Sequels That Ignored The Previous Movie's Ending

Though moviegoers and filmmakers alike may sometimes think of Hollywood as a purveyor of art and entertainment, the industry is, above all, a business. This means that the bottom line is of the utmost importance to studio executives, which, unfortunately, sometimes leads to decisions that don't produce a favorable outcome for viewers. Case in point: movie sequels. When a film is a hit, producers start itching to replicate its success, and sequels are seen as the best way to do that. However, not all follow-ups are made equal, and things sometimes get left behind in the rush to generate another box office smash.

Strict continuity isn't necessarily the most vital element in making a great sequel, but a little cohesion doesn't hurt. The examples we've compiled below are sequels that completely ignore the previous installment(s) in the series, much to the consternation of dedicated fans. In some cases, re-writing the ending of a previous entry can lead to positive results, especially if the previous film was a major detour in the franchise. In other instances, this lack of continuity totally ruins the series as a whole. There's also at least one movie on this list where disregard for canon is part of the gag itself. What follows are some of the most glaring examples of this rather puzzling Hollywood practice.

"The Descent" is one of the great (and under-appreciated) horror films of the 2000s, so it's a shame the sequel pales in comparison. The original is totally harrowing, and the ending doesn't offer much hope — though it all depends on which cut you watch. According to Vulture, the original version had Sarah (Shauna Macdonald) stab her faithless friend Juno (Natalie Mendoza) before finally escaping to her car. But then, in a devastating blow, it's revealed Sarah never left the cave at all, and is still down there, hallucinating her dead daughter. Lionsgate thought this ending was a little too bleak, however, and the ending was changed to indicate that Sarah did in fact get out.

And then came the sequel, which is generally disavowed by fans of the first film. "The Descent Part 2" takes place shortly after the events of "The Descent" and sees Sarah finally escaping the cave — which she either already did in the U.S. version, or very clearly did not do in the U.K. version. When she reaches civilization, it's revealed that she's lost all memory of what has happened, even though she hallucinated Juno in the car at the end of the first movie. And, about Juno, the woman she stabbed and left for dead? She's still alive, actually, and Sarah is somehow convinced to go back down into the caves. It makes little sense continuity-wise, and it also pointedly overlooks the psychological damage Sarah experienced in the original.

The plot of the first "Highlander" is already preposterous enough. Christopher Lambert plays Connor MacLeod, a 16th-century man born in the Scottish Highlands. He's revived after being killed in battle and learns he's part of a group of immortals who are invincible unless they are beheaded. Connor is told of a secret war that the immortals have fought for centuries. Those that survive will gather to battle for a mysterious reward known as the Prize. The Gathering finally occurs in New York City in 1985, and Connor defeats his enemies and finally discovers what the Prize is — the gift of mortality.

The end of the first film is pretty conclusive — there are no more immortals left in the world and Connor finally gets to settle down and have a family — but that didn't stop producers from making a sequel. "Highlander II: The Quickening" completely upends the events of the first installment, and as such is one of the most hated sequels of all time. Here's what goes down: We quickly learn that the immortals were never actually immortals, but instead aliens. Sean Connery's character, Ramirez (who is Egyptian, but has a Spanish name and a Scottish accent, by the way), can resurrect himself, which means he's immortal again. Also, the Prize is no longer the gift of immortality, but rather a choice between dying very slowly or very quickly. And, perhaps most importantly, none of the characters — including the titular Highlander himself – are actually Scottish, which really just defeats the entire premise.

"The Boy" is a 2016 film that comes from a long line of possessed doll movies. Lauren Cohan plays Greta, a young woman hired as a nanny for a doll named Brahms. Her employers write out strict rules for her to follow, which she initially ignores until strange things begin happening around the house. She eventually comes to believe the doll is actually possessed, perhaps the most likely explanation for the events she experiences. The twist ending upends this notion, however, as we learn that Brahms' namesake is actually an adult man who was presumed to have died as a child, but has been living in the house all along, meaning the doll isn't actually possessed.

