Opinion: Five Movies That Need A Sequel

It seems like nearly every movie that comes out each year is either a sequel or the start of a franchise that that will have sequels. Sometimes, though, great movies just don't get sequels. Here are five movies I think really need sequels:

Get Smart (2008)

Why it needs a sequel:
After the first movie came out, a sequel was rumored to be scheduled for a 2012 release. Steve Carell wrote a draft of the script, but there was never one good enought to be made into a movie.

What it could be about:
As a movie adapted from a T.V. series, there are probably a lot of ways a sequel could go. Sigfried probably didn't die, so KAOS is probably still out there. Another possibility could be a "Bruce and Lloyd: Out of Control" meets "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." type T.V. series with cameos from Steve Carell, Terry Crews, David Koechner, Patrick Warburton, and Larry Miller. The problem with that idea is that currently Masi Oka is currently on two TV series, and until I did research for writing this I thought that Nate Torrence hadn't done any acting after "Get Smart".

The Italian Job (2003)

Why it needs a sequel:
Another movie with sequel that was in development ever since the first movie came out. A couple scripts were written, but a movie was never green-lit. With the increasing popularity of the "Fast and Furious" movies there is a market for another heist movie with fast cars.

What it could be about:
The sequel war rumored to be called "The Brazilian Job". Since "Fast Five" pretty much is that concept, there are many possibilities for a story for a sequel. Have the crew been pulling jobs over the last decade plus, or does something happen to pull them out of retirement for "one last score"?

Galaxy Quest (1999)

Why it needs a sequel:
At the same time a parody and loving homage to "Star Trek", "Galaxy Quest" was ranked along with the official "Star Trek" movies and was placed in the middle of the list at the offical Star Trek convention in 2013. People still love the movie even a decade-and-a-half later.

What it could be about:
Since the first movie parodied the "Star Trek" TV series, a sequel could parody the movies - especially the reboots. "Galaxy Quest" is being turned into movie - but with an all-new, younger cast. How do the original cast members react to that, and how do the new cast members react to being caught up in an actual adventure in space when the Thermians return?

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)

Why it needs a sequel:
In my opinion, the "HGttG" movie is one of the few movies that are better than the book, although it is really the next in a line of adaptations of a story that inlude a radio series, a book series, a TV series, a stage play, a computer game, and finally a movie, all differing from the other somewhat, and all written by Douglas Adams.

What it could be about:
The rest of the series.

The Game Plan (2007)

Why it needs a sequel:
If a direct sequel were put into development today, filmed in 2016, and released in 2017, it would be ten years after the original came out. The first movie was about Joe Kingman (Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, a single pro football player finding out he had an eight-year-old daughter, Peyton (Madison Pettis). The sequel would be about a (possibly married) former pro football player with an 18-year-old daughter. We would see how fatherhood has caused Joe's character to change over time, if Joe and Monique (Roselyn Sanchez) lasted as a couple, and what the spunky Peyton is now like as a teenager.

What it could be about:
The movie could be about Joe and Peyton going on a road trip and visiting colleges. That plot line seems vaguely familiar, so I do some research and it turns out I am remembering seeing commercial for another Disney movie called "College Road Trip" from 2008. So Disney could make two sequels with one movie.

Review: Star Trek Into Darkness

"Star Trek Into Darkness" is the worst Star Trek movie ever. At least according to die-hard Trekkers. But "Star Trek Into Darkness" is a really good movie, despite the fact that it has a terrible story.

The movie begins in the middle of an action scene, so characters are forced to say awkward expositional statements in their dialogue in order to catch up the audience. Despite that, the movie starts off strong for about the first half-hour. Then everything goes wrong. I have read and watched a lot of reviews for the movie, and I have not seen anybody point out the major story flaw I am about to point out.

At the 29-minute mark, Kirk breaks down over Admiral Pike's dead body. Clearly he is emotionally compromised. And what did the previous movie establish about being emotionally compromised?

Spock Prime: [Regulation] Six-one-nine states that any command officer who's emotionally compromised by the mission at hand must resign said command.

A major plot point of "Star Trek" was that Kirk had to show that Spock was emotionally compromised so that Kirk could take control of the Enterprise. And yet, when Kirk became emotionally compromised, he was given command of the Enterprise anyway, and nobody objected. I have gone ahead to rewrite three scenes the way they should have happened. (My additions are in italics):

Bones: Where were you?
Kirk: For what?
Bones: Your medical exam. Ten hours ago you were in a firefight. Now it's my duty as ship's...
Kirk: I'm fine, Bones.
Bones: The hell you are. You have been emotionally compromised and are no longer fit for duty.
Kirk: I'm fine.
-----Spock: Captain. Thank you for requesting my reinstatement. As I am again your First Officer, it is now my duty to inform you that you are emotionally compromised and advise that you should relinquish your command.
-----Uhura: Captain! I'm so sorry about Admiral Pike.
Kirk: We all are.
Uhura: Are you okay?
Kirk: Fine, thank you, Lieutenant.
Uhura: Captain, I know that you were close with the admiral. And I know it isn't my place to say this, but I think that you may be emotionally compromised.
Kirk: You are right, Lieutenant. It isn't your place. Now, tell me all the intimate details about your relationship with Spock.

