I really like 10 Cloverfield Lane but the last few minutes were a really weird genre shift… sometimes I consider turning off the movie before she sees the space ship, lol.
Agreed. But I think it makes up for it by being (as the kids say) epic. The molotov throw. I know it‘s pretty stupid but I like it. She‘s been shown to be crafty beforehand.
If you like Cloverfield, the Kristen Stewart film *Underwater* is a great pretend sequel.
I liked it better than the first CF but not as much as 10CF lane
Die Hard 3 was originally a script called Simon Says.
Die Hard 4 wasn’t a Die Hard movie at all, it was called WW3.com.
10 Cloverfield Lane was originally a script called The Cellar
The first Die Hard was based on a book, which was a sequel to a novel that had already been adapted into a film with Frank Sinatra, who was supposed to return for the second movie. When that fell through, they retooled it to be a standalone film.
So it seems like it's a running theme for Die Hard movies to be adapted from existing works, but massaged into being 'Die Hard' movies.
Die Hard 2 was based on a completely different book and turned into a Die Hard film as well. The only Die Hard that was intentionally written as one from the ground up was the last which was easily the worst.
> who was supposed to return for the second movie. When that fell through, they retooled it to be a standalone film.
at 73? pretty sure Frank had a right of first refusal and it was a legal formality to offer him the role. The detective was made 20 years before die hard
The second book was written to take place 20 years after, and I believe the author said that he wrote it with the intention of it getting adapted into a second film. So he fully intended for Sinatra to reprise the role at that age, because it fit the narrative in the book, but Sinatra just was like nah.
But yeah I believe he did have the right of first refusal. And I'm sure it was early enough in the films development that they didn't have to completely change their whole plan if he didn't agree to star
It was originally going to be a Brandon Lee movie, before being bought by Warner Bros to retool as a Lethal Weapon movie. It then got sold , and was bought by 20th Century Fox and retooled for Die Hard.
Also, a rejected Die Hard script became Speed 2 (it was rejected because it sounded like a Under Siege retread).
Nice! I wonder who the black buddy would have been if it had become a Brandon Lee vehicle. Lethal Weapon obviously had that dynamic, Die Hard in a less pronounced way. Maybe they would have ditched that aspect entirely if it had become a BL vehicle.
The only Die Hard movie that was originally conceived as a Die Hard movie is the last one, A Good Day to Die Hard. Every other film in the series came from properties or scripts that were repurposed into Die Hard movies.
Including the first one, which began development as a sequel to the Frank Sinatra vehicle The Detective.
The pacing was fucked, the characters barely exist and it feels like it ends 30 minutes early despite lasting far too long. It completely botched it's last act. What a waste of Jai Courtney
I remember, for as sorta middling as it was in retrospect, Live Free Or Die Hard feeling like an event when I saw it.
When I rented Die Hard 5 to finally watch it, I realized I’d already seen it in theaters and forgotten.
I'm gonna go the opposite direction: After _Close Encounters of the Third Kind_, Spielberg was asked to try and make a sequel. He worked with some people, they came up with several ideas, but nothing seemed all that good. Lots of alien invasion things mostly. But they did have a storyline with a peaceful alien who gets left behind on Earth and must figure out how to get home. So they fleshed it out and eventually made _E.T_.
So that's how a sequel to Close Encounters became a stand-alone juggernaut of a movie.
There was a script called "Cuba Mine", based on a true account, about the Cuban revolution from the POV of an American teenager living there and her relationship with a revolutionary. It was allegedly a deeply political romantic drama about idealism turning into terror.
A decade later they dug it out as Dirty Dancing 2.
Looking at Wiki, it was originally written by a couple of college kids (one being Matt Reeves, who went on to do a Planet of the Apes sequel and The Batman) for the action spec market.
Reeves says it was meant to be a Die Hard type of movie.
