SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Joined: Aug 26 2007 Posts: 2752

This seems to be a hot topic in most of the movie threads. only one rule: go nuts!

So . . . . how about that new thundercats movie in the works? I hope it kicks ass, although my expectations are low. I can only hope this scene will be featured:

Posted: May 29 2008 03:41 pm

That kid who wrote the new Voltron, Green Arrow, and Masters of the Universe movie needs to die and give me his life. Twisted Evil

Posted: May 29 2008 04:03 pm

Tebor wrote:

That kid who wrote the new Voltron, Green Arrow, and Masters of the Universe movie needs to die and give me his life. Twisted Evil

He also wrote the new Street Fighter movie. Before that he had only three short movies to his credit according to IMDb. It's quite amazing.

Posted: May 29 2008 05:32 pm

Quote:

Actor Eddie Murphy is to reprise his role as Detroit detective Axel Foley in a fourth instalment of Beverley Hills Cop, according to reports.

this seemed like the appropriate thread to drop this bomb

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7426424.stm

Posted: May 29 2008 05:37 pm

Quote:

Actor Eddie Murphy is to reprise his role as Detroit detective Axel Foley in a fourth instalment of Beverley Hills Cop, according to reports.

Love it!

Posted: May 29 2008 06:38 pm

Fuck remakes.

Leave TV shows as tv shows. If you are going to make a movie, at least make it part of the series (Sex and the City) not a remake (Dukes, Honeymooners, etc)
Leave cartoons as cartoons. If you insist on making a movie, please, no live action.
Leave old movie franchises alone. How often does long awaited (or not so awaited) sequels/remakes pan out? (Godfather III anybody)

If you are gonna make a sequel, do it with recent movies, no older than ten years. If you are going to do a remake, do it in the horror genre where it belongs.

And last but not least, fuck the movie industry where the almighty dollar takes priority over artistic integrity. Especially those who don't really need the money.

Nobody thinks it was a good idea to make Home Alone 3 (let alone 4) other than those who profited from it. Even if the movie wasn't even that bad, I would have been way more excepting of it if it was called anything but Home Alone. Fuck John Hughes for writing it.

As it stands now, I'm not a rich man. I'm sure I would sell out. But if I were some filthy rich studio exec, and somebody brought one of these to me, I'd tell them, "You're not making this garbage with our help."

Posted: May 29 2008 06:59 pm

if your gonna hate on remakes and turning things from series to film then you cant neglect bashing novels turned into movies. so you'd have to bash First Blood.

Posted: May 29 2008 07:07 pm

This is very true. There are very few "Original Screenplays" anymore. Just about every movie has the credit, "Based on the book/story/comic/song/idea/etc ...." somewhere in it.

Posted: May 29 2008 07:43 pm

it just seems weird to bash one instance of stuff created based on other stuff. if you get one you gotta get em all.

Joined: Aug 26 2007 Posts: 2752

erock wrote:

it just seems weird to bash one instance of stuff created based on other stuff. if you get one you gotta get em all.

Evidence to help your argument:

http://www.cracked.com/article_15694_kick-ass-movies-you-didnt-know-were-based-on-books.html

Posted: May 30 2008 12:31 am

ok scam. start the bashing......................now!

Posted: May 30 2008 02:01 am

erock wrote:

ok scam. start the bashing......................now!

I'm not going to. Here's why, and some of you may not agree, and that's fine, because what you said does make sense. But IMO, turning a book into a movie (or even the other way around) isn't the same thing. For me, tv and movies are pretty much the same thing, visual stories you watch and listen to, while books come in print and are read or listened to. So unless when bringing a book to the screen, you do it like on Reading Rainbow with somebody reading while showing illustrations...

That and I don't read a lot of books other than non-fiction. So I'm being bias.

Also, I wanted to add that they have been making movies based on books for as long as they have been making movies. Aside from horror movies, these remakes are relatively new. I mean I know its been going on for a while. But I'm talking about this sudden obsession with it where every other movie that comes out is based on a film/tv series from the 70s or 80s. So I'm not necessarily as much against the occaisional remake as I am this sudden plethora. To me its about as healthy for the movie industry as Reality TV is for television. It sells and makes a lot of money, but that doesn't mean its good.

Joined: Aug 26 2007 Posts: 2752

scamrock wrote:

erock wrote:

ok scam. start the bashing......................now!

