What sequels to media franchises would you disregard?

[Yoshi155]

First, I agree with you on the Star Wars sequels. They really didn’t need to continue the franchise after Revenge of the Sith.

Besides that, practically any movie made now. Most of them are just sequels to movies that didn’t need one, or remakes no one asked for. There’s a few good ones, like the Dune sequel (I never watched the original, so I don’t know how good it is as a sequel), but most movies are like that and I’m kind of tired of it. There’s a reason Terminator’s last movie was so bad. So not only can I include those movies, but also basically any Disney sequel. Of course, even here there’s some good ones (Toy Story’s first three movies are an example, despite being Pixar, and Monsters University), but most of them seem like either nostalgia pandering or Disney trying to milk franchises dry, when they shouldn’t even have ever been franchises to begin with.

I might try to come back with non movie examples later, if I can think of any.

Edit: oh yeah, one more thing. Disney’s live action remakes. They were pointless and no one asked for them. This is coming from someone who prefers live action movies to animated movies. These are inferior to the originals in every way, and seem to forget everything that made the originals work. At least Disney didn’t turn it into as bad of a trend as making unneeded sequels.

 

[Alolan_Apples]

This is probably me being silly but why were there so many sequels to Air Bud and The Land Before Time?
In Air Bud's case, I think it eventually turned into spin-offs? I don't know, I haven't seen most of them.

Ah yes, The Land Before Time. Believe it or not, it worked all the way up until the fifth movie. But everything after that should be disregarded.

I would also like to denounce Disney’s direct-to-video sequels, especially Hunchback of Notre Dame 2 (which is bad, even by the standards of the sequels). Before Disney started ruining their movies by making live-action remakes, they ruined them by making these direct-to-video sequels, as well as Return to Neverland (which got a theatrical release). The only sequels based on an animated feature I approve of are The Rescuers Down Under (which is part of the animation canon, and better than the original), Lion King 2: Simba’s Pride, and Return of Jafar (mostly because of the scene where they had to escape the magma pool).

 

[Drawdler]

I think Lion King 1 1/2 isn’t that bad. I can just accept it for what it is.

I think all the non-Toy Story Pixar sequels suck in their own ways, except Cars 3 which I can’t comment on because I never saw it. That one actually looks sort of interesting, honestly.

Also American Psycho 2 exists for some reason so to nobody’s surprise that’s my nomination.

If you want to count video games yeah toss Spyro and Crash in there, those first 6th gen outings were too rough. I think Wrath of Cortex is more mid instead of total trash, but really, both of them are so dependent on earlier entries for ideas I can’t take them as real successors.

Edit: if they reboot seinfeld I’m going to pretend they didn’t. The Futurama stuff beyond s4 is also kind of bad for the most part, I’m selective with that, and on the same line I’m a season 1-8 simpsons believer

 

[ribbitribbon]

megamind 2?? i wasn’t even aware this came out but from what i’ve seen of it i don’t want to watch it. which is a shame, considering megamind is one of my all-time favorite movies.

I refuse to accept Megamind 2 as canon.

I would only accept Megamind 2 if it was about how Megamind is going to deal with his "hero status" moving forward, but better written. Over all, Megamind didn't need a trilogy, let alone a TV series.

i didn’t see this until now but i 100% agree.

also the last two shreks were disastrous. entertaining, i suppose, but definitely not well-written.

 

[Kitsuragi]

the second wreck it Ralph movie was pretty bad

 

[Khaoticnoize187]

we don't ever talk about dmc we talk about devil may cry but we don't ever mention dmc.

 

[S.J.]

Even where things were excluded or changed from the novel to the films, I'll accept the The Lord of the Rings films, as they are quite good (and too ingrained in me at this point). For as much as I think Martin Freeman played a wonderful Bilbo Baggins, the differences between The Hobbit novel and films were too distinct. The invention of a prominent character (and in turn, additional plot points), and the deaths of Thorin/Fili/Kili are my main bothers (and also that it's too many movies, but that's unrelated).

My actual point though! For sequels I disregard, I won't engage with The Lord of the Rings: Rings of Power. I had to Google it, just to remember what it was called. I appreciate that Tolkien produced such a rich world that there is a lot to be inspired by, but I feel that the series is probably more "inspired by" the lore and less a lore-accurate interpretation of an existing work, if that makes sense. (Another unrelated point, but that's not the only reason I won't watch the series! It's also because I want to conserve my own imagery, and watching films/shows after reading books tends to start replacing what I had visualised from the original work, which is a shame imo.)

 

[slzzpz]

The one that sticks out to me is Wreck it Ralph 2. I was so hyped for the movie since I love the first one but the second one was very weird and disappointing.