Eric Stoltz the original Marty McFly in 'Back to the Future'

[brandonx76]

Yes... in general, for me, I always seem to prefer the original. If the 1st movie is so great, the sequel cannot live to the standard causing a mild letdown. There's only 2 famous movie sequels that I ever enjoyed more than the original, and that's Superman #2 and Star Wars #2.

I'd put Aliens, Lethal Weapon 2 (if not better, then VERY close), and debatedly Terminator 2 in there as well.

Dude - you got them all...I remember being blown away by each of these sequels, and thinking "Wow, the notion that Sequels always suck has now been certifiably disproven"...Fucking Lethal Weapon 2 is awesome, Aliens I've already spoken about (look for Blu Ray release coming out this month too with "Burke Cocooned" scenes), and Terminator 2 , was definitely great at the time....not sure if it holds up as well as Terminator over time, but yeah, these are the pretty much the ones to reference

[Rip Rokken]

I hope this NEVER gets remade.

Agreed. There's also a rumor going around that Vin Diesel is in the running to be the next RAMBO. I'd seriously puke in my pants and shit out of my mouth if this happens. Terrible. LEAVE RAMBO ALONE!

Definitely not true, and someone may have misunderstood a comment including those two names. There is a Vin Diesel Facebook page with a bunch of Chuck Norris-style Facts about Vin, and one mentioned him being considered for Rambo. Might have been where that came from, but I doubt Stallone would ever allow it anyway.

[Deb]

So Eric Stoltz gets to relive all of this all over again...

Like when they talk about Tom Selleck being Indiana Jones...

Or Jon Bon Jovi turning down the Kevin Bacon role in Footloose.

[kgdjpubs]

Yes... in general, for me, I always seem to prefer the original. If the 1st movie is so great, the sequel cannot live to the standard causing a mild letdown. There's only 2 famous movie sequels that I ever enjoyed more than the original, and that's Superman #2 and Star Wars #2.

I'd put Aliens, Lethal Weapon 2 (if not better, then VERY close), and debatedly Terminator 2 in there as well.

Dude - you got them all...I remember being blown away by each of these sequels, and thinking "Wow, the notion that Sequels always suck has now been certifiably disproven"...Fucking Lethal Weapon 2 is awesome, Aliens I've already spoken about (look for Blu Ray release coming out this month too with "Burke Cocooned" scenes), and Terminator 2 , was definitely great at the time....not sure if it holds up as well as Terminator over time, but yeah, these are the pretty much the ones to reference

actually, now that I think of it, there are a few more...a few obscure, a few not. In no particular order...

Drunken Master II....Jackie Chan at his craziest in one of his few period films. The finale is just insane. No comparison on this one.
Project A, Part II....more Jackie. Missing the Jackie/Sammo/Yuen chemistry of #1, but the non-action scenes might be better.
The Armour of God 2: Operation Condor....yet more Jackie, although the films were ironically released backwards in the US. Neither "great", but #2 is better.
Spiderman 2....not sure I'd call either of them great, but I think 2 was better developed
Blade 2 over Blade...see Spiderman 2 comments. Director on #2 much improved.
The Dark Knight over Batman Begins.....Begins is more "fun" to watch, TDK has a more emotional impact
I'd put Indiana Jones & the Last Crusade up there for being very fun and no slouch, but you just can't top Raiders for sheer enjoyment and adrenaline!

and a few more if you get into the long-running series (ie James Bond, Harry Potter, etc).

Am I missing any now?

[verslibre]

actually, now that I think of it, there are a few more...a few obscure, a few not. In no particular order...

Drunken Master II....Jackie Chan at his craziest in one of his few period films. The finale is just insane. No comparison on this one.
Project A, Part II....more Jackie. Missing the Jackie/Sammo/Yuen chemistry of #1, but the non-action scenes might be better.
The Armour of God 2: Operation Condor....yet more Jackie, although the films were ironically released backwards in the US. Neither "great", but #2 is better.
Spiderman 2....not sure I'd call either of them great, but I think 2 was better developed
Blade 2 over Blade...see Spiderman 2 comments. Director on #2 much improved.
The Dark Knight over Batman Begins.....Begins is more "fun" to watch, TDK has a more emotional impact
I'd put Indiana Jones & the Last Crusade up there for being very fun and no slouch, but you just can't top Raiders for sheer enjoyment and adrenaline!

