The story is wrapped up, the conclusion is satisfying, people enjoyed the tale and there is no real need to keep chugging along. But, executives don't want to hear that, so that's when we get a slew of bad movies that follow up on one extremely good film. Corporate greed in its purest form.
We've covered the TV shows that should have ended after one season, so now let's cover film franchises that should have never made another title after the first.
These works of art did not require a sequel, or a prequel and definitely didn't need to start of an entire industry dedicated to pumping out branded pajamas and lunch boxes. "Lord of the Rings" and "Star Wars" got too big, and the following picks have many of the same problems, with their bloated storytelling and inconsequential reasonings for continued entries.
'Jurassic Park' (1993)
The '90s original is perfect as it gets, and is a self-contained action blockbuster based on a novel that was never intended to get a sequel. Universal Pictures, Steven Spielberg and fans practically had to hold writer Michael Crichton at gunpoint for a follow-up idea, and despite everyones love of CGI dinosaurs, every single "Jurassic" film that came after 1993 have been a waste.
They make the new dinos and then they break out. Lessons are learned, and that should be it. The government would have swooped in and shut it all down, and things start to break down the moment you take remove the dinosaurs away from that original island. Then, in "Jurassic Park III" they went back to the island for some reason, created an insipid "World" series and most recently focused on bugs, not dinosaurs.
'RoboCop' (1987)
I get the appeal of having a robotic police officer who shoots bad guys and says cool catchphrases. It's also catnip for toy makers and cartoons creators, But Paul Verhoeven's ultra violent satire got toothless sequels and a reboot that completely missed the mark.
'Halloween' (1978)
I'm not sure there is anyone on earth who hasn't complained about one of the "Halloween" sequels. The original, written and directed by John Carpenter, is a flawless gem, a groundbreaking horror film that helped create a terrible precedent of expansive lore and convoluted retcons. There's no need to explain Michael Myers any further!
There were five "Halloween" movies, then a reboot, then a different reboot, then a different reboot — and each one just decided to keep or toss out the continuity sheet as it felt like. A terrible legacy, they should have left that first one alone and came up with new ideas.
'Ghostbusters' (1984)
I won't argue that you can't make a sequel to "Ghostbusters" — because you can absolutely have different characters capturing ghosts in different locations. They did it with the "Luigi's Mansion" games, and those are great.
The problem here is that the original is hilarious and everything that came afterwards is not. The execution has been god awful, and it's as if the people involved in making these new "Ghostbusters" don't remember that they're very much not for kids (Dan Aykroyd has sex with a ghost)!
They can bring in any amount of talent they want, bring back all the actors from the first (either in real life or as a CG monstrosity that insults Harold Ramis's legacy) and it still won't matter because not one person in that boardroom is focused on making a good, competent or funny movie. Columbia is only interested in profits and selling t-shirts, and '80s nostalgia can only go so far.
'Jaws' (1975)
Universal entrusted a young, up-and-coming director to adapt the novel "Jaws." It ended up being a perfect movie which still stands the test of time as a great film. The critical acclaim and box office success was enough for the accounts department to put in a request for a sequel to be put into production, despite the fact that: a) Steven Spielberg wouldn't be involved and b) the shark blew up at the end.
What is the story? There's a new shark? You put it in 3-D? How do you justify keeping this story going?
There were three sequels to "Jaws," and no one liked any of them. Many, and we can't blame them, forgot that these exist.
'Zoolander' (2001)
Plenty of legacy sequels could make the podium, ("Anchorman" comes to mind, too) but there's one clear victor. Years after the successful comedy came out, the comedians involved wanted to get the band back together and try it again. The result was a total dud, and something fans couldn't muster a cough for, let alone a chuckle. The first is all we needed, no one asked for more Derek Zoolander, it was of its time.
'The Matrix' (1999)
The original "Matrix" is a masterpiece. An influential tour de force and a real inflection point for entertainment. When it comes to things like gaming and movies, there's now a pre-and-post-"Matrix" are delineation.
The Wachowski sisters hit a grand slam with just their second directorial outing, combining computer hacking and Y2K anxiety with homages to Japanese anime, Hong Kong kung fu and cyberpunk aesthetics. It was as futuristic as it could get with its robots, gun fights and black leather trench coats.
Then there were more "Matrix" movies that tried to add to its lore, introduce more characters and explain more of what was really going on. Soon we entered into a Matrix overload with two "Matrix" sequels in one year.
Warner Bros. exhausted all of the bullet time audiences could handle. The first was parodied to death, the second and third are quite incomprehensible with the occasional flip and some bloodshed. It really fell off of a cliff once the turn of the century hit. With the sole exception of the animated anthology film "The Animatrix," not a single thing that came out of this franchise in the 2000s is worthwhile or decent.
[Image Credit: Universal Pictures/YouTube]