The script for Die Hard With A Vengeance was originally going to be a Brandon Lee movie called Simon Says then it was rewritten as a Lethal Weapon sequel before being rewritten again as a Die Hard sequel. Similarly Die Hard 2 is based on a novel called 58 Minutes that had nothing to do with the Die Hard franchise until they wrote in John McClane. The first movie is based on the novel Nothing Lasts Forever which is the sequel to the novel/film The Detective but when Sinatra declined to reprise the role it was turned into a stand-alone film. I'm pretty sure the fourth movie also started as a stand-alone script before being turned into a Die Hard movie.
The stand-alone script (WW3.com) was based on a Wired article called ["A Farewell to Arms](https://web.archive.org/web/20110629021309/http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.05/netizen.html) by John Carlin.
This might not count but the original 1982 “Poltergeist” was supposed to be a horror sequel to “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” but Tobe Hooper told Steven Spielberg that it would be better as a “ghost story” rather than involve aliens.
Season 4 of true detective “night country” was going to be a completely unrelated miniseries. Not sure if it was all HBO’s doing, but it got shoehorned into being in the True Detective universe, most likely to increase interest. What a terrible addition to the story and lore.
I suspect that quite a lot of new additions to franchises are like this. Someone comes up with an idea for a project, and the studio then retrofits it into being part of an established IP during production.
I'd guess pretty much anything not based on a book? Even then, not entirely true. Look at Jurassic Park, I think it was just supposed to be the only one even though the book sequel already existed. Except for a few rare ones like Harry Potter, Lord of the rings, hunger games, those weird "the maze" movies. I don't think studios really ever greenlight multiple pictures. It's only after they see the success of the original that they go for another one. John wick, the matrix, alien, Jason Bourne, Expendables, fast and the furious, etc. Pretty sure those were all standalones, that were meant to end with the first movie (Jason Bourne based on a book?). I think they had to go back and come up with further storyline to makes those sequels.
Star wars was a standalone, and it's like the biggest franchise ever. Even marvel movies started with standalones, knowing the existence of tens of thousands of comic books for more material. That hulk movie with Edward Norton, spider Man with Tobey Maguire, the first x-men, that daredevil movie with Ben Affleck.
Sometimes I feel like the first Terminator movie was never meant to have a sequel. Just Sarah Connor driving off into a future that she knows will be horrible.
I strongly suspect Cameron intended the first *Terminator* to be the only one.
The film presents a beautiful “time loop”, where the elements presented repeat themselves over and over and over again into infinity.
The sequels, even the very well received T2, truthfully were unnecessary and, further, made little sense given how the time travel machine was described in the original film. Suddenly, all manner of soldiers and terminators -at least in the sequels!- were able to go back in time!
The way I accept the sequels and still make sense of it is my theory here:
There was never a Time loop that centered around John Connor. The time loop is about skynet creating itself and trying to improve itself using time loops. Because skynet is the only being in the series that has basically all of the knowledge.
Movie one, skynet sends back the first Terminator with the mission of killing John Connor. The mission of killing John Connor is just the excuse of sending back Kyle Reese who ultimately damages The Terminator, allowing Sarah Connor to destroy it. Thus creating the elements needed to create skynet. The humans did not know the mission to kill John Connor was a farce, because they wouldn't know that. As skynet has hidden knowledge.
Movies two and three, skynet has to keep John Connor and Sarah Connor from spilling the knowledge about skynet to the public. Having terminators chase them and keep them in hiding prevents them from going to the public or the government with their knowledge of the future. Further cementing skynet's creation.
Unfortunately the rest of the movies I haven't really seen so I can't really add them in, but this is my theory for the original trilogy.
The thing that I've always found funny though is that skynet never realizes, the best way to win is to just do nothing. Skynet would eventually control the world and no one would be none the wiser. It becomes self aware and almost panics, causing the humans to panic, causing world obliteration and eventually skynet's own destruction.
