Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 

Glutton for punishment? I watch tons of bad movies.

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 

If you’re going to talk shit about a movie, you should have at least seen it to back up the claims.

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 

Huh? Joe Carnahan never directed a Bourne movie.

Bourne Legacy was written and directed by Tony Gilroy.

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 

I guess he meant Greengrass.

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 

How the hell do you mix up Joe Carnahan and Paul Greengrass? :lol:

They are nothing alike and Carnahan has hardly worked as a director in the last 10 years other than TV.

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 

:eek:

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 

Alvin and the Chipmunks

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 

Resident Evil and Underworld are my picks. For Underworld, only the first movie is good. RE is all terrible.

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 

Shit! There are 4+ Alvin and the Chipmunks movies?!

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 

I can't believe no one has said Highlander yet, although I do kind of like the second one in a "can't look away from a car crash" sort of way.

And sorry OP, feel free to take my 10 points, because Halloween absolutely qualifies. I'd also say Alien, but then I'd just be trolling.

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 

If we're going to go with kids movies, man there's a ton. Like do we count stuff like Land Before Time where (I think) only the first one was a theatrical release and is also the only one anyone actually remembers?

I rewatched the Never Ending Story and while it's not a masterpiece, it's way way better than any of the sequels.

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 

I listed Alvin as there were 4 theatrical films (2007, 2009, 2011, 2015) and they all sucked.

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 

Oh I know. Kids franchises in general seem to go a little too long, even theatrically.

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 

That's because there was only one Highlander movie and the TV Series. (Covers ears and sings loudly so no one else can say otherwise)

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 

Species: The Awakening, otherwise known as Species 4, is actually a decent b-movie and guilty pleasure. If you enjoy the Saw formula, they really don't fall off a cliff until Saw 4.

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 

Yoshiaki Kawajiri (NINJA SCROLL) directed this anime version and it was great:


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/dvdtalk...f50ce71c0f.jpg

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 

Well it's by far my least favorite one. It also doesnt really feel like Harry Potter which is maybe why so many like it the most.

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 

It is a pattern with nearly all horror franchises that the first movie is the best, and they longer the franchises run, they more returns diminish.

Generally, the first two or three sequels to a classic horror movie will be good, though not up the quality of the first entry, but then they precipitously fall off into b-movie cliche and direct-to-video junk.

See Friday the 13th, Halloween, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Hellraiser, The Howling. I think Scream is the only one that really broke the mold and mostly maintained the quality through an entire series, and that's probably because it kept its talent, both behind the camera and in front of it, for its four-film run.

And speaking of Dimension, they've really turned the "direct-to-video junk" into an artform. Take one really good movie (The Crow, From Dusk Till Dawn, Mimic) or a pre-exsting franchise that they got the rights to (Children of the Corn, Hellraiser, Halloween) and start churning out quickie, low quality garbage that either had a weak theatrical run, or went direct-to-video.

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 

The various Purges.

Technically I never saw the 4th one but I will go on a limb and proclaim that it "sucked" too...

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 

The Purge should be mentioned where every movie in the franchise is incredibly weak. The tv show is probably better.

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 

The Land Before Time

After the initial 1988 film, there have been 13 sequels.