Are there any iother good sequel movies?

[Geek King]

Second Dark Knight, and I will add Airplane 2. Both were really funny, but I liked the Sci-Fi jokes in two better.

[AdminAssistant]

The one obstacle for Dark Knight is Sandman. He shows up at the beginning, for practically no reason, and then goes away with practically no explanation. That scene wouldn't make a lot of sense without watching Batman Begins.

While I don't think Batman Returns is nearly as good as Batman due to a severe lack of Jack Nicholson, it's a damn good sequel, IMO. Then again, I prefer the Burton films to the Nolan ones.

[Plaidman]

The one obstacle for Dark Knight is Sandman. He shows up at the beginning, for practically no reason, and then goes away with practically no explanation. That scene wouldn't make a lot of sense without watching Batman Begins

Scarecrow. Not Sandman. Sandman is known as Dream in DC, but Sandman in Marvel is the villain from Spiderman 3.

As for his appearence? It was explained. He was the only one making drugs since Batman took them all out. He also wasn't captured at the end of the first one.

[Becks]

2 wasn't bad, but I wouldn't call it better than the original.

I personally would never have made that movie.

MLII was okay, but Major League: Back to the Minors SUCKED so hard even Bob Uecker loathes it with a passion.

[AdminAssistant]

Scarecrow.

Ah, sorry. I did only see the movie once, so I obviously don't remember correctly.

[Sliceanddice]

the newest incredible hulk movie, it is technically a sequel but was made to stand alone.
Dark Knight i didnt see batman begins, which is weird because Batman is my love, i grew up wanting to marry batman, and the Dark Knight stands on its own two feet. Die hard 3 and 4 are way better than Die Hard 1 and 2, and the last leathal weapons movie? I was that one 6 times before 1-3 and it stands so well by its self.

oh and the second and third underworld movies.
The second one does show scenes from the first one but you could have 2 and forget 1 if you wanted and the third one was a prequel that you could watch without ever seeing 1 or 2.

[draftermatt]

MLII was okay, but Major League: Back to the Minors SUCKED so hard even Bob Uecker loathes it with a passion.

That doesn't surprise me. I saw parts of it on TV once, and what I saw was terrible.

[AdminAssistant]

Die hard 3 and 4 are way better than Die Hard 1 and 2, and the last leathal weapons movie? I was that one 6 times before 1-3 and it stands so well by its self.

Oooh, gotta disagree there. Live Free or Die Hard was the ultimate in ridiculosity. I mean, he didn't even get to say his own catch-phrase. Die Hard with a Vengeance is pretty good, and it's just been too long since I've seen Die Hard 2. However, none can touch the storytelling in Die Hard. Yeah, there are lots of big booms, but it's just. so. good.

Lethal Weapon 2...it's not so bad. There are some truly bad moments (de-kaffir-nated??) but we learn a lot more about Riggs. Lethal Weapon 3 hardly bears mentioning, if not for the scene where Rene Russo and Mel Gibson have the "who has the most scars" game. IMO, Lethal Weapon 4 is really good (better than 2 or 3), but really serves more as a comedy than serious action film. However, like Die Hard, nothing can match the gritty power of Lethal Weapon. There are some funny moments and one big boom, but it is a straight-up cop drama/action movie. (ETA: Also, Mel Gibson mud-wrestling Gary Busey. That is a shitstorm of crazy right there.)

Actually this reminds me of another sequel that stands on its own: The Road Warrior. It's fun to watch the Mad Max trilogy in order, but they are three very different stories.

[DeltaSierra]

Mad Max II (The Road Warrior) definitely!!! I liked The Bourne Supremacy better than Identity.

[draggar]

DARK KNIGHT

Yes, let's not only remake a movie but remake a whole series of movies (yes, the next one will have the Penguin and possibly Catwoman). I don't even think it was better than Batman: Begins, let alone better than the ones from the Tim Burton / Michael Keaton era.

I would hardly call it a bridge movie since, when they made it, they had no idea if they were going to make 3 and 3 actually didn't get made until many, many years later. Bridge movies to me are ones that move the plot along from the 1 to 3, but T2 doesn't do that, since they had no idea what the plot of 3 would be. 3 builds on 2, but 2 is not a bridge movie between 1 and 3. It can stand alone, sure, but it takes the info from 1 and builds on it, just as 3 builds on 2.

4 was a prequel....and a disaster compared to 1, 2, or 3.

Wait, but it takes place after 3 but before 1.. But 1 was before 2 and 2 was before 3, and 3 was before 4 but 4 was before 1? Um, hold on as I pull out my paradox in a box.

Ah, here it is.

I actually thought DH2 was weaker than DH1 (though still excellent), and paled next to DH3 or DH4.[/QUOTE]

Yep. Sure, they were all good but the first one wins the prize.

Second Dark Knight, and I will add Airplane 2. Both were really funny, but I liked the Sci-Fi jokes in two better.

Airplane II - yes.

oh and the second and third underworld movies.
The second one does show scenes from the first one but you could have 2 and forget 1 if you wanted and the third one was a prequel that you could watch without ever seeing 1 or 2.

Not sure about Underworld...

Actually this reminds me of another sequel that stands on its own: The Road Warrior. It's fun to watch the Mad Max trilogy in order, but they are three very different stories.

I'll give you Mad Max - it was not a story line trilogy yet each one was better than the last one.

[sms001]

Clerks II



...