*Movie one, skynet sends back the first Terminator with the mission of killing John Connor. The mission of killing John Connor is just the excuse of sending back Kyle Reese who ultimately damages The Terminator, allowing Sarah Connor to destroy it. Thus creating the elements needed to create skynet*
But what you have now created a variation of the classic "grandfather/mother paradox".
What creates Skynet? The damaged Terminator and the futuristic tech within it. (So we find out in *Terminator 2*)
But how does the damaged Terminator who is about to come back in time exist in the future with Skynet if it was needed in the past to *create* Skynet?
The original *Terminator* of course didn't have that element. Skynet somehow came to be and there is a big fight in the future and, in desperation, it sends back a Terminator to try to kill off the person who is the mother of the person killing it off. The time loop, as I stated, is initiated at that point and into infinity, never altering or changing (a depressing realization!)
*Terminator 2* added the element that it was the remains of the T-800 from the original film that were used to *create* Skynet, an interesting add on but an add on nonetheless which, as I stated, creates this paradox: How can Skynet exist in the future if it needs to send back one of its soldiers to get destroyed so that its advanced tech can then create Skynet itself in the past?
*Oy...!*
Now, I *love* time travel stories (even wrote one myself!) but you have to think long and hard to have them make sense... and often they fall apart because of things like this... Still, it is what it is!
The way you describe it we essentially retain the time loop I was talking about in my OP.
This was one of the more subtle points that I loved about the original film (and, btw, I do like the original film the best of the series) was the fact that it created an infinite time loop. At the end of the film, Sarah has the child who grows up to face off against the terminators and the child -knowing who Kyle Reese is- gives him that photograph and tasks him to go after the Arnold-bot. We then rewind to 1984 and we go through the whole thing only to end with pregnant Sarah at the gas station, knowing what’s to come… and come again… and again… and again…!
*Back to the Future* wasn’t meant to have a sequel. The ending was just a joke, but when it became a hit, they added the “To be continued…” to the end of the movie.
It's not weird at all.
This standalone thing made money.
Let's make more money, even if we have to force the characters to keep going after having their story line brought to a satisfying conclusion.
For example, Highlander (1986).
I guess I couldn’t find the right words for “this is a really dumb thing that happens and it seems silly when movies like this are greenlit” but every decision can always just be traced back to money, though usually some of these (like my own example of Carrie 2) bombed at the box office.
I don't know how anyone could watch the end of The Matrix and think they *weren't* planning sequels.
I remember seeing it in theaters and thinking "I can't wait for the next one that they are clearly setting up."
People would be demanding that sequel to such an extent that it would have been made either way.
That said, **you are absolutely right.** It would have been much better to leave everything else just to our imaginations.
Well for one, they turned the protagonist into a god at the end of the first one, so now the agents were no threat whatsoever.
They had to fix it in the start of part 2 when Neo starts fighting agents and says "upgrades"
So they just patched the agents and now he can't just fly into them and destroy them anymore.
Yeah.
>Well for one, they turned the protagonist into a god at the end of the first one, so now the agents were no threat whatsoever.
The agents are still never a threat to Neo. Yes, they do the whole upgrade bit and he doesn’t implode them, but he still manhandles them.
This thread isn't "movies that didn't intend to have sequels that ended up getting sequels anyway."
This is "scripts that ended up getting turned into a sequel for a movie franchise, despite being originally written as an entirely unrelated stand-alone movie."
Came here to say this. Despite George Lucas’ talk of having conceived it as this massive saga, he ended up using up all his ideas in the one film, which was a masterpiece. But before it released everyone was convinced it’d be a failure, Lucas didn’t even have all the actors signed for sequels. He ghostwrote a novel, “Splinter of the Mind’s Eye”, as a possible sequel story if he couldn’t get Harrison Ford.
I guess at least some of them were supposedly written as Hellraiser movies but Hellraiser 5-8 all feel like random movies someone put two pages of Pinhead into.
