Movies that you feel didn't need sequels...

[AGXStarseed]

How about some of these fourteen billion XMen and Marvell movies they have now? It's really starting to feel like they're just trying to squeeze every penny they can out of them. I can't even remember which ones I liked at this point.

I've never really been a fan of the X-Men films so I can't comment there. With the Marvel films, though, the films are working towards a big climax and have been doing for a while so I'm interested in still watching to see the payoff.
That said, some of them do get pretty repetitive at times.

 

[Adora]

How about some of these fourteen billion XMen and Marvell movies they have now? It's really starting to feel like they're just trying to squeeze every penny they can out of them. I can't even remember which ones I liked at this point.

I agree and this is coming from someone who was a massive X-men and marvel movie fan,the whole time frame in the X-men movies have thrown me off and I'm starting to feel burned out when it comes to superhero movies.

 

[Adora]

I think The Crow didn't need a sequel,the sequels to it weren't as good as the first and there was no need for any continuation of it but I have heard they are planning a Crow remake though it's been planned for years and Jason Momoa was linked to it.

 

[JackSkellington]

I feel like most movies didn't need a sequel. Nearly all sequels aren't as good as the original. Then they keep doing more and more sequels until people don't care and/or it does bad sales.. then it gets rebooted with a new cast later on. All about the $$$ usually.

 

[WereBear]

The thing to remember is that movies have always done this. There were two or three versions of The Maltese Falcon until John Huston did it so well everyone else gave up. The 1959 Ben Hur was the third or fourth version, some of them silent. The coming of sound led to another flurry of remakes.

It is mostly human nature; they are gambling incredible amounts of money on something they would like a clue about. They are desperate for some kind of track record or proof the public will want to see it.

Thus; remakes, sequels, reboots.

The thing that boggles my mind is, yes, crap is sometimes a hit. But you really up your odds if the movie is good. The script is usually the cheapest part of the endeavor and yet they will continue to mess with it. Bad casting might even be worse.

"Suit meddling" (decisions by executives, not artists) has ruined a lot of potentially good things.

 

[Questella]

Now we need a thread for movies with sequels that did the original justice. I vote for Back to the Future. :3

 

[ais89ggs]

Hasn't there been talk of redoing Mary Poppins? How can you redo such a classic?

 

[AGXStarseed]

Hasn't there been talk of redoing Mary Poppins? How can you redo such a classic?

From what I'm aware, it's actually a sequel - Mary Poppins Returns.

 

[Questella]

From what I'm aware, it's actually a sequel - Mary Poppins Returns.

ack! ??? Is that lady still alive even? Do you think we can boycott it?

A redo would make more sense as kids these days can't understand anything that doesn't have smartphones in it. lol I'm convinced they keep doing Ninja Turtles over because of technology.

 

[AGXStarseed]

ack! ??? Is that lady still alive even? Do you think we can boycott it?

A redo would make more sense as kids these days can't understand anything that doesn't have smartphones in it. lol I'm convinced they keep doing Ninja Turtles over because of technology.

From what I've read, Emily Blunt will be taking over the lead role from Julie Andrews following her role in Saving Mr Banks - ironically, a film loosely based on how Walt Disney got the rights from P.L Travers to make the first Mary Poppins film.
The sequel's story will take place 20 years later during the Great Depression, with Jane and Michael now grown up with children of their own but with them having suffered a family tragedy that left them numb and joyless - with it not been long before Mary Poppins re-enters their lives.

Taking a look at both women, Emily Blunt does look a fair bit like Julie Andrews:

Emily Blunt (left), Julie Andrews in 'Mary Poppins' (1964)

Whether her performance will be as captivating is another matter, but since actors are replaced in TV and movie all the time and some do rather well with what they do, I won't write this film off just yet. Who knows - Disney might just score another hit with this one.
It's due for release in December 2018 - Disney's 'Mary Poppins Returns' Gets December 2018 Release Date

 

[Mr Allen]

ack! ??? Is that lady still alive even? Do you think we can boycott it?

A redo would make more sense as kids these days can't understand anything that doesn't have smartphones in it. lol I'm convinced they keep doing Ninja Turtles over because of technology.

Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke are indeed still with us, but she's 80 odd and he's in his 90's apparently.

Possibly a bit long in the tooth to reprise their iconic roles IMO.

 

[Questella]

Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke are indeed still with us, but she's 80 odd and he's in his 90's apparently.

Possibly a bit long in the tooth to reprise their iconic roles IMO.

They could play the grandparents :3

 

[ais89ggs]

They could play the grandparents :3

I'd like to see them play some part in the movie. Even if it's just a cameo appearance.

 

[Mr Allen]

Look Who's Talking, starring Kirsty Alley and John Travolta, the first 2 were great, but why did they need the third one with the dogs? The kids from the originals were older and had their own voices, they didn't need another sequel IMO.