Movies that should have been made with sequels

anderssen — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 18:39:02 +0800

I love good movies with sequels. It just keeps the excitement going and hoping that it will turn to a succesful franchise. Over the decades, we have seen numerous movies with good prequels and sequels - some even outshone the original movies. F&F, the Bourne franchise, Back to the Future, James Bond, The Hangover, Godfather, Aliens (not the AVP series ), Dark Knight, X-Men, and several from the Disney's studio. We awed at prequels such as Prometheus, The Exorcist, The Hobbit, Star Wars, and many more...

Then of course there are forgettable ones like The Crow (what a waste..though I heard Hollywood is kicking up a reboot with Luke Evans as the main lead), The Son of the Mask (where is Jim Carrey when you need him?), Grease 2, Blair Witch 2 (there goes my fear...), Speed 2 (?!!), Anacondas 2 (from A-grade to B-grade), Transformers and the list goes on..

But being the critic myself, I feel there are some other equally good movies which can create a legacy of their own. Here are my list of the movies that should have been made with sequels or prequels..in no priority order...

1. Constantine (probably this time with a blonde and much more meatier role guy...)
2. Jeepers Creepers (I love the first one but had fun with JP2, heard there's a 3rd one coming but it has been in pre-production since 2013)
3. SE7EN
4. Van Helsing (light and fun but prefer a darker version)
5. Tangled (yeah...why not?)
6. Beetlejuice (Michael Keaton...nuff said)
7. Liar Liar (forget it if they find anyone other than Jim Carrey)
8. Man on Fire (seriously...I don't know what happened to Denzel at the end..)
9. Inglorious Basterds (should have another glorious outfit)
10. Transformers (more of like a reboot..)
11. 28 Days Later, 28 weeks Later, (maybe 28 Months later should make the cut..LOL)

What do you think, eh?

Does a lens really affect a picture quality?

anderssen — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:51:39 +0800

I know there are many factors that are taken into consideration in producing a good quality photo. However I've been bothered by this notion that lens too plays an important role. But how far is this from truth? I'm a beginner who owns an entry level Sony A300 camera with 2 lenses (18-70mm F3.5-5.6 lens kit & 55-200mm Telephoto lens kit). I've been snapping photos but somehow I could not get the quality desired. (I even applied other techniques possible) Is it the camera? Will it make any difference if I change the lenses?

I got to the point where I almost gave up photography...until I found out about EOS 60D...

Lowyat.NET: Latest topics by anderssen

Movies that should have been made with sequels

Does a lens really affect a picture quality?