"The Boy" may be a possessed doll fake-out, but its sequel, "Brahms: The Boy II," reneges on the conclusion of its predecessor. At the end of "The Boy," Brahms the doll is smashed into pieces, only for someone to begin putting him back together in the final frame. In the second film, a young boy named Jude (Christopher Convery) moves into the house and becomes attached to the doll. The human Brahms is most certainly dead, but now the doll is truly possessed and Jude has to follow the same rules that Greta did. This sequence of events makes little sense, and it's no wonder the sequel was even more poorly received than the first movie.

The Christopher Reeve "Superman" series, which first began in 1978, is one of the earliest examples of a superhero movie franchise, at least as far as DC and Marvel properties go. The original installment was critically and commercially successful, as was the second film, though slightly less so. Things took a turn for the worse with the third and fourth entries, "Superman III" and "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace," respectively. In fact, they were so poorly received that efforts have since been taken to erase them from the timeline altogether.

The 2006 film "Superman Returns" aimed to be a sequel to "Superman II," but ignore the third and fourth installments entirely. At the end of "Superman II," our titular hero flies into space. In "III" and "IV," Superman is safely back on Earth, though "Superman Returns" acts as if that never happened. It stars Brandon Routh as Superman and takes place five years after the events of "Superman II" as Clark Kent returns to Earth and finds that much has changed since he's been gone.

"Superman Returns" also effectively rejects the existence of Supergirl, as the 1984 work of the same name is technically part of the canon between "Superman III" and "Superman IV." Luckily, Helen Slater, the original Supergirl, got a chance to rejoin the universe by playing Supergirl's mom in The CW series.

"The Exorcist" is an incredibly influential and terrifying film – it was banned for over a decade in the U.K. — and its sequel is an abject failure in comparison. "Exorcist II: The Heretic" delivers none of the frights of its predecessor, and instead comes off more like a slapstick comedy. When it came time for another installment, the events of "Exorcist II" were ignored entirely. In fact, the third "Exorcist" film wasn't meant to be a direct sequel. Author William Peter Blatty titled his follow-up novel "Legion" and intended for the movie adaptation to be released under that title. The studio wasn't satisfied with the name, however, and had it retitled "The Exorcist III" to emphasize the connection to the original.

This renewed branding meant several changes were made to the film itself, including a totally new ending, and of course, an exorcism scene. Though the third (or second?) entry in the franchise wasn't especially well-received at the time, it has since gained something of a cult following, with many fans attentive to the fact that Blatty's original vision was completely transformed by the studio. The director's cut has since been made available on Blu-ray, so viewers can now compare Blatty's version to what the studio came up with. The final theatrical cut is a pretty entertaining thriller on its own, though it's ultimately brought down by comparisons to the original.

The Will Smith-starring "I Am Legend" is a classic post-apocalyptic film, but its ending has long been debated. The movie is based on Richard Matheson's book of the same name, which has a far bleaker finale than Hollywood could handle at the time. In the novel, the Darkseers (aka the infected vampires) look just like humans, and Dr. Neville (Smith) has a relationship with one of them. This Darkseer turns out to be a spy who was sent to investigate him because of how many Darkseers he has killed and experimented on over the years. Dr. Neville realizes that, according to them, he is the monster meant to be feared.

The original ending that was filmed is closer to the novel, with Neville realizing that he has become a monster, but managing to escape with Anna (Alice Braga) and Ethan (Charlie Tahan). This didn't test well with audiences, so it was reworked to show Neville sacrificing himself to protect the cure and thus eliding this revelation about his own monstrous behavior.

It's now been announced that there will be a sequel to "I Am Legend," and this follow-up will ignore the original ending and instead go with the alternate version. Taking place decades later, the Darkseers have maintained their own society, and mother nature has continued taking over the planet. Writer Akiva Goldsman likened the world of the film to "The Last of Us," wherein humans are longer in control of Earth.