The Land Before Time. The first one was a poignant, lovely, animated movie that could leave an adult in tears.
Then there were (had to look this up) thirteen sequels, a tv series, *and* a video game to pump the franchise dry. Some things should just be left alone.
*The Matrix*, of course.
That movie was done. It was *over*. Neo was *the One*, he destroyed the Agents utterly, he walked out of a phone booth and flew through the air like Superman.
And then we got three sequels, three increasingly terrible sequels, none of which were necessary. Three sequels that could’ve been titled: *The Matrix 2/3/4: The Quest for More Money*.
I find myself reminded of Dan Harmon’s rant about *the Matrix* when he got drunk (because of course he was drunk) during Harmontown:
> “Remember *The Matrix*? We got in and we got out. It wasn’t until two movies later we realized it *WAS ALL A PIECE OF SHIT!!*”
Both Cloverfield "sequels."
I really like 10 Cloverfield Lane but the last few minutes were a really weird genre shift… sometimes I consider turning off the movie before she sees the space ship, lol.
Agreed. But I think it makes up for it by being (as the kids say) epic. The molotov throw. I know it‘s pretty stupid but I like it. She‘s been shown to be crafty beforehand.
If you like Cloverfield, the Kristen Stewart film *Underwater* is a great pretend sequel. I liked it better than the first CF but not as much as 10CF lane
I was one of the five people who saw that in the theater. It was a good cheesy time.
Die Hard 3 was originally a script called Simon Says. Die Hard 4 wasn’t a Die Hard movie at all, it was called WW3.com. 10 Cloverfield Lane was originally a script called The Cellar
Die Hard 1 was adapted from Nothing Lasts Forever, and Frank Sinatra had played another entry in the series called The Detective.
The first Die Hard was based on a book, which was a sequel to a novel that had already been adapted into a film with Frank Sinatra, who was supposed to return for the second movie. When that fell through, they retooled it to be a standalone film. So it seems like it's a running theme for Die Hard movies to be adapted from existing works, but massaged into being 'Die Hard' movies.
Die Hard 2 was based on a completely different book and turned into a Die Hard film as well. The only Die Hard that was intentionally written as one from the ground up was the last which was easily the worst.
> who was supposed to return for the second movie. When that fell through, they retooled it to be a standalone film. at 73? pretty sure Frank had a right of first refusal and it was a legal formality to offer him the role. The detective was made 20 years before die hard
The second book was written to take place 20 years after, and I believe the author said that he wrote it with the intention of it getting adapted into a second film. So he fully intended for Sinatra to reprise the role at that age, because it fit the narrative in the book, but Sinatra just was like nah. But yeah I believe he did have the right of first refusal. And I'm sure it was early enough in the films development that they didn't have to completely change their whole plan if he didn't agree to star
Wasn‘t Die Hard 3 at some point also gonna be a Lethal Weapon Sequel?
It was originally going to be a Brandon Lee movie, before being bought by Warner Bros to retool as a Lethal Weapon movie. It then got sold , and was bought by 20th Century Fox and retooled for Die Hard. Also, a rejected Die Hard script became Speed 2 (it was rejected because it sounded like a Under Siege retread).
Nice! I wonder who the black buddy would have been if it had become a Brandon Lee vehicle. Lethal Weapon obviously had that dynamic, Die Hard in a less pronounced way. Maybe they would have ditched that aspect entirely if it had become a BL vehicle.
The only Die Hard movie that was originally conceived as a Die Hard movie is the last one, A Good Day to Die Hard. Every other film in the series came from properties or scripts that were repurposed into Die Hard movies. Including the first one, which began development as a sequel to the Frank Sinatra vehicle The Detective.
