The Great Debate series…

Updated on January 19, 2009 By Ken Begg 10 Comments

Which upcoming theatrical release sequel is more entirely unnecessary, uncalled for, and plain just depressing to contemplate: Underworld 3 or Pink Panther 2?

Discuss.

Pin It

  • Plissken79

    Pink Panther 2 is more unnecessary. Underworld 3 at least has the possibility of one or two good action scenes, Pink Panther 2, like its predecessor, looks painfully unfunny and a disgrace to the memory of Peter Sellars

  • Ericb

    They’re up to Underworld 3 already? 2 must have been released under stealth mode.

  • sardu

    That’s a tough call. My knee-jerk reaction was to say PP2 but- honestly, the first one did have a few laughs, if you could mentally refrain from comparisons to the first few movies of the original series and the lame ending. It was better than everything from “Strikes Again” on (for whatever that’s worth.

    The Underworld series just bores me to tears though- an awesome premise utterly wasted. So I go with Underworld 3.

  • sardu

    Sorry for the double post- I just had to add that I think Peter Sellars was a genius but he helped plenty to disgrace his own memory in the end (Being There not withstanding).

  • Blackadder

    The Pink Panther 2 is much much more depressing. Peter Sellars IS Clouseau and there never should have been any Pink Panther remakes. The original Underworld was just about as bad as it gets -barring participation from Uwe Boll or Rob Zombie – and sequels can’t really make it any worse.

  • I must concur that PP2 is a (slightly) worse prospect. You might, maybe, get a laugh or two out of UW3’s awfulness. PP2, quite the opposite.

  • PP2 is more depressing to think about. It’s not that I think the Underworld series better, I just have less expectations for it than Pink Panther and Steve Martin.

  • PP2. It profanes something that was once great, and it represents far more bone-headed production decisions (Seriously, why cast Martin as Clouseau? I should have thought Jean Reno would have been a natural choice.)

    Underworld means nothing to me, never seen it, but it looks like just another brainless action series. Interesting premise, but that just means that someone else will take the idea and do it better, sooner or later.

  • Sandy Petersen

    Underworld depresses me because I totally hated Underworld, and it makes me sad that it made enough $ to spawn a grandchild.

    Pink Panther 2 just strikes me as stupid. Whatever Steve Martin’s virtues, he’s no Peter Sellers (and I’m not a particularly big fan of Peter Sellers).

  • Sandy Petersen

    I don’t know why i’m trying to defend Rob Zombie here, but I will. Rob “gets” horror movies. Though he may not be able to make a great film, he likes the right kind of stuff. The mere fact he put Sid Haig and Karen Black into House of 1000 Corpses shows he appreciates the Old Ways.

    And he’s like Hitchcock compared to Uwe Boll.