ByJesse West, writer at Creators.co
I write reviews and comparisons for TV shows, comics, movies, books, pretty much anything I show interest in. It's all up up for discussion
Jesse West

Now don't get me wrong, I love a good sequel as long as it makes sense. There's numerous trilogies and franchises out there that well deserved their story to continue in some way or another. Good stories should be told and dragged out to not only build more onto that concept, but to carry on the great story it can or should be.

But, sometimes, certain ideas should just be left alone. Certain movies have been given sequels where there isn't really a need for it as well as certain concepts dragged out to the point where it is simply annoying or it flat out ruins the original concepts quality. A good example that always frustrates me is the Saw movies. I loved the first one so much that I saw it in theaters twice. The only movie I've ever done that for to this day. When the sequel came out, I was thrilled and I couldn't wait to see where they were going to go with it. Then, 6 movies later, nothing is the same. Every movie they made afterwards drifted way off of the first films original meaning and plot devices and moved more towards gore and shock value.

That's my opinion at least.

But now that's a franchise. Thats more than one movie after another that would eventually kill it for you if you couldn't stand the fact that there was another one of em comin out. And sometimes, you don't just feel that way about the many movies they make after it but simply the one sequel it's given that could easily ruin it for you. Now it might just be me but when I think of the movie Ted I think that's the kind of movie that just should've been left alone.

Giving Ted a sequel doesn't do anything and, to me, it seems like they are just trying to make money out of it and they don't care about the story. Of course that's a big deal but think about it like this: I read The Hobbit when I was in high school like most people probably did and when The Lord of the Rings were getting movies, I freaked because all I wanted was a Hobbit movie. They made one cartoon version back in 1977 and it was amazing but a live action version, to me, would've been off the chain. So, they make the trilogy then a couple years later they announce The Hobbit is coming out. I'm ecstatic until I hear the one thing that brings me all the way down; They split it into 3 movies. Are you serious? The Hobbit is the prequel to LOTR and it's the shortest book in the series and you want to try and drag it out into 3 movies?! Go set yourself on fire! I was so mad and as of now, I have not bothered to see any of them. Their lust for money is destroying good ideas for the world and I despise it. But I digress.

Anyway, the point I'm getting to is this: Ted didn't need a sequel and if you loved the first one, like I did, don't be surprised if it doesn't turn out how you want it. If you don't believe me. Here's at least 7 other movie sequels that have happened that in my eyes fit exactly what I'm saying.

1: Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues

The legend did not need to continue.
The legend did not need to continue.

I won't lie, I loved this movie. From beginning to end it was really good. But it was exactly what it could've been. The same jokes rewritten and given miniscule twists. I'll never say that this wasn't a good movie or worth watching but at the end of the day, Anchorman was a great movie all by itself. Making a sequel didn't do much for anyone really. Besides, the ending of Anchorman lead into what could've been a sequel but the way this film starts and progresses then ends, doesn't really fit. Remember at the end when they say that Ron and Veronica were news anchors for The World and it showed them as being a bit older? They were still in Chicago at the beginning of the sequel and it seems to have taken place right after the events of the first one but the few little bits just don't match up. That's my opinion at least. It just seems like it was a sequel that wasn't necessary.

2. S. Darko

Shooting star, meteor, or engine from a plane?
Shooting star, meteor, or engine from a plane?

For those that may not know of this or it's predecessor, this is a sequel to a film called Donnie Darko. A cult classic released in 2001 one starring Jake Gyllenhaal. Some may say that it's what put Gyllenhaal on the map. If you haven't seen it then your teenage years must've sucked. But if you have, you may or may not know about this travesty of a film. I can't give you much information on it since I have not allowed my eyes to bare witness to this mockery. It was released 8 years after the original film and it apparently follows Donnie's little sister, Samantha, from the first one as she is entangled in a time warp or something. All I know is they took a great story and tried to make money off the name. That's all this is and it pisses me off. Donnie Darko was perfect and did not need this.

3. Ghost Rider 1 & 2

You can't deny that this is pretty cool.
You can't deny that this is pretty cool.

I hate to admit it but I actually enjoyed both of these movies. It might be because I'm slightly a Ghost Rider fan and I loved how they were able to portray him on film. A few of my issues was simply that A) it was a crappy storyline & B) Nicolas cage. Need I say more. The big issue I feel and why it's on this list is simply that we didn't need 2 of these films or at least the 2 they put out. If they could've combined the 2 scripts to make one movie, then that would've been a bad ass movie. But, instead, they shit the bed the first time around and decided to go for it again then when all the dust had settled, all that was seen was more shit.

