5 Films Which Did Not Need a Sequel

Tweet

Film sequels can either be a blessing or a curse- the blessing is that they can give fans of a brilliant film another helping of it, and a curse in that it will end up sucking harder than Dracula's Dyson.

I am rather skeptical of film sequels, and am of the opinion that the below films did not need another to follow it up.

Jurassic Park (1993)

If you've never watched Jurassic Park then you are probably some sort of communist who has never owned a television. This film is amazing, an iconic bit of screen magic. Oh, and it has freakin' dinosaurs in it- adding dinosaurs to most things makes it an insta-win.

Part of the charm of Jurassic Park is that it was an original idea which had never been done before. Plus, it is just about in the realms of believable- at a stretch, Jurassic Park could happen. In fact, if there's one thing we should blame David Cameron for, it's the fact that he's had to cut so much spending that we don't have enough money to invest in the Resurrection of prehistoric lizards (they're saving that for Maggie Thatcher).

So What Sequel Did it Get?

As we will see later on in this article, it seems that the natural progression for science fiction films involving killer monsters is to unleash them in the big city- which works about half of the time. The other half of the time it simply doesn't. This was one of those times where it fell flat on it's face with the sequel, The Lost World: Jurassic Park.

Number two was already dubious, since most of the characters in the first film which made it so good were missing. But hey, there's Geoff Goldblum playing that lovable goof Ian Malcolm, so it should be okay, right?

WRONG.

Once you've established that the concept of resurrecting dinosaurs and housing them in your own theme park is an amazing, yet terrible idea, what else is there to do? Why, unleash a T-rex on New York of course! And it was hokey and broken, and totally unnecessary.

Titanic (1997)

Another '90s great. Yeah, so there's a bit of a romantic cheesefest going on in places, and judging by Predator and Terminator being two of my all-time favourite films, it's no wonder why I would cringe a bit at the soppy drivel going on between Di Caprio and Winslet in this one. Seriously, even the tag line, "nothing on earth could come between them" makes me wanna throw up in my mouth a little. What can I say? I'm a man- I hunt mammoths and make fire.

However, this film is pretty awesome, and one of those that will always be remembered as a classic. Based on an actual historical event where a cruise liner and Mother Nature tangle and where Mother Nature kicks the HMS Titanic right in it's starboard bough. Surely the best an aspiring director could hope to do is recreate it in the best way possible, and walk away from it proud of their work.

Once you've done that, that's that one in the bag, nothing more to see here. Right?

No, Even This One Got a Sequel.

I've never seen this film, but I'm not likely to either, since Titanic II takes the term "disaster movie" to it's most literal sense- the plot as described by Wikipedia sounds more calamitous than being hit by an iceberg made from Chuck Norris sweat and sheer evil.

In April 2012, 100 years after the sinking of the RMS Titanic, a new, similar-looking luxury cruise liner named the SS Titanic II is christened. It then embarks on her maiden voyage using the same route the Titanic took 100 years before in reverse direction (from New York City to Southampton, England).

During the Atlantic crossing, the effects of global warming cause the Helheim glacier in Greenland to collapse, creating a 800mph tsunami that sends an iceberg crashing into the Titanic II.

Though not an official sequel of James Cameron's 1997 academy award winner, for anyone to even attempt to pull this is off is truly ludicrous, not to mention by using a fictional and totally ridiculous plot.


Predator (1987)

Predator's titular character (the Predator, duh) is one cinema's iconic movie monsters, truly a fearsome beast and the stuff of nightmares. Certainly the stuff of my nightmares since the age of six, since that's when my dad decided it would be a good idea to let me watch the Pred skin enemies alive and rip skulls from spines for display on his mantelpiece. The acting- while not groundbreaking, as it tends not to be in these kinds of films- is solid, and Arnie is... well, Arnie.

But perhaps the reason why Predator had such character and atmosphere was because it was set in a jungle- meaning that the invisible serial-killing alien could use the trees as both gymnastics apparatus and an effective camouflage, allowing it to play Hide-And-Go-Get-Yourself-Murdered  with a bunch of burly commandos so loaded with testosterone that they make Brock Lesnar look like Billy Elliot in drag at a tea party with Gok Wan.

