DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Movie Talk (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk-17/)
-   -   Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks. (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/650135-film-franchises-4-more-where-only-one-movie-good-alternatively-every-movie-sucks.html)

Hazel Motes 03-24-20 07:49 PM

Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 
The Twilight franchise comes to mind immediately. They are all trash.

There's gotta be some horror franchises.

The Howling or Leprechaun or maybe. (I haven't seen them all.)

10 points deducted for anyone who says Halloween.

Go.

Mike86 03-24-20 08:26 PM

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 
I think most of the Saw films are trash. The first two are alright. Pretty much beyond those I think they suck. Iím not really into torture kind of horror like those films are in the first place.

DJariya 03-24-20 08:30 PM

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

Only the 1st one was a decent B movie.

Didn't like 2. 3 and 4 was like SyFy straight to video movies.


andicus 03-24-20 08:33 PM

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 
I suppose it could be argued that Jaws falls into this category. Although, I don't think Jaws 2 was terrible, so maybe not.

Mondo Kane 03-24-20 08:33 PM

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 
I actually found the first Twilight movie to be....Ok (At least it had some elements of horror which, surprisingly, worked) However, Nothing but garbage soon followed that one.

Sonny Chibaís Streetfighter series comes to mind. The sequels never came close to matching the insanity of the first movie (Although I do like both Sister Streetfighter movies)





dex14 03-24-20 08:34 PM

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

Bluelitespecial 03-24-20 08:35 PM

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 
The third Leprechaun movie in Vegas was the only one I’d say is good. The rest are just funny because they are so bad.

DJariya 03-24-20 08:46 PM

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 
Oh, surprised I didn't think of this.

The Transformers series. Only the 1st one was the good one IMO. 2 was trash. 3 was somewhat watchable, but still not good. 4 and 5 sucked as well.

I don't count Bumblebee as it's a standalone reboot and very good.

Josh-da-man 03-24-20 08:52 PM

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 
Star Trek is the gold standard for alternating good/suck. (Though the '09 reboot flipped that script.)

And Star Wars is about 50/50 in the good:shit ratio -- it doesn't alternate movies, it's more a bell curve.

DJariya 03-24-20 08:54 PM

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

Originally Posted by Josh-da-man (Post 13711408)
Star Trek is the gold standard for alternating good/suck. (Though the '09 reboot flipped that script.)

And Star Wars is about 50/50 in the good:shit ratio -- it doesn't alternate movies, it's more a bell curve.

He's saying only 1 movie was good and the rest was terrible.

I don't think those fit the criteria, Star Trek has more than 1 "good" movie for most and same goes with Star Wars,

Josh-da-man 03-24-20 08:55 PM

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 
Most horror franchises follow the pattern of the first one or two being good, then precipitously dropping off in diminished returns -- Friday the 13th, Halloween, TCM, NOES, Howling, Species, etc.

Josh-da-man 03-24-20 08:58 PM

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

Originally Posted by DJariya (Post 13711411)
He's saying only 1 movie was good and the rest was terrible.

I don't think those fit the criteria, Star Trek has more than 1 "good" movie for most and same goes with Star Wars,

I misread the thread title "alternating movies suck." :lol: Small computer screen, and strained eyes.

Mike86 03-24-20 09:22 PM

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

Originally Posted by andicus (Post 13711390)
I suppose it could be argued that Jaws falls into this category. Although, I don't think Jaws 2 was terrible, so maybe not.

Iíll throw it out that while itís not great I kind of like Jaws 3-D as a cheese fest. The first is a classic and the second is good in my opinion.


Originally Posted by dex14 (Post 13711393)
Transformers

This is a good one. I only like the first one and Bumblebee. Every other sequel was hot garbage.


Originally Posted by Josh-da-man (Post 13711408)
Star Trek is the gold standard for alternating good/suck. (Though the '09 reboot flipped that script.)

And Star Wars is about 50/50 in the good:shit ratio -- it doesn't alternate movies, it's more a bell curve.

I actually disagree with the general consensus with Star Trek that the even numbered ones are the good ones. The Final Frontier is bad and Insurrection felt more like a two part episode of TNG. I like the other odd numbered entries though. Into Darkness is my overall least favorite of any of them.

rbrown498 03-24-20 09:50 PM

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 
The Children of the Corn series (I think they all suck, but a lot of people like the first one)

The Puppet Master series (or, really, any series that Charles Band has had a hand in, including the Trancers films [although, again, the first one is pretty good])

Josh noted the Howling films, and I wholeheartedly agree (again, only the first one is worth anyone's time)


story 03-24-20 10:51 PM

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 
The only good Harry Potter movie is the third one.

Come at me.

Mondo Kane 03-24-20 11:23 PM

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

Originally Posted by story (Post 13711500)
The only good Harry Potter movie is the third one.

Come at me.

On a similar note, all the Harry Potter movies I’ve liked and enjoyed are the ones that don’t feature Voldemort. That’s not a slam against the character or the actor, it’s just coincidental.

Toddarino 03-25-20 06:18 AM

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

kd5 03-25-20 06:55 AM

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 
The one that comes to my mind without thinking about it too much is Pumpkinhead. I really like the first one, but subsequent Pumpkinhead movies just seemed like retreads to me. Used to own all of them, sold all but the first one, which I consider to be a classic horror movie.

OldBoy 03-25-20 08:14 AM

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

Mabuse 03-25-20 08:26 AM

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 
Only the first Jason Bourne film is good.

Inhumans99 03-25-20 10:59 AM

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

Originally Posted by Mabuse (Post 13711643)
Only the first Jason Bourne film is good.

Hmm...I would argue this franchise does not meet the requirements of this thread, as with the exception of the very latest entry in the series (I think the one that was just called Jason Bourne, and even that film was okay, certainly not hot garbage like say the Species sequels of which I have seen them all but agree that only first is a rock solid film, and the 2nd is even worse than the DTV sequels) I think you could argue they actually improved with each film as I felt the third entry in the series was fantastic.

DJariya 03-25-20 12:04 PM

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 
I also disagree about the Bourne movies. 1-3 were a solid trilogy. Legacy was meh. Jason Bourne after a long layoff was not great, but not hot garbage either. It has a pretty amazing chase sequence in Las Vegas.

GoldenJCJ 03-25-20 12:31 PM

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 
It could be argued that everything past the original Jurassic Park was bad.

Personally, I could say the first JP and then Jurassic World are the only two worthwhile JP movies. I see JW as a direct sequel to JP and can completely write off the rest.

Paff 03-25-20 05:38 PM

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 
If every movie in a franchise sucked, how would you know? I mean, if you didn't like the first one or two you saw, why on earth would you continue watching more in the series??

Mabuse 03-25-20 06:20 PM

Re: Film franchises of 4 or more where only one movie is good, or alternatively EVERY movie sucks.
 
The second aand third Bourne movies, the Carnahan movies, aren’t that good. Doug Limon’s first outing is simple and slick and clean, almost retro in its approach to the European action thriller.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:20 AM.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.