Movies without sequels
 

These other movie threads got me to thinking about movies that are missing sequels. I have always thought that the movie, True Lies really needed a sequel. They set it up perfectly and the characters are awesome, they should have done it.

But of course, now that Arnold is a governor he'll be too busy to shoot anyone. :rolleyes:

I think that fifth element should've had a sequel

Re: Movies without sequels
 

The Mario Bros. movie! :)

Let's see.... Pirates of the Caribbean 2 is already in development (same actors are in it), and....

Lethal Weapon 5 is in development... same actors....

Rush Hour 3.... in development... :rolleyes:

Damn, I can't think of any....

E.T. never had a sequal...and never will...yea Super Mario Bros needs a sequal hardcore....cant argue that one...

I couldn't imagine how stupid a sequel to ET would be. I'm almost sure it would turn into one of those cute little stupid movies like Disney makes, where you meet all ET's friends, and there's licenced music, and there's big messes, and then there's a sad part, then nothing makes sense. Most of the time, sequels can suck.

Shanghai Nights is a good example. Jesus, Dylflon and I saw EVERYTHING coming. And that ending with the banner was so predictable.

Actually, the first movie I thought of when I saw the thread's title was Super Mario Brothers. That one definately set it up... but never made a sequal! Interestingly enough, the first one was enjoyable.


Hmmm, as for other movies though (since CL beat me to the punch)...

Can't think of any. Well, except for the new Planet of the Apes... only because its ending was terrible and broken. Not sure I'd watch a sequal, however.

Hell yeah they need to make a sequel to Fifth Element.

Re: Movies without sequels
 

I definately agree with Super Mario Bros
Fifth Element would have been cool to have a sequel, but I don't really know where they would go with the plot

I would watch a sequal to the Planet of the Apes movie.

There is another spiderman in production, and I cant wait to watch it, I thought the first one was awesome.

Anyone know if they're making another batman movie? A few of them were good, just a few flaws...For example, Batman had been Batman for years, he was an awesome fighter and could take on anyone, and then that girl is Catwoman for one day and she is kicking his ass. How stupid is that?

I think they should make a batman based on the comic novel "The Dark Knight Returns". That would be sweet.

Yet another superhero movie...X-MEN! Part 2 was so sweet. The part at the beginning was just ungodly cool.

Re: Movies without sequels
 

the new crappy one
or the old good one that has sequals

Re: Re: Movies without sequels
 

Yeah I would watch that too..

Re: Re: Re: Movies without sequels
 

I know that they are making a moive called Batman VS Superman. That sounds horrible, but they are not making that movie until the next batman and first superman come out.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Movies without sequels
 

The ONLY way Batman would win is by being a cheap bastard and storing tons of Kryptonite in his "Utility Belt"

The new crappy one. I admit its not as good as the old ones, but it was ok.

:rofl:

Oh, your not kidding.... :distress:

Batman is the coolest superhero...ever. He is just so...bad... I mean, most superheroes are like "dont let the bad guys die, we cant sink down to their leve!" but not batman, he just kicked ass and went on his way. By the way, you obviously have not read "The Dark Knight Returns", thus your point of view and opinion are Batman vs. Superman is flawed and in fact can be proven wrong. =-D

Re: Movies without sequels
 

Superman could just go back in time by flying around the world and kill batman when he was a baby thats how superman would win. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

\

If he were to do that, and go faster than the speed of light, he would go forward in time. He could do this until Batman is an old and feeble man, but the fact is that Batman beat superman when he was an old man. Plus, if Superman did this, and went into the future, he couldnt go back, which is a really bad side effect.

Re: Re: Movies without sequels
 

*shakes his head* that's right, isn't it? Batman has time traveled, right? Even though he goes about the speed (faster, actually) of a speeding bullet, which is far short of the speed of light... which is the minimum "requirement" for time travel, is it not?

I dislike a lot of things about Superman. And, while Batman is superior, I still think he's a bit of a... umm.. pansy. Gotta give him credit for that little incident with Bain though, heh. *snap, crackle, pop*

I think I like Spidey the most. He's got character.

Re: Movies without sequels
 

Well, that's not really a problem. All he'd have to do is remember to bring a wormhole with him... :rolleyes:

Gotta love timetravel.

Re: Re: Movies without sequels
 

In the first superman movie superman flys around the earth and goes back in time to save his women. He does not need a worm whole. He does not even need to breath he is a god who gets the injured by a rock. But in a normal old fist fight superman would just rip batmans arms off.

Re: Movies without sequels
 

good comic

superman would soo win what bat mans going to pull out krptonite and superman is going to throw a bus at him and laugh evilely

Incorrect. Unless you somehow go back in time and kill the creator of "The Dark Knight Returns" your argument is pointless as Batman has already defeated Superman in a fist fight.

Batman...grapling hook....pull himself out of the way. There are so many things he could do to escape. But my arguement stands, Batman has already beaten Superman, thus it be pointless for anyone to argue against it.

Re: Movies without sequels
 

it is times like these when i wish had read more batman and superman comics than Archie

Re: Re: Movies without sequels
 

That's funny Jeff. +rep

Re: Movies without sequels
 

its never pointless to argue any way your basing you facts off of a comic that one person wrote (yes he did make other great comics) but the comic was based on batman overcomming obsticls not superman if superman was the main charactor in that comic he would have killed batman. but if you relly think about it who would win a guy that has no superpowers whatso ever or a guy who has super strength super speed laser eyes and is just about powered by the sun. hmmm let me think and the "The Dark Knight Returns" comic it wasent a real batman comic its not even made by the same person that made batman. just some crasy little man with a distorted vison

I dig that guys vision. And it was a DC comic that added to the Batman universe. Thats as official as it needs to be.

Re: Movies without sequels
 

I think they are actually. I believe Darren Aronofsky (director of Pi and Requiem for a Dream) is doing it too, which means it will most likely be dark and disturbing, should be a good one.

As for sequels, there should probably be less of them. Hollywood tends to beat a dead horse when they keep releasing uninspired sequels to movies that didn't deserve to have a first movie. Of course, if done well, and thought out, they can be fine. The sequel just shouldn't be an after-thought though.

Re: Movies without sequels
 

Official or not, they've screwed with classic characters. Unless it's explained in the new comic series that batman gains super human powers (because if I remember right, he was just some kid who went vigilante because of his parents' deaths), batman wouldn't have a chance against superman based on design.

There are a lot of things wrong with the comic series...

And what's this got to do with sequals? O_o

I think a Long Kiss Goodnight deserved a sequel. :sneaky:

Re: Movies without sequels
 

Actually, moving faster and faster slows down time until it, theoretically, reverses after going faster than the speed of light.

Um....yea, science is king.

Re: Re: Movies without sequels
 

Theoretically, communism works.

Re: Movies without sequels
 

I really liked Long Kiss Goodnight.