If all three attempts didn't work there should have been a non-mutinous way for his crew to hold an intervention for him. But all of his crew just let him make some very bad decisions when any of them could have stopped it.

The next big problem was the villain. It was no surprise that the villain turned out to be Khan. In November of 2009, I went on the IMDb page for the "Untitled Star Trek Sequel" before any official information had been released about the movie. All it had for the cast was "Nestor Carbonell - Khan (rumored)"¹. That was wrong. By the time that the movie was finally written and ready to into pre-production, Benecio Del Toro was rumored to be cast as the villain, and speculation again was that Khan would be the villain. In the end, Benedict Cumberbatch was cast as John Harrison.

I had hoped that the new Star Trek movie would have an original villain like the previous movie had. There was no reason for Khan to be in the second movie of the new continuity just because he was in the original second movie. And essentially he wasn't truly Khan. Just because the timeline was changed sometime around Kirk's birth does not mean that the changes would go back to the 1940s-1990s to change Khan from a Mexican-Indian to a British-Indian.

But the biggest problem with Khan Harrison was that he is the most honest movie villain since Satan in "Suing the Devil". Seriously, every single thing Khan says is true. He does not try to manipulate anybody through deception. He saves Uhura, Kirk, and Spock from Klingons, he willingly surrenders to them, he reveals his motivation to Kirk and shares that Admiral Marcus is the real bad guy, and Khan only really becomes evil once Marcus was taken out and he had a position of power. Khan Noonien Singh is considered the greatest Star Trek villain, but Khan Harrison is not.

The final problem I am going to bring up is really a minor nitpick. At the end of the movie, Kirk recites the "Space. The Final Frontier." monologue as the "Captain's Oath". I have no idea how that counts as an oath. There is no promise anywhere in those words. That just bugs me.

Even though the majority of the story logically shouldn't have happened, the story was created to serve the villain instead of the other way around, and the writers couldn't think of a clever way to work the "final frontier" monologue into the script (along with a whole list of other problems I am not bringing up), "Star Trek Into Darkness" is a really good movie that is fun to watch over and over. If JJ Abrams can take a terrible script and turn it into an amazing movie, then we should have no worries about "Star Wars: The Force Awakens".

I give "Star Trek Into Darkness" an 8/10.



Notes:
1. Really good casting idea, whoever put that on there. I think that could have worked, had the actual Khan been used.

Review: Star Trek (2009)

I am a Star Wars geek. I take after my mom on that. My dad, on the other hand, is a Star Trek fan. Growing up, I was familiar with "Star Trek: The Next Generation" but I did not know much about it, The Original Series, or any of the original movies. I was interested when I first heard about the new "Star Trek" movie that was being directed by JJ Abrams, because I was a fan of "LOST". My dad was the one to watch it first, of course, on DVD in November 2009. He told me it was really good, so not long after I got it from Redbox. I was surprised at how good it was! I watched it again the next day, this time with the audio commentary. A few days later was Black Friday and I got the single-disc DVD for $5. I have watched the movie 3-4 times a year since then.

When JJ Abrams was announced to be the director of "Star Wars: Episode VII", it was no surprise, because "Star Trek" is a "Star Wars" movie in disguise. It opens with a space battle, features a cantina scene, a planet being destroyed, an ice planet, and ends with a medal ceremony. The VFX were done by Industrial Light and Magic, the sound design was done by Ben Burtt, the novelization was written by Alan Dean Foster. Sure, Abrams was revitalizing a dead franchise, but he was also making his "Star Wars" demo reel in the process.

I have heard people complain that the movie's antagonist, Nero, was a weak villain. I disagree! Within 50 seconds of appearing onscreen he murders Captain Robau in a fit of rage. I compared that to some of the all-time best movie baddies: In "The Avengers" it takes Loki 25 seconds after appearing to start killing people; In "Star Wars" it takes a minute and a half between Darth Vader boarding the Tantive IV and choking Captain Antilles to death; And in "The Dark Knight" the Joker is shown onscreen two and a half minutes before he shoots the bank manager.

What Nero did that the other villains I mentioned did not was destroy a planet and kill six billion Vulcans. Darth Vader is considered one of the best movie villains but he stood by and let Governor Tarkin give the command to destroy Alderaan. Nero committed genocide, and was going to destroy Earth next, followed by every other Federation planet. It is unknown just how many people Nero was willing to murder in order to get his revenge on the Federation.

The casting is great, the story is great, the music is great. I give "Star Trek" a 10/10 for being the best "Star Wars" movie pretending to be a "Star Trek" film.