Sequels Or Remakes To Bad Movies That Turned Out Good

[numberthirty]

For the sake of just finding out which film you mean, yes.

It's a pretty well known return to form.

The third "Friday The 13th..." is, maybe, a sequel that is a sequel only in that it is taking place "In Universe..."

Friday The 13th: The Final Chapter?

It is almost exactly what this thread seemed to be asking for.

The third film is essentially a bad film that stumbled into actually getting made was followed be one of the best films in the series.

[Wildling]

Carpenter Thing's reputation will always be more about a director at his peak successfully attaching his own vision to the property (becoming even more elevated compared to all kinds of pointless remakes that followed from others) rather than the original Thing.

Friday the 13th Part 2, did introduce Jason.

I don't know at which point the line could be drawn about any Friday the 13th movies being "good" but I'd think the first ever boat scare scene would be mandatory point 1 for me.

...really? I always thought the original was commonly agreed to be the best with each following entry getting worse. What was bad about Blade?

Intro was great and reminded me of at least a werewolf horror movie, CGI aged badly but Blade introduced the doomed outsider with bladed weapons before we got Wolverine. Blade 2 just expanded the horror vampire world stuff for me.

[numberthirty]

...

Intro was great and reminded me of at least a werewolf horror movie, CGI aged badly but Blade introduced the doomed outsider with bladed weapons before we got Wolverine. Blade 2 just expanded the horror vampire world stuff for me.

It is worth noting that the film is sort of along the lines of Carpenter making The Thing.

It's almost like the script was source material that he put his own stamp on.

[Vakanai]

Intro was great and reminded me of at least a werewolf horror movie, CGI aged badly but Blade introduced the doomed outsider with bladed weapons before we got Wolverine. Blade 2 just expanded the horror vampire world stuff for me.

I don't care how CGI has aged, that seems like such a bad thing to rate/criticize older films for - when it comes to CG I prefer to base opinions not on how it has aged, but how good it was for its time. And Blade's CGI was good to well above average for the era. As for the rest of it, Blade 2 didn't feel like it expanded the horror vampire world so much as it kind of ripped a little heavier from Vampire: The Masquerade for the vampire hierarchy bits and gave us del Toro being del Toro with his crazy split jaw vampire ideas which was creepy. Still, for basic plot and character I don't think it is the better movie, the original for me is just always the better watch of the two. Two's a minor step down, but remains good to great throughout.

Think we can all agree that Trinity was the worst though.

[Panic]

Really not seeing the dislike of the original Wrath of Khan either as it stands as the most beloved of all the original cast Trek movies.

I think you've misread what has been said in the thread. Wrath of Khan has been cited as a great movie following a poor/badly received one, Star Trek:The Motion Picture having been seen by many as overlong and dull. I don't think anyone here has said WoK was bad, quite the opposite.

[Castle]

Star Trek Beyond.

Star Trek Into Darkness was so bad as a trek film, the next film had no where else to go but up.

[Castle]

I don't care how CGI has aged, that seems like such a bad thing to rate/criticize older films for - when it comes to CG I prefer to base opinions not on how it has aged, but how good it was for its time. And Blade's CGI was good to well above average for the era. As for the rest of it, Blade 2 didn't feel like it expanded the horror vampire world so much as it kind of ripped a little heavier from Vampire: The Masquerade for the vampire hierarchy bits and gave us del Toro being del Toro with his crazy split jaw vampire ideas which was creepy. Still, for basic plot and character I don't think it is the better movie, the original for me is just always the better watch of the two. Two's a minor step down, but remains good to great throughout.

Think we can all agree that Trinity was the worst though.

Yes, it sometimes amazing me that many people don't know the difference between dated cgi and bad cgi

[Username taken]

The Wolverine was much,much better than the first.

Logan was much much better than the Wolverine.

[thwhtGuardian]

The Wolverine was much,much better than the first.

Logan was much much better than the Wolverine.

I think that might be some of the few answers that actually fit the op here, even the Wrath of Khan is a bit shaky as although the Motion Picture isn't necessarily beloved by critics or fans I wouldn't call it bad and it did incredibly well at the box office.

[Kirby101]

The Wolverine was much,much better than the first.

Logan was much much better than the Wolverine.

I will agree with this. X-men Origins:Wolverine was not very good. (and what a terrible title)

[Castle]

X-Men Origins is one of those movies that for x-men standard was pretty mediocre but should have even gotten more harsher criticism because the opening scene is arguably one of the best in comic book history, seeing Logan fight in all those wars, so for the film to fall like it did and not to mention the really bad CGI and the way Deadpool and Gambit was handled were just poor

[SiegePerilous02]

I liked the original Suspiria for it's atmosphere, use of color and soundtrack and respect it as a classic, but the remake was among my favorite movies from the last few years. The infamous Olga scene alone makes me love the remake more.

Also I've never seen The Thing From Another World so I cannot comment on its quality, but The Thing just being an excellent movie on its own merits proves that not all remakes have to be bad or without their own identity.

EDIT: And whenever it finally happens, Robert Eggers' remake of Nosferatu is going to fucking rule.

[Kirby101]

I liked the original Suspiria for it's atmosphere, use of color and soundtrack and respect it as a classic, but the remake was among my favorite movies from the last few years. The infamous Olga scene alone makes me love the remake more.

Also I've never seen The Thing From Another World so I cannot comment on its quality, but The Thing just being an excellent movie on its own merits proves that not all remakes have to be bad or without their own identity.

EDIT: And whenever it finally happens, Robert Eggers' remake of Nosferatu is going to fucking rule.

But none remakes of bad movies.

[Guy_McNichts]

The second Ouija movie was better than it had any right to be considering how forgettable and generic the first one was (and it's a Ouija board movie).
I've been told the Annabelle sequel is better than the first, which wasn't good, but I haven't seen that.

I'm not sure if this would count as a "remake," but Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings was the second (or third?) attempt at adapting the story. The previous goes were hurt by limited budget and technology, and could only adapt part of the story, resulting in awkward pacing and inconsistent performances.

The Wolverine & Logan have been mentioned, as has The Suicide Squad, which were all better than their disastrous predecessors.

Though not a movie, Netflix's Daredevil was far superior to the poorly received first film.

[I'm a Fish]

Godzilla (2014) since it's America's second crack at the nuclear lizard.