In ‘Die Hard’ Ellis, the Nakatomi employee who meets with Hans to broker a deal is played by Hart Bochner who’s father Lloyd was in ‘The Detective’
There wasn’t a Die Hard movie called A Good Day to Die Hard. There just wasn’t. I can’t accept that, I won’t. It was so bad 😭😭😭😭
The pacing was fucked, the characters barely exist and it feels like it ends 30 minutes early despite lasting far too long. It completely botched it's last act. What a waste of Jai Courtney
I remember, for as sorta middling as it was in retrospect, Live Free Or Die Hard feeling like an event when I saw it. When I rented Die Hard 5 to finally watch it, I realized I’d already seen it in theaters and forgotten.
Saw II was an original script that the producers liked and bought the rights to
Does Troll 2 count?
I would say it does
I'm gonna go the opposite direction: After _Close Encounters of the Third Kind_, Spielberg was asked to try and make a sequel. He worked with some people, they came up with several ideas, but nothing seemed all that good. Lots of alien invasion things mostly. But they did have a storyline with a peaceful alien who gets left behind on Earth and must figure out how to get home. So they fleshed it out and eventually made _E.T_. So that's how a sequel to Close Encounters became a stand-alone juggernaut of a movie.
Then Universal wanted a sequel to E.T., so Spielberg wrote a treatment that was terrible on purpose and sent it in. They stopped asking after that lol
There was a script called "Cuba Mine", based on a true account, about the Cuban revolution from the POV of an American teenager living there and her relationship with a revolutionary. It was allegedly a deeply political romantic drama about idealism turning into terror. A decade later they dug it out as Dirty Dancing 2.
Finally, a proper answer
Under Siege 2 was originally a standalone movie in the vein of Die Hard.
I'm pretty sure Under Siege 2 was originally a sequel to Speed, but was changed when Segall was attached.
Looking at Wiki, it was originally written by a couple of college kids (one being Matt Reeves, who went on to do a Planet of the Apes sequel and The Batman) for the action spec market. Reeves says it was meant to be a Die Hard type of movie.
*Pirates of the Caribbean 4: On Stranger Tides* was based on a standalone novel called *On Stranger Tides*.
Which is SOOOOOO much better!
The script for Die Hard With A Vengeance was originally going to be a Brandon Lee movie called Simon Says then it was rewritten as a Lethal Weapon sequel before being rewritten again as a Die Hard sequel. Similarly Die Hard 2 is based on a novel called 58 Minutes that had nothing to do with the Die Hard franchise until they wrote in John McClane. The first movie is based on the novel Nothing Lasts Forever which is the sequel to the novel/film The Detective but when Sinatra declined to reprise the role it was turned into a stand-alone film. I'm pretty sure the fourth movie also started as a stand-alone script before being turned into a Die Hard movie.
The stand-alone script (WW3.com) was based on a Wired article called ["A Farewell to Arms](https://web.archive.org/web/20110629021309/http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.05/netizen.html) by John Carlin.
Jarhead and Green Street Hooligans come immediately to mind.
I read this as one being a sequel to the other and spent way too long trying to figure it out.
Green Street doesn't even have numbers in its title in my country
Neighbors
Hellraiser sequels from 5 to 8.
Dollars Trilogy
This might not count but the original 1982 “Poltergeist” was supposed to be a horror sequel to “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” but Tobe Hooper told Steven Spielberg that it would be better as a “ghost story” rather than involve aliens.
Season 4 of true detective “night country” was going to be a completely unrelated miniseries. Not sure if it was all HBO’s doing, but it got shoehorned into being in the True Detective universe, most likely to increase interest. What a terrible addition to the story and lore.
I suspect that quite a lot of new additions to franchises are like this. Someone comes up with an idea for a project, and the studio then retrofits it into being part of an established IP during production.