I'm not going to. Here's why, and some of you may not agree, and that's fine, because what you said does make sense. But IMO, turning a book into a movie (or even the other way around) isn't the same thing. For me, tv and movies are pretty much the same thing, visual stories you watch and listen to, while books come in print and are read or listened to. So unless when bringing a book to the screen, you do it like on Reading Rainbow with somebody reading while showing illustrations...

That and I don't read a lot of books other than non-fiction. So I'm being bias.

Also, I wanted to add that they have been making movies based on books for as long as they have been making movies. Aside from horror movies, these remakes are relatively new. I mean I know its been going on for a while. But I'm talking about this sudden obsession with it where every other movie that comes out is based on a film/tv series from the 70s or 80s. So I'm not necessarily as much against the occaisional remake as I am this sudden plethora. To me its about as healthy for the movie industry as Reality TV is for television. It sells and makes a lot of money, but that doesn't mean its good.

Although i am agreeing with you that remakes and reality shows are evidence that taste and creativity have dropped substacially during the past decade, you just answered what your whole rant is based on . . . money. If more money was gained from creativity then more original material would surface. Right now, remakes are the flavor that the kiddys are craving. Sequels are inevitable for anything and have been around long before most of us even existed. If someone were to start a movement souly on enchoraging people to stop going to remake movies and go to something a little more original like book adoptation or god forbid an actual original movie, then hollywood would get the picture and start putting more money into something other then remakes.

The green is what molds the world, if you can mold the green you can mold the world.

Or what it could be is that us, those who were young during the time most of this remake stuff was original, feel as if our childhood should be left alone so we can look back on brighter times and the generations today should have their own originals and bask in that brightness when they become adults. Those of us whose childhood these remakes are robing infact feel as if the originals are superior (which they are IMO) and if the generations today are to be exposed by this material then they should see it unchanged and as we remember it.

Damn, i get freaking philosophical when i'm half asleep . . . Cool

Posted: May 30 2008 12:09 pm

Well, anyone else hear about live action Akira starring Leonardo DiCaprio?

Joined: Aug 26 2007 Posts: 2752

ged1928 wrote:

Well, anyone else hear about live action Akira starring Leonardo DiCaprio?

Yah, i read about it on wiki. I have yet to see akira, but it's going to be interesting to see how hollywood can make Tetsuo Shima's ballooning look good in live action. I have a weird feeling that the movie is not going to be anything like the original, rather be based on the plot and ideas behind Akira.

Posted: May 30 2008 04:51 pm

ReeperTheSeeker wrote:

Or what it could be is that us, those who were young during the time most of this remake stuff was original, feel as if our childhood should be left alone so we can look back on brighter times and the generations today should have their own originals and bask in that brightness when they become adults. Those of us whose childhood these remakes are robing infact feel as if the originals are superior (which they are IMO) and if the generations today are to be exposed by this material then they should see it unchanged and as we remember it.

While I stand my what I said, I'm more than willing to admit that most of my bitterness is summed up in what you just said. And while stuff from my generation is what bothers me the most, I don't like seeing it done to past generations either.

And I know its money. That pisses me off to no end. No you might be thinking, "Yeah right, pal. If they offered you money to do this, you'd do it too." But my thing is that if you make a good movie, you should be able to make just as much money. Most of these remakes are so hit and miss (mostly miss). I would think by changing something in such a drastic way, you would be insulting the original fanbase, or at least a large portion of it.

My initial reaction when I hear of a remake or a sequel from a long retired franchise is why, when most of these turn out to be garbage, would people still be trying to make it? I would think that a film maker would have a little more pride and want to make a good movie and hope it makes money, than to make a pile of crap just for the extra money. I have no doubt that the execs , who could give a frog's fat ass about artistic integrity, are pushing these ideas. Because lets be honest. as long as it brings the money, they could care less about whether or not the movie was actually any good. But the film makers are the ones who are forever attatched to some of these disasters. Then occaisionally, you get one that strikes oil, like Transformers, and reinspires the whole movement again.

And I'm sure that when I was groing up, and years before, and even throughout the 90s, they could have done the same thing. But they didn't. But for me, the 80s is about as original as you can get. It was a decade where anything was allowed. And it gave us some of the cheesiest crap ever. But I never felt like we were hijacking past generations.

I guess I might feel the same way Paul McCartney did when Michael Jackson starting pimping out the Beatles songs he had acquired the rights to.

