essentially - re-make the same movie?

In fairness, Aliens is celebrated as one of the finest sequels in cinema, successfully tacking an action movie onto the rump of a horror story. Alien 3, granted, owes a little too much to the first one, but it's the only one. Alien Resurrection has no shortage of problems but being derivitive of its predecessors ain't one.

krudler

who_me wrote: »

Alien? How many times can you - essentially - re-make the same movie?

Ah now to be fair you can hardly call Aliens a remake of Alien, its a very different film in tone and structure. Its one of the best sequels ever because it does what a sequel should do, it takes established characters and a premise and expands on it while staying within the universe set up by the original. The first is a gothic body horror movie the second is a balls to the wall combat film with horror elements.

krudler

mikhail wrote: »

So, you think about half of the Bond films are good, including half of the last eight? And you think that's an argument against the franchise?


It is. In fact, Red Dragon is the same story, told less well.

I like Manhunter, Brian Cox is superb as Lecter and Tom Noonan is always worth watching.

Mr Blobby

Has to be The Lion King for me.... They really didn't need a sequel.

strokeslover

I've heard Stallone wants to make a third expendables

FrostyJack

strokeslover wrote: »

I've heard Stallone wants to make a third expendables

It will come, the likes of Harrison Ford, Eastwood etc that are being linked will draw the crowd and hence the money ( I liked the second one). I think this is one franchise that won't delute the story, as there is none. I don't like the Matrix bashing, yes 2 and 3 were hard to follow by some, they should have been condensed into one film and all the psuedo-philosophy and anything to do with Trinity should have been binned. The action sequences were revolutionary at the time. As said above I don't know how the Hobbit is becoming 3 movies, I have never read the books, but from what people who have told me there isn't as much content as LOTR. I hope I am proved wrong. 3rd Hangover, no way, the 2nd was clutching at straws. Inbetweeners 2 might be a bridge to far as well.

Tomk1

FrostyJack wrote: »

I don't like the Matrix bashing, yes 2 and 3 were hard to follow by some, they should have been condensed into one film and all the psuedo-philosophy and anything to do with Trinity should have been binned.

'Hard to follow by some'! I think the actors were lost. As in the matrix thrend ----> cut 2&3 down to one 80min
movie, but still what was the point, didn't follow the continuity of 1. ( like the sequel makes sence once you havn't seen the first one)

My own, Shrek maybe because; I could just about tolerate one, as a one off, but no they had to make another & then another, I fear they'll just keep making them forever & ever.

One remake I never want to see is ''Another Total recall'' starring colin farrel as Arnie.

The ones that work are the likes of sherlock holms & Terminator, (note havn't seen the last one T4)

CiDeRmAn

The thing about BTTF is that it really only has one sequel just released in two parts, they were filmed back to back and everything else was done in parallel.
And they were a lot of fun, no Primer mind you but then Primer wasn't "fun" except as a mind fug!

don ramo

Tomk1 wrote: »

The ones that work are the likes of sherlock holms & Terminator, (note havn't seen the last one T4)

and Batman, and The Avengers:D

don ramo

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

The thing about BTTF is that it really only has one sequel just released in two parts, they were filmed back to back and everything else was done in parallel.
And they were a lot of fun, no Primer mind you but then Primer wasn't "fun" except as a mind fug!

yeah but your not gonna go to the cinema to watch a 4 hour film, they were filmed back to back because they wanted a trilogy, and its much cheaper filming back to back films, Avatar 2 and 3 are being filmed back to back,

Mickeroo

don ramo wrote: »

Avatar 2 and 3 are being filmed back to back,

Speaking of movies that shouldn't have franchises....

don ramo

Mickeroo wrote: »

Speaking of movies that shouldn't have franchises....

i wouldn't agree with ya there, for what Cameron did with avatar it would be ridiculous not to revisit Pandora, the film made 2.7 billion at the box office and now Cameron is rewarding the fans of the film with 2 more films, its only right, sure we never got to see Pandora properly and now that the humans are gone we can explore what the world has to offer,

Cameron took a massive risk making the first one, investing a lot of time and money into it, and inventing a whole new method of filming, the man is an innovator, and i cant wait to see what hes gonna show us next,

Sleepy

Maybe. But the movie was still absolutely shite...

don ramo

Sleepy wrote: »

Maybe. But the movie was still absolutely shite...

in your opinion,

there are about 7 billion people on the planet, its takes a whole plethora of film types and variations to keep that many people entertained, so when something is successful it will most likely either get a sequel or an imitation, money of course come into it, but its just a byproduct of it, obviously studios like pushing their films and making people go see it, but people also wont see films if they dont like them, there have been plenty of failures at the box office, just this year we had battleship and john carter, both lost a ton of money for the studios, and thats just the 2 biggest failures, plenty of others, so it isnt all success as some people would think,

Avatars BO could account for 1 studios entire profits for 1 year, its success allowed the studio to put money into smaller projects that yield very little if no profit,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Searchlight_Pictures

have a look through that and see how many films you like are in there and how many made profit, thats just one studio, and most big studios have multiple divisions, one arm involved in mid-big budget, while another handles, smaller indie films,

obviously the studios always come out on top, so far this year 2 films have grossed over $1billion each, last year there were 3, and 2 the year before that, but for every billion dollar film there could be 20 that loose money,

pixelburp

mikhail wrote: »

So, you think about half of the Bond films are good, including half of the last eight? And you think that's an argument against the franchise?

I said maybe the Dalton movies & frankly the last time I saw Casino Royale it hadn't fared well from a repeated viewing, so I'm not even sure about that. Anything would seem decent after Die Another Day.

The franchise went into autopilot the moment Connery left & it's the exceptions that prove the rule here: there's a relatively straight, downward line from the start of Moores tenure right up to the end of Brosnans.

Tayleur

Well after seeing the new Dredd movie I know for sure I wont be disappointed if it was made into a franchise. More Dredd please:D