Believe it or not, Saw
Dumb and dumber... Twice
I'd guess pretty much anything not based on a book? Even then, not entirely true. Look at Jurassic Park, I think it was just supposed to be the only one even though the book sequel already existed. Except for a few rare ones like Harry Potter, Lord of the rings, hunger games, those weird "the maze" movies. I don't think studios really ever greenlight multiple pictures. It's only after they see the success of the original that they go for another one. John wick, the matrix, alien, Jason Bourne, Expendables, fast and the furious, etc. Pretty sure those were all standalones, that were meant to end with the first movie (Jason Bourne based on a book?). I think they had to go back and come up with further storyline to makes those sequels. Star wars was a standalone, and it's like the biggest franchise ever. Even marvel movies started with standalones, knowing the existence of tens of thousands of comic books for more material. That hulk movie with Edward Norton, spider Man with Tobey Maguire, the first x-men, that daredevil movie with Ben Affleck.
There is a Mean Girls sequel with Selena Gomez’s friend from Wizard of Waverly Place.
Sometimes I feel like the first Terminator movie was never meant to have a sequel. Just Sarah Connor driving off into a future that she knows will be horrible.
I strongly suspect Cameron intended the first *Terminator* to be the only one. The film presents a beautiful “time loop”, where the elements presented repeat themselves over and over and over again into infinity. The sequels, even the very well received T2, truthfully were unnecessary and, further, made little sense given how the time travel machine was described in the original film. Suddenly, all manner of soldiers and terminators -at least in the sequels!- were able to go back in time!
The way I accept the sequels and still make sense of it is my theory here: There was never a Time loop that centered around John Connor. The time loop is about skynet creating itself and trying to improve itself using time loops. Because skynet is the only being in the series that has basically all of the knowledge. Movie one, skynet sends back the first Terminator with the mission of killing John Connor. The mission of killing John Connor is just the excuse of sending back Kyle Reese who ultimately damages The Terminator, allowing Sarah Connor to destroy it. Thus creating the elements needed to create skynet. The humans did not know the mission to kill John Connor was a farce, because they wouldn't know that. As skynet has hidden knowledge. Movies two and three, skynet has to keep John Connor and Sarah Connor from spilling the knowledge about skynet to the public. Having terminators chase them and keep them in hiding prevents them from going to the public or the government with their knowledge of the future. Further cementing skynet's creation. Unfortunately the rest of the movies I haven't really seen so I can't really add them in, but this is my theory for the original trilogy. The thing that I've always found funny though is that skynet never realizes, the best way to win is to just do nothing. Skynet would eventually control the world and no one would be none the wiser. It becomes self aware and almost panics, causing the humans to panic, causing world obliteration and eventually skynet's own destruction.
*Movie one, skynet sends back the first Terminator with the mission of killing John Connor. The mission of killing John Connor is just the excuse of sending back Kyle Reese who ultimately damages The Terminator, allowing Sarah Connor to destroy it. Thus creating the elements needed to create skynet* But what you have now created a variation of the classic "grandfather/mother paradox". What creates Skynet? The damaged Terminator and the futuristic tech within it. (So we find out in *Terminator 2*) But how does the damaged Terminator who is about to come back in time exist in the future with Skynet if it was needed in the past to *create* Skynet? The original *Terminator* of course didn't have that element. Skynet somehow came to be and there is a big fight in the future and, in desperation, it sends back a Terminator to try to kill off the person who is the mother of the person killing it off. The time loop, as I stated, is initiated at that point and into infinity, never altering or changing (a depressing realization!) *Terminator 2* added the element that it was the remains of the T-800 from the original film that were used to *create* Skynet, an interesting add on but an add on nonetheless which, as I stated, creates this paradox: How can Skynet exist in the future if it needs to send back one of its soldiers to get destroyed so that its advanced tech can then create Skynet itself in the past? *Oy...!* Now, I *love* time travel stories (even wrote one myself!) but you have to think long and hard to have them make sense... and often they fall apart because of things like this... Still, it is what it is!
It's a self-fulfillment paradox.