Raiders will never be beat. It's the only movie of the franchise I can still watch.

BTW, Blade 2 sucked beyond belief. I didn't see any improvement in the direction, script, nada, over the first film, which was well done. The sequel's plot was beyond cliched and when you recycle a special effect from another well-known film AND use CGI in lieu of real actors for certain action sequences/shots...something's gone dead wrong.

[kgdjpubs]

actually, now that I think of it, there are a few more...a few obscure, a few not. In no particular order...

Drunken Master II....Jackie Chan at his craziest in one of his few period films. The finale is just insane. No comparison on this one.
Project A, Part II....more Jackie. Missing the Jackie/Sammo/Yuen chemistry of #1, but the non-action scenes might be better.
The Armour of God 2: Operation Condor....yet more Jackie, although the films were ironically released backwards in the US. Neither "great", but #2 is better.
Spiderman 2....not sure I'd call either of them great, but I think 2 was better developed
Blade 2 over Blade...see Spiderman 2 comments. Director on #2 much improved.
The Dark Knight over Batman Begins.....Begins is more "fun" to watch, TDK has a more emotional impact
I'd put Indiana Jones & the Last Crusade up there for being very fun and no slouch, but you just can't top Raiders for sheer enjoyment and adrenaline!

Raiders will never be beat. It's the only movie of the franchise I can still watch.

I can generally watch and enjoy all of them.
Temple of Doom has a great opening and a great finale....and a large portion of gross-out for gross-out's sake in the middle
Last Crusade is fun
Crystal Skull is a very solid IJ film for about the first hour, but goes downhill after that.

BTW, Blade 2 sucked beyond belief. I didn't see any improvement in the direction, script, nada, over the first film, which was well done. The sequel's plot was beyond cliched and when you recycle a special effect from another well-known film AND use CGI in lieu of real actors for certain action sequences/shots...something's gone dead wrong.

part of it may come from my general dislike of superhero films in general. Blade 1 was very "safe"--nothing really wrong, but nothing that stood out either. Very average.

Blade 2 at least took some chances, and I thought the director was much improved. Some people have an eye for where to put the camera--some just don't. Been a while since I last viewed either film, but I remembered enjoying 2 much more.

[brandonx76]

BTW, Blade 2 sucked beyond belief. I didn't see any improvement in the direction, script, nada, over the first film, which was well done. The sequel's plot was beyond cliched and when you recycle a special effect from another well-known film AND use CGI in lieu of real actors for certain action sequences/shots...something's gone dead wrong.

part of it may come from my general dislike of superhero films in general. Blade 1 was very "safe"--nothing really wrong, but nothing that stood out either. Very average.

Blade 2 at least took some chances, and I thought the director was much improved. Some people have an eye for where to put the camera--some just don't. Been a while since I last viewed either film, but I remembered enjoying 2 much more.

Yeah definitely agree kgdjpubs (what the hell does your name mean btw?) - Blade 2 - guillermo del toro did a class A job with the sequel. Now Blade 3 was pretty shitty in comparison to the first two, but it definitely wasn't a bad sci/fi vampire movie. Wesley Snipes apparently reportedly had issues during the entire filming of it (per Patton Oswalt)...thinking it had something to do with Ryan Renolds from what I remember. No slight to Ryan, he can be funny, but came off like a big deusch in Blade 3...

Re: Sequels, it's not that there aren't any Sequels that are on par with the original these days, but at the time, in the mid / late 80's is when I think we actually saw some sequels that were significantly better than the original. And I would argue this trend started with Aliens...

[verslibre]

Blade 2 at least took some chances, and I thought the director was much improved. Some people have an eye for where to put the camera--some just don't.

I sense a Del Toro bias!

I like his films, too, but not even a cutting edge director can salvage a turd of a script.

[kgdjpubs]

Yeah definitely agree kgdjpubs (what the hell does your name mean btw?)

it would have been "Kevin", which is what it is on the noticeboard (and has been since the days of the AOR Hard Rock Hot Spot for those few that might go back far enough to know what that means), but that was taken by someone who is obviously long gone from this place.

DJPUBS was the email version of D&J Publications, which was run by the family and long since disbanded....KG is me--and you know what the K stands for. Not the most creative, I will admit, but it's never taken when trying to register on a forum!