Posted: May 30 2008 07:55 pm

if your gonna bash hollywood for being unoriginal and taking ideas from other people you cant half ass it and go after sequels or old tv shows. you have to go after books too or you end up sounding like a hypocritical tool.

Joined: Aug 26 2007 Posts: 2752

Another beef i have is the overuse of CGI and slow motion-bullet time that it's lost it's merit . . . like years ago. There is not a movie i've seen recently that isn't clustered with CGI and slow-mo-cam.

I'm not say hollywood should stop using them altogether but bullet time was fun when the matrix came out and was trendy for a while but now it's just annoying and while my newly developed ADD, it just seems like a pointless intermissions. As for CGI, there is only so long you can watch people act infront of a edited green screen shot that you begin to realize that the actors just give up and do whatever the hell comes to mind. Back during the days of puppetry, at least the actors had something to interact with.

Another thing is the pacing of these remakes. They in no way match the pacing of the original stuff and it's hard to take in. I know i said bullet time is like an intermission, giving you a brief second to take the movie in but it's over before your brain can actually think.

I read this article on Cracked.com about scary mascots of commercial old. Putting aside how nightmarish these characters are, watch the sample videos Cracked provides gives a vast difference in pacing in entertainment media but in the day:

http://www.cracked.com/article_15979_7-most-terrifying-corporate-mascots-all-time.html

The Rice Krispy one lasts longer then a minute for crying out loud and most of these commercials drag on for over half a minute. what i'm getting at hear is that the pacing of todays commercials go by so freaking fast that about twenty of todays commercials could run 4 times over before snap, crackle, and pop get done kicking ass. The same goes with todays movies, so much shit happens in such a short amount of time that it's no wonder our eyes done melt out of our heads.

Hollywood was capable of making a good movie without putting so much shit in a single second. Maybe if hollywood would go back to the hay day of 1980s pacing, maybe it would not only make it feel a little more like the old school stuff but it could, ZOMG save them money without the mass bullshit.

I mean, was that scene in Indy 4 with the mushroom cloud nessicary . . . did it even add anything to the story itself.

I think what it could be is we want our childhood to come back but when hollywood does not meet our high expectations then we must snark about shit. Snarking is the modern internet nerds favorite pass time.

Posted: May 30 2008 11:53 pm

erock wrote:

if your gonna bash hollywood for being unoriginal and taking ideas from other people you cant half ass it and go after sequels or old tv shows. you have to go after books too or you end up sounding like a hypocritical tool.

I'm really not sure why I would have to accept or not accept something just because you think I need to. In my opinion, print is completely different and separate from tv and movies.

I mean, I'm not sure what you are trying to do. If I don't like something, then I don't like it. Are you trying to say I should ignore how I feel and pretend to like it when I don't, just because I don't feel the same way about books?

You might think I sound hypocritical and like a tool. But if I didn't say how I really felt, it would be fake. I would rather sound like a hypocritical tool than be fake.

Posted: May 31 2008 12:23 am

You went on an entire rant about how un original hollywood is and started to blame the things hollywood ripped off. You forgot to add in the most commonly ripped off source of medium. Not including every aspect of why holly would is unoriginal blows apart your entire argument as to bash movies based on books would destroy your argument about how bad they are.

Posted: May 31 2008 12:27 am

erock wrote:

You went on an entire rant about how un original hollywood is and started to blame the things hollywood ripped off. You forgot to add in the most commonly ripped off source of medium. Not including every aspect of why holly would is unoriginal blows apart your entire argument as to bash movies based on books would destroy your argument about how bad they are.

It doesn't blow apart my argument, because I'm not trying to make an argument. I'm simply stating why I don't like them. Its an opinion. There is no right or wrong. You're the one who is picking apart all of my movie posts for an argument. You really don't have the right to decide what a valid opinion is for me, because its my opinion, not yours. And I don't have a problem if anybody else likes remakes or not. So again, its not really an argument, because arguing opinions is kind of pointless.

EDIT: I also wanted to add something else. I never said all remakes were bad. If somebody does a good job, awesome. But for me there are far more misses than hits, so I'm always going to be reluctant at first. So for me, I wish they would just avoid them, or make them fewer and far between. And I'm being critical of the idea in general, due to the amount of failures (well, failures in my opinion), not to every specific remake.