So How Did It's Sequel Turn Out?

Predator 2 is by far not the worst movie sequel ever created- if you're a Predator fan then you probably enjoyed this in it's own right, just like I did- but it never really needed a sequel. Predator 2 is the runt of the pair.

Most of the magic of the original Predator was left behind in the jungle- because it's sequel was set in the big city of LA, USA. Then a bit more of that magic was lost when Arnold Schwarzenegger and his accompanying masculinity didn't appear in the film, either- because ironically, he was at the time busy starring in Terminator 2: Judgment Day.

So, we had to make do with Pred bouncing across rooftops like a demented flesh-eating Tigger and laying the smack down on some of the most stereotypical Jamaican and Colombian drug dealers you will never encounter, with the trash-talking Danny Glover serving as the flawed renegade cop hero amidst all the chaos.


Transformers (2007)

As a kid growing up playing with Transformers and watching the cartoons, who doesn't want to see it made into a live action movie? Sure, we know it's not going to be an Oscar-winning spectacle of cinematic artistry, but it'll look awesome and it's Transformers, man!

I loved this film, and overlooked it's minor annoyances in favour of giant robots beating the grease out of each other.

However, when you start making more of them, the annoying bits become more pronounced- and the final film becomes more rubbish.


Here Comes the Sequel...

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was simply a case of overkill. Too many robots, too much stuff going on, and yet not much of a plot from what I remember. There were so many Transformers in it that they were all mostly forgettable, especially those two obnoxious black stereotypes named Mudflap and Skidz, whom I detested the same as many critics did. I basically don't remember what happened in this film, other than I was disappointed in it.

There was a bit of humour in the first Transformers, but it was kind of overdone in Revenge of the Fallen. It was a much longer film, yet with less substance. I guess Michael Bay figured more robots and more special effects would make up for the lack of  sheer creativity.


Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)

Terminator 2 is my favourite film of all-time, and made me into a huge Terminator fan- I love all the films (albeit some more than others) and the TV series that followed. I guess if it wasn't for sequels and/or spin-offs, I really wouldn't have a lot of material on which to base my fandom.

The Terminator universe has been expanded to an extent that it continues to intrigue me, and it will continue to extend as- if I recall correctly- we should be getting a couple more Terminator films in the next few years. I loved the original, but this one is definitely the best thus far.

The ending of T2 is fairly categorical- all traces of the machinery that would make up the evil military AI Skynet and it's army of cyborgs are destroyed via smelting in a pool of molten steel, and that's it- it's over. Judgment Day never happens, and human beings can continue on as normal, blissfully ignorant of a catastrophic robot-induced nuclear holocaust that could have been but never was.

And Then There Was Another Sequel...

So a gentleman named Jonathan Mostow acquires the rights to direct a third Terminator film- Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines- because forget what T2 says, we can just make up a reason as to why Skynet isn't dead and the aforementioned robot-induced nuclear holocaust has not been averted as once thought!

Basically, it turns out that it's a set point in time (sounds like Doctor Who), and that it is "inevitable"- all Arnie and John and Sarah Connor managed to do in T2 was delay it a bit. Great stuff.

I enjoyed T3, and it's still a good film- it's just not as good as the others and is totally unnecessary. I loved T2 and was happy with it's ending, so why decide to just ignore it? Did they think it could really be as good as or even better than T2? Plus, Nick Stahl's portrayal of John Connor is wimpy and weak and not at all what I imagined an older John Connor to be like- even though he acts the part well.

But don't worry kids! If you were dissatisfied with how Rise of the Machines messed with the Terminator canon, then don't worry- because there is always the TV series, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronciles, which blatantly pretends that T3 never happened and proceeds to pick up where Terminator 2 left off- so naturally, I love that show too.

You owe it to your life to watch this if you are a Terminator fan. Also, you'll love it because it's got Summer Glau in it, you big nerd.

Terminator Salvation was decent and doesn't really care which canon you follow, because it just wants to a) show you what a film set in the time of the post-apocalyptic war looks like and b) take more money from sucker Terminator fans like me. Huh.