- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Movies that do not need sequels
Posted on 3/11/10 at 4:29 am to BugAC
Posted on 3/11/10 at 4:29 am to BugAC
Meh... they're coming out with Ironman 2 now. I effing loved Ironman and I really hope it won't be tainted. (ha... I said taint.)
It could be good... there is a certain stigma toward sequels that is kind of unfair. People don't talk about good sequels because most good movies do it right the first time.
It could be good... there is a certain stigma toward sequels that is kind of unfair. People don't talk about good sequels because most good movies do it right the first time.
Posted on 3/11/10 at 2:35 pm to Jiggles
quote:
Meh... they're coming out with Ironman 2 now. I effing loved Ironman and I really hope it won't be tainted. (ha... I said taint.)
It could be good... there is a certain stigma toward sequels that is kind of unfair. People don't talk about good sequels because most good movies do it right the first time.
Actualy I think that comic book movies are the exception to the rule. Because the first movie in the series is always the origin story of the charecter. Most of these stories we already know so I tend to like the sequel as much as the first go around.
Highlander was one that they should have left alone.
On the opposite thought, I would'nt mind another Riddick movie if it was done right. I love that charecter.
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News