But to my point, I've seen the Transformers cartoon and the new movie. I watched Charlie's Angels. Both the series and the movie. I grew up on Garfield, then I saw the movie. Same with Dukes of Hazzard. I've seen lots of remakes and the shows/movies they were remade from. So I feel like I have the ability to be critical of them. I never read First Blood. I never read Forrest Gump. I never read The Godfather. For the most part, I haven't hardly read any of the novels a lot of the popular movies were made from. So I really don't have the ability to be critical.

Maybe if I hadn't ever watched The Honeymooners series, I would like the movie a lot more. But I did watch it and it did affect the way I felt about it. Just like if I had read First Blood before I watched the movie, I may not like it the way I do today. Maybe I would think they butchered it when the made it into a movie. But I never did read it. So how could I possibly make that call if I don't even know.

So while I don't think I'm familier enough with the books to really make the call as to whether or not I think they should be turning them into movies, I am familier with the shows and remakes I have talked about. So again, I don't really consider it a double standard.

Posted: Jun 02 2008 08:56 pm

Here's a list from Denofgeek.com of upcoming sequels:

30 Upcoming Movie Sequels You Didn't Know About

We've spent days of our lives scouring the world for news of sequels that you may not have heard of. And here are 30 films in various states of production...
Simon Brew

The domination of sequels in the big summer and winter schedules continues, and if the following - in particular order - is anything to go by, it's going to carry on for many years to come...

The Brazilian Job: the follow up to Paramount’s US remake of The Italian Job is still on the cards, and it’s got a 2009 release date marked. Jason Statham, Mos Def, Mark Wahlberg and Charlize Theron are attached, as is director F Gary Gray.

I, Robot 2: All we know on this one is that it’s in the scripting stages still, with a potential 2010 release date planned in. No news on Mr Smith's involvement.

I Am Legend 2: Warner’s huge Christmas 2007 hit could also have a follow up, although it’d be interesting to see if Will Smith returned to it. A 2010 release date is also being mooted for this one.

Beverly Hills Cop 4: If Die Hard can still do it at the box office, why can’t Axel Foley? Er, because the third BHC movie was crap, and a flop. Still, it’s not stopped development work going ahead on number four. No further news than that, though.

National Treasure 3: Not a huge surprise, but as the Nic Cage Indiana Jones knock off franchise has proved to be quite a juggernaut, you’ll only have to wait until 2011 for the third film in the series.

Cars 2: We spotted this on AintItCool – is Pixar really looking to make a sequel to its weakest film? Apparently so…

Toy Story 3: This one, after lots of umming and ahhing, appears to be a goer. It won’t, as was speculated, be a straight-to-DVD affair, and Tom Hanks and Tim Allen are both expected back on voicing duties. It’ll be out in 2010.

Jeepers Creepers 3: MGM is running the rule over a potential third instalment in the horror franchise, with director Victor Salva still attached. Hmmm.

Shrek 5: The fourth film was a no-brainer after the tepid third outing made so much cash. But a fifth instalment has also been confirmed. No wonder Shrek is the same color as an American dollar…

Night at the Museum 2: Ben Stiller is returning for his most commercially successful role outside of the Meet the Parents franchise. We can wait. No news on the proposed Meet The Little Focker, though.

Crank 2: High Voltage: This is more like it. Crank is a guilty pleasure right up there with Snakes on a Plane, and it’s coming back for more. Shooting starts next month, for a 2009 release, and Jason Statham returns as Chev Chelios. As he should.

Transporter 3: Statham again. He’s making this too, and it’s in pre-production. Presumably, he’ll go from Crank 2 straight onto this.

Super Troopers 2: A sequel nobody asked for! Hurray! Expect it in 2010, as it’s in the early writing stages still, we believe.

Silent Hill 2: Sony is looking at a follow up to the crap-but-popular video game adaptation. 2010 is the current slated release date.

The Descent 2: We understand that Neil Marshall won’t be directed this one, which has the, er, working title of The De2cent. He’s attached as Executive Producer, with Jon Harris stepping behind the camera (he edited the first film, as well as the more recent Stardust).

The Grudge 3: Yup, it’s in pre-production now, for release next year. That’ll likely be the scariest thing about it.

Ice Age 3: 1st July 2009. That’s the date you’ll need to avoid if you want to miss the next Ice Age movie. Hopefully it’ll be better than the second one…

Ghost Rider 2: A surprise hit last year, Marvel is developing a follow-up to the Nic Cage comic book flick, and tentatively has 2009 marked for release. No director is thus far attached.