4. [22 Jump Street](movie:434853)

And these guys are so good together too.
And these guys are so good together too.

Again, I loved this movie for what it was and I think Tatum and Hill are great together. My issue? Why did this need a sequel. 21 Jump Street was based on a TV show that ran between 87 and 91. It never changed its name and the characters never went to college. It was strictly based in high school, as far as I know. I can't say I've seen any of the episodes but what I do know is that the first film did enough to support the fact that a movie for the show was a great idea.

SPOILER: Even the cameo from Johnny Depp himself was badass.

That scene was awesome!
That scene was awesome!

But making a sequel just wasn't needed and it seems that it was simply an excuse to put these 2 extremely good actors together again. I repeat, I like this movie but the point is that it didn't need a sequel.

5. Grave Encounters 2

The first one was so goo, why did they go & ruin it
The first one was so goo, why did they go & ruin it

If you haven't seen the movie Grave Encounters I highly recommend you go and search it on Netflix. It is extremely well done and a really good story. If you want, you can even check out the sequel they made after it but you won't get my recommendation for it. The first one told such a good story and though it wasn't in theaters I feel it is definitely a must see for any horror buff who hasn't heard of it yet. The issue is that it got so much good feedback that they made the sequel and, to me, they flopped. The sequel starts off pretty strong but it eventually leads down the path of "why am I watching this". They love to give most horror movies sequels and more than half of the time it never works. This is one of those times.

6. American Psycho 2

Yup. This happened.
Yup. This happened.

I bet most of you didn't know about this. I mean hell I stumbled upon it by accident. For those of you who have not seen the movie American Psycho with Christian Bale you are surely missing out on a great film. It's a classic Bale role and he pulls it off with such finesse. Now, If you haven't noticed, yes that is Mila Kunis on the cover. In this film, she is the psycho. I have to admit that I've never seen this movie but I've had a copy sitting on my computer for years now. I just haven't had the guts to try and sit through it. American Psycho was such a great film that it didn't need this. That's the kind of film that has stand alone quality and if you were going to make a sequel, it should follow the original character. I know, it's possible this was kind of like how The Crow series is, where it's just more people who have the power or, in this case, are a psychotic mess. But I can't help and think that this can't turn out being any good. I mean, William Shatner is in it. Yes, you heard that right.

Mila Kunis & William Shatner in the same movie!
Mila Kunis & William Shatner in the same movie!

If that doesn't catch you off guard then I don't know what does.

7. 30 Days of Night: Dark Days

Don't let the cover fool you.
Don't let the cover fool you.

This is flat out an abomination. I hold the first 30 Days of Night as one of my favorite films simply because it mixes 2 very basic fears and puts them together: vampires with no sunlight and uncontrollable environmental elements. It's a fact that certain parts of Alaska go through a string of days with no sunlight and the people there either live with it or leave and come back when it's over. Some people just can't handle that kind of change in their surroundings. It gets to you after awhile.

Now how do you make that even scarier. Add a creature that thrives and lives in the night. The vampire. These films I believe are based loosely off a comic or graphic novel.

Despite the weird language they were given, the film was excellent from start to finish. The scene where the camera is hovering over the town as the vampires first attack is in my eyes the single greatest shot ever filmed in a horror movie. The shot spans over the snowy ground as spurts of gunfire and screams are all you hear and spatters of blood cover portions of snow. It's terrific.

I wish I could find a clip but this'll do.
I wish I could find a clip but this'll do.

Now, the sequel, gives nothing to this film. It was a straight to DVD blasphemy. It's a typical attempt on trying to make money solely on the name on the film but you turn out shitting on it in the end. It just doesn't cut it for me especially when it comes to my love for the first film.

So, did we really need a Ted 2? Some of you may think we do but at the end of the day, I really don't think so.

Well, that's my short analysis of things. I hope you enjoyed reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it. Please remember this is simply based on my point of view and you should only take it with a grain of salt. You may think Ted 2 is an awesome idea but I will still say you are probably wrong. There were a lot of other choices I had for films I wanted on this list but I kept it simple since my last one was longer than War and Peace.

As always, I love all kinds of feedback.

Trending

Latest from our Creators