- Blade 2 - guillermo del toro did a class A job with the sequel. Now Blade 3 was pretty shitty in comparison to the first two, but it definitely wasn't a bad sci/fi vampire movie.

I remember it being a tremendous letdown when I saw it. Not League of Extraordinary Gentlemen bad (Blade 1 director), but still...

[kgdjpubs]

Blade 2 at least took some chances, and I thought the director was much improved. Some people have an eye for where to put the camera--some just don't.

I sense a Del Toro bias!

well, at least that film... I honestly haven't seen many that he directed, but I've done enough videography and framing shots to recognize when someone knows what they are doing.

I like his films, too, but not even a cutting edge director can salvage a turd of a script.

ain't that the truth!

[annie89509]

Yes... in general, for me, I always seem to prefer the original. If the 1st movie is so great, the sequel cannot live to the standard causing a mild letdown. There's only 2 famous movie sequels that I ever enjoyed more than the original, and that's Superman #2 and Star Wars #2.

I'd put Aliens, Lethal Weapon 2 (if not better, then VERY close), and debatedly Terminator 2 in there as well.

Dude - you got them all...I remember being blown away by each of these sequels, and thinking "Wow, the notion that Sequels always suck has now been certifiably disproven"...Fucking Lethal Weapon 2 is awesome, Aliens I've already spoken about (look for Blu Ray release coming out this month too with "Burke Cocooned" scenes), and Terminator 2 , was definitely great at the time....not sure if it holds up as well as Terminator over time, but yeah, these are the pretty much the ones to reference

actually, now that I think of it, there are a few more...a few obscure, a few not. In no particular order...

Drunken Master II....Jackie Chan at his craziest in one of his few period films. The finale is just insane. No comparison on this one.
Project A, Part II....more Jackie. Missing the Jackie/Sammo/Yuen chemistry of #1, but the non-action scenes might be better.
The Armour of God 2: Operation Condor....yet more Jackie, although the films were ironically released backwards in the US. Neither "great", but #2 is better.
Spiderman 2....not sure I'd call either of them great, but I think 2 was better developed
Blade 2 over Blade...see Spiderman 2 comments. Director on #2 much improved.
The Dark Knight over Batman Begins.....Begins is more "fun" to watch, TDK has a more emotional impact
I'd put Indiana Jones & the Last Crusade up there for being very fun and no slouch, but you just can't top Raiders for sheer enjoyment and adrenaline!

and a few more if you get into the long-running series (ie James Bond, Harry Potter, etc).

Am I missing any now?

lol....you guys certainly hyping up the testosterones listing these types of movie sequels as being better than the original. I would argue that the 1st movie is still better as far as substance and storyline...while the sequel(s) racket up the action sequences making it more fast-paced..but not necessarily memorable...case in point Raiders of the Lost Ark & the sequel. Didn't like the 2nd one at all!!! #3 (with Sean Connery got it back on track.

[YoungJRNY]

Yes... in general, for me, I always seem to prefer the original. If the 1st movie is so great, the sequel cannot live to the standard causing a mild letdown. There's only 2 famous movie sequels that I ever enjoyed more than the original, and that's Superman #2 and Star Wars #2.

Good call on Superman II. Great character development and excellent story behind one of Superman's classic opponents. KNEEL BEFORE ZOD! Classic. But, you MUST throw Rocky II in there as well. Rocky II is #1 on my list as all time favorites. It packs the emotional meter throughout the entire movie, all the way down to the .1 second in beating Apollo Creed. "I just want to say one thing, to my wife who's home: YO ADRIAN I DID IT!"

[kgdjpubs]

lol....you guys certainly hyping up the testosterones listing these types of movie sequels as being better than the original. I would argue that the 1st movie is still better as far as substance and storyline...while the sequel(s) racket up the action sequences making it more fast-paced..but not necessarily memorable...case in point Raiders of the Lost Ark & the sequel. Didn't like the 2nd one at all!!! #3 (with Sean Connery got it back on track.

is that a disagreement, or just a comment on the state of things? I'll stand by my comments where I thought the 2nd one was a better movie. care to nit-pick on a case by case basis?