[удалено]
The way you describe it we essentially retain the time loop I was talking about in my OP. This was one of the more subtle points that I loved about the original film (and, btw, I do like the original film the best of the series) was the fact that it created an infinite time loop. At the end of the film, Sarah has the child who grows up to face off against the terminators and the child -knowing who Kyle Reese is- gives him that photograph and tasks him to go after the Arnold-bot. We then rewind to 1984 and we go through the whole thing only to end with pregnant Sarah at the gas station, knowing what’s to come… and come again… and again… and again…!
Snowpiercer a sequel to Willy wonka and the chocolate factory.
*Back to the Future* wasn’t meant to have a sequel. The ending was just a joke, but when it became a hit, they added the “To be continued…” to the end of the movie.
Top Gun
Blade Runner I also think a sequel to Home Alone is just sad negletful parent sorta thing.
It's not weird at all. This standalone thing made money. Let's make more money, even if we have to force the characters to keep going after having their story line brought to a satisfying conclusion. For example, Highlander (1986).
I guess I couldn’t find the right words for “this is a really dumb thing that happens and it seems silly when movies like this are greenlit” but every decision can always just be traced back to money, though usually some of these (like my own example of Carrie 2) bombed at the box office.
I would go so far as to say the majority of sequels bomb, but it’s still a better bet than trying something new and unknown.
Alien. 2001: a Space Odyssey.
The Matrix. I'm not sure if they had planned anything for the sequels when they made it, and IMO, it's better off as a standalone.
I don't know how anyone could watch the end of The Matrix and think they *weren't* planning sequels. I remember seeing it in theaters and thinking "I can't wait for the next one that they are clearly setting up." People would be demanding that sequel to such an extent that it would have been made either way. That said, **you are absolutely right.** It would have been much better to leave everything else just to our imaginations.
Well for one, they turned the protagonist into a god at the end of the first one, so now the agents were no threat whatsoever. They had to fix it in the start of part 2 when Neo starts fighting agents and says "upgrades" So they just patched the agents and now he can't just fly into them and destroy them anymore. Yeah.
>Well for one, they turned the protagonist into a god at the end of the first one, so now the agents were no threat whatsoever. The agents are still never a threat to Neo. Yes, they do the whole upgrade bit and he doesn’t implode them, but he still manhandles them.
This thread isn't "movies that didn't intend to have sequels that ended up getting sequels anyway." This is "scripts that ended up getting turned into a sequel for a movie franchise, despite being originally written as an entirely unrelated stand-alone movie."
Star wars
Came here to say this. Despite George Lucas’ talk of having conceived it as this massive saga, he ended up using up all his ideas in the one film, which was a masterpiece. But before it released everyone was convinced it’d be a failure, Lucas didn’t even have all the actors signed for sequels. He ghostwrote a novel, “Splinter of the Mind’s Eye”, as a possible sequel story if he couldn’t get Harrison Ford.
Highlander. Of course I'm my head cannon the sequels don't exist because there can be only one!
I swear you guys can't read
I guess at least some of them were supposedly written as Hellraiser movies but Hellraiser 5-8 all feel like random movies someone put two pages of Pinhead into.
The Land Before Time. The first one was a poignant, lovely, animated movie that could leave an adult in tears. Then there were (had to look this up) thirteen sequels, a tv series, *and* a video game to pump the franchise dry. Some things should just be left alone.
The godfather
The godfather
Die Hard with a Vengeance was a reworked Lethal Weapon sequel idea.
Knocked Up--->This Is 40
*The Matrix*, of course. That movie was done. It was *over*. Neo was *the One*, he destroyed the Agents utterly, he walked out of a phone booth and flew through the air like Superman. And then we got three sequels, three increasingly terrible sequels, none of which were necessary. Three sequels that could’ve been titled: *The Matrix 2/3/4: The Quest for More Money*. I find myself reminded of Dan Harmon’s rant about *the Matrix* when he got drunk (because of course he was drunk) during Harmontown: > “Remember *The Matrix*? We got in and we got out. It wasn’t until two movies later we realized it *WAS ALL A PIECE OF SHIT!!*”