The Untouchables: Capone Rising: A prequel to Brian De Palma’s cracking prohibition thriller of, er, twenty years ago. De Palma is back behind the camera, and the project is in the pre-production stages now.

The Thomas Crown Affair 2: Weird, this. It’s taken them ages to do a sequel, and then they draft in Paul Verhoeven to direct a follow-up to someone else’s film. Pierce Brosnan returns, and filming starts shortly.

The People Under The Stairs 2: No sign of any Wes Craven involvement, though, and release may even be this year. Hmmm. We'd wager DVD will be its home.

The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor: Er, that’s what they’ve called The Mummy 3, which is out on 1st August. Brendan Fraser and Jet Li star.

Punisher: War Zone: Ray Stevenson becomes the third person to play The Punisher on screen. You’ll be able to find out how he did on 12th September this year.

Starship Troopers 3: Marauder: Casper Van Diem is back, but it’s still going straight to DVD, as the piss-awful second film did. It’s due out later this year.

Pink Panther 2: Oh dear. And I’m a Steve Martin fan. It’s out on 13th February 2009.

Ace Ventura 3: No Jim Carrey though, and no chance of it seeing the inside of a cinema. Head to Blockbuster later in the year if you want to catch it.

War of the Worlds 2: The Next Wave: Another straight to DVD sequel, but this one’s of note because it’s directed by Soul Man/Hitcher star C Thomas Howell. Blimey.

Jurassic Park 4: It’s taken them ages to sort this out, but the latest is that Laura Dern is still attached, and that it’ll be released in 2009. Don’t hold your breath though, as shooting would need to start really very soon...

Scary Movie 5/Saw 5: You could have guessed at these if you didn’t know about them already. Both should see the light before the end of the year. Sadly.

Joined: Aug 26 2007 Posts: 2752

Knyte wrote:

Here's a list from Denofgeek.com of upcoming sequels:

30 Upcoming Movie Sequels You Didn't Know About

We've spent days of our lives scouring the world for news of sequels that you may not have heard of. And here are 30 films in various states of production...
Simon Brew

The domination of sequels in the big summer and winter schedules continues, and if the following - in particular order - is anything to go by, it's going to carry on for many years to come...

The Brazilian Job: the follow up to Paramount’s US remake of The Italian Job is still on the cards, and it’s got a 2009 release date marked. Jason Statham, Mos Def, Mark Wahlberg and Charlize Theron are attached, as is director F Gary Gray.

I, Robot 2: All we know on this one is that it’s in the scripting stages still, with a potential 2010 release date planned in. No news on Mr Smith's involvement.

I Am Legend 2: Warner’s huge Christmas 2007 hit could also have a follow up, although it’d be interesting to see if Will Smith returned to it. A 2010 release date is also being mooted for this one.

Beverly Hills Cop 4: If Die Hard can still do it at the box office, why can’t Axel Foley? Er, because the third BHC movie was crap, and a flop. Still, it’s not stopped development work going ahead on number four. No further news than that, though.

National Treasure 3: Not a huge surprise, but as the Nic Cage Indiana Jones knock off franchise has proved to be quite a juggernaut, you’ll only have to wait until 2011 for the third film in the series.

Cars 2: We spotted this on AintItCool – is Pixar really looking to make a sequel to its weakest film? Apparently so…

Toy Story 3: This one, after lots of umming and ahhing, appears to be a goer. It won’t, as was speculated, be a straight-to-DVD affair, and Tom Hanks and Tim Allen are both expected back on voicing duties. It’ll be out in 2010.

Jeepers Creepers 3: MGM is running the rule over a potential third instalment in the horror franchise, with director Victor Salva still attached. Hmmm.

Shrek 5: The fourth film was a no-brainer after the tepid third outing made so much cash. But a fifth instalment has also been confirmed. No wonder Shrek is the same color as an American dollar…

Night at the Museum 2: Ben Stiller is returning for his most commercially successful role outside of the Meet the Parents franchise. We can wait. No news on the proposed Meet The Little Focker, though.

Crank 2: High Voltage: This is more like it. Crank is a guilty pleasure right up there with Snakes on a Plane, and it’s coming back for more. Shooting starts next month, for a 2009 release, and Jason Statham returns as Chev Chelios. As he should.