[annie89509]

lol....you guys certainly hyping up the testosterones listing these types of movie sequels as being better than the original. I would argue that the 1st movie is still better as far as substance and storyline...while the sequel(s) racket up the action sequences making it more fast-paced..but not necessarily memorable...case in point Raiders of the Lost Ark & the sequel. Didn't like the 2nd one at all!!! #3 (with Sean Connery got it back on track.

is that a disagreement, or just a comment on the state of things? I'll stand by my comments where I thought the 2nd one was a better movie. care to nit-pick on a case by case basis?

Gosh...these movies came out eons ago...I know I'm no match for you (Kj) because you're so detail-minded. Let's see, Raiders (#1) when it came out, was instant classic because of it's action hero (HF, perfect in masculinity and vulnerability). The story was original, funny, and hip. I remember so many movies coming out after copying that formula. Now, Raiders #2 (Last Crusade?) was hyped up beyond believe (a Vietnamese boy actor was co-star)...many movie critics didn't like the fast-paced story sequences from beginning to end...said it didn't allow the audience any time to breathe...I remember feeling exactly that way when I watched the movie at the theatre...one big action rush after another...not much of a storyline...(imo)...don't even remember what it was about? Now, tell me why you like it so much .

YJ described Superman II exactly why I enjoyed it so much...everything he said re the memorable villians, and also movie touched the heart-strings with us females dealing with Superman's professed but un-attainable love of Lois.

[kgdjpubs]

lol....you guys certainly hyping up the testosterones listing these types of movie sequels as being better than the original. I would argue that the 1st movie is still better as far as substance and storyline...while the sequel(s) racket up the action sequences making it more fast-paced..but not necessarily memorable...case in point Raiders of the Lost Ark & the sequel. Didn't like the 2nd one at all!!! #3 (with Sean Connery got it back on track.

is that a disagreement, or just a comment on the state of things? I'll stand by my comments where I thought the 2nd one was a better movie. care to nit-pick on a case by case basis?

Gosh...these movies came out eons ago...I know I'm no match for you (Kj) because you're so detail-minded. Let's see, Raiders (#1) when it came out, was instant classic because of it's action hero (HF, perfect in masculinity and vulnerability). The story was original, funny, and hip. I remember so many movies coming out after copying that formula. Now, Raiders #2 (Last Crusade?) was hyped up beyond believe (a Vietnamese boy actor was co-star)...many movie critics didn't like the fast-paced story sequences from beginning to end...said it didn't allow the audience any time to breathe...I remember feeling exactly that way when I watched the movie at the theatre...one big action rush after another...not much of a storyline...(imo)...don't even remember what it was about? Now, tell me why you like it so much .

note: the comment that #2 was better was general regarding my original list and did NOT apply to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom aka "Raiders #2". Some brilliant action sequences, but that's about it. Not a patch on the original. Last Crusade with Sean Connery was much better, although I still don't think you can top the original in that series (or at least they haven't done it yet).

[annie89509]

lol....you guys certainly hyping up the testosterones listing these types of movie sequels as being better than the original. I would argue that the 1st movie is still better as far as substance and storyline...while the sequel(s) racket up the action sequences making it more fast-paced..but not necessarily memorable...case in point Raiders of the Lost Ark & the sequel. Didn't like the 2nd one at all!!! #3 (with Sean Connery got it back on track.

is that a disagreement, or just a comment on the state of things? I'll stand by my comments where I thought the 2nd one was a better movie. care to nit-pick on a case by case basis?

Gosh...these movies came out eons ago...I know I'm no match for you (Kj) because you're so detail-minded. Let's see, Raiders (#1) when it came out, was instant classic because of it's action hero (HF, perfect in masculinity and vulnerability). The story was original, funny, and hip. I remember so many movies coming out after copying that formula. Now, Raiders #2 (Last Crusade?) was hyped up beyond believe (a Vietnamese boy actor was co-star)...many movie critics didn't like the fast-paced story sequences from beginning to end...said it didn't allow the audience any time to breathe...I remember feeling exactly that way when I watched the movie at the theatre...one big action rush after another...not much of a storyline...(imo)...don't even remember what it was about? Now, tell me why you like it so much .

note: the comment that #2 was better was general regarding my original list and did NOT apply to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom aka "Raiders #2". Some brilliant action sequences, but that's about it. Not a patch on the original. Last Crusade with Sean Connery was much better, although I still don't think you can top the original in that series (or at least they haven't done it yet).

oh wow, so we actually in agreement on the quality order re the Raiders triology. : I got the sub-titles mixed up...my mistake.