Transporter 3: Statham again. He’s making this too, and it’s in pre-production. Presumably, he’ll go from Crank 2 straight onto this.

Super Troopers 2: A sequel nobody asked for! Hurray! Expect it in 2010, as it’s in the early writing stages still, we believe.

Silent Hill 2: Sony is looking at a follow up to the crap-but-popular video game adaptation. 2010 is the current slated release date.

The Descent 2: We understand that Neil Marshall won’t be directed this one, which has the, er, working title of The De2cent. He’s attached as Executive Producer, with Jon Harris stepping behind the camera (he edited the first film, as well as the more recent Stardust).

The Grudge 3: Yup, it’s in pre-production now, for release next year. That’ll likely be the scariest thing about it.

Ice Age 3: 1st July 2009. That’s the date you’ll need to avoid if you want to miss the next Ice Age movie. Hopefully it’ll be better than the second one…

Ghost Rider 2: A surprise hit last year, Marvel is developing a follow-up to the Nic Cage comic book flick, and tentatively has 2009 marked for release. No director is thus far attached.

The Untouchables: Capone Rising: A prequel to Brian De Palma’s cracking prohibition thriller of, er, twenty years ago. De Palma is back behind the camera, and the project is in the pre-production stages now.

The Thomas Crown Affair 2: Weird, this. It’s taken them ages to do a sequel, and then they draft in Paul Verhoeven to direct a follow-up to someone else’s film. Pierce Brosnan returns, and filming starts shortly.

The People Under The Stairs 2: No sign of any Wes Craven involvement, though, and release may even be this year. Hmmm. We'd wager DVD will be its home.

The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor: Er, that’s what they’ve called The Mummy 3, which is out on 1st August. Brendan Fraser and Jet Li star.

Punisher: War Zone: Ray Stevenson becomes the third person to play The Punisher on screen. You’ll be able to find out how he did on 12th September this year.

Starship Troopers 3: Marauder: Casper Van Diem is back, but it’s still going straight to DVD, as the piss-awful second film did. It’s due out later this year.

Pink Panther 2: Oh dear. And I’m a Steve Martin fan. It’s out on 13th February 2009.

Ace Ventura 3: No Jim Carrey though, and no chance of it seeing the inside of a cinema. Head to Blockbuster later in the year if you want to catch it.

War of the Worlds 2: The Next Wave: Another straight to DVD sequel, but this one’s of note because it’s directed by Soul Man/Hitcher star C Thomas Howell. Blimey.

Jurassic Park 4: It’s taken them ages to sort this out, but the latest is that Laura Dern is still attached, and that it’ll be released in 2009. Don’t hold your breath though, as shooting would need to start really very soon...

Scary Movie 5/Saw 5: You could have guessed at these if you didn’t know about them already. Both should see the light before the end of the year. Sadly.

Good god that's a lot of sequels. A lot of that stuff would be better off not touched. I mean Crack 2, when i heard about that i was like: So it IS the same guy, how the hell did he survive falling out of a helicopter, with a double dose of poison in his system and SMASHING INTO A CAR AND FLATTENING IT LIKE MARIO ON A GOOMBA!!! Crack 2 should be all about the aftermath, with a reporter getting the scoop on Crank man's rampage. And another Jurassic Park . . . I heard that one would feature dinos with GUNS! It's more of the plot for a Dino-Rider movie then anything else.

Posted: Jun 03 2008 03:17 pm

Those all sound terrible except possibly Jurrasic Park 4. And how the hell do you have a fucking Ace Ventura Movie without Jim Carey? Confused

Posted: Jun 03 2008 03:49 pm

Blackout Boy wrote:

Those all sound terrible except possibly Jurrasic Park 4

Seeing how in most cases you don't have much more than the title of the movie, I don't know how you could tell. Personally I don't have anything against sequels. There are enough examples of sequels being better than the original (mostly limited to the second movie though). Sure, most sequels are just cashing in on an already established name, but I can't really blame producers for doing so. Just from reading that list I know that I'll probably end up watching the following movies: The Brazilian Job, I, Robot 2, I Am Legend 2, Beverly Hills Cop 4, Toy Story 3, Transporter 3, Ice Age 3, The Untouchables: Capone Rising, The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, Punisher: War Zone, Starship Troopers 3, and Jurassic Park 4. And all I know are the titles of those movies. Fools like me are the reason Hollywood producers keep making sequels.