Sequels rarely live up to the promise of the original.
By megamatt
@megamatt (14290)
United States
February 9, 2011 10:36am CST
A movie does good. It makes a lot of money. So they make a sequel, which could be as good, but really pushing it a bit. Then some movie franchises just make sequel after sequel, which is really spitting on the entire spirit of the original. I think there are really a lack of original ideas in Hollywood so the easiest thing to do, is let's make a sequel, if if it is a sequel to a movie that really was wrapped up and there was nowhere else to go.
1 person likes this
5 responses
@allyoftherain (7208)
• United States
12 Feb 11
I don't think it's a lack of original ideas... I think it's a lack of trust that original ideas will make money. That and Hollywood is pretty iron-barred about letting new people into the industry. The reason they make sequels is because they're almost guaranteed to make money, and in a downward trending industry... they like guarantees.
I actually have really enjoyed lots of recent sequels to films. I liked Transformers 2, Shrek 4:Forever After, and Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. I think the sequels that bothered me were the old Disney "cheapquels" as I like to call them. They're looking to make a quick buck, so they release a straight to DVD totally cheap film and expect to rake in the cash. Those don't really happen much anymore though.
@allyoftherain (7208)
• United States
15 Feb 11
I agree about Disney Sequels. The Aladdin ones were both ones that I enjoyed as well, even though I feel both were much cheaper and a step down from the original. Mulan 2 really just made me mad! I'm glad that Disney released new Fairytale movies Princess and the Frog and Tangled. I absolutely loved both.
@megamatt (14290)
• United States
14 Feb 11
Yeah I agree with you. They are afraid of new ideas and they are afraid to step outside of the box. There are many times where you need to go with what works. And often times, a sequel is far, far better. Then there are times where a sequel is not needed. Really Disney is the perfect example. Out of all of the sequels, the only ones that I really enjoyed were the two Aladdin sequels(which really came before Disney started spamming the sequels for the sake of sequels, so I doubt it really counts). The other ones were passable at best to really, really spitting on the spirit of the original. Thank you for your response. It is much appreciated and it contributed to the topic well. Have a nice day and thanks.
1 person likes this
@lady1993 (27221)
• Philippines
12 Feb 11
Yes, I definitely agree with you. As a movie watcher and an avid fan of movies, 
some sequels are just for the sake of making money. I hope they'd put more effort in making the story better than the first, not just the effects. Good thing the Hp series and POTC aren't that much of a letdown or disappointment. 
some sequels are just for the sake of making money. I hope they'd put more effort in making the story better than the first, not just the effects. Good thing the Hp series and POTC aren't that much of a letdown or disappointment. @megamatt (14290)
• United States
14 Feb 11
If they put enough effort into making a sequel mean something then I really have no problem with them. Really it just another excellent movie. That just happens to follow up on the previous movie. On the other hand, there are many times where everyone just throws out every sequel, until they milk the franchise dry. Thank you for your response. It is much appreciated and it contributed to the topic well. Have a nice day and thanks.
@silvercoin (2101)
• Lithuania
9 Feb 11
Yes, Hollywood's producing too many sequels right now.I'm not against sequels, but what's too much is too much.I think it's unfair to use the same idea again and again, and I really believe the audience isn't as stupid as they think.Trilogy is enough for a good movie.When a movie is perfect, there's no need to make a sequel of it.
@megamatt (14290)
• United States
9 Feb 11
I'm not against sequels either, when there is a good story to tell. However, there are only a handful of times where that does seem to in fact be the case. If there is some thread that you can expand in an entire movie, then fine. However, sequels for the sake of sequels, just not good. Thank you for your response. It is much appreciated and it contributed to the topic well. Have a nice day and thanks.
@petersum (4522)
• United States
9 Feb 11
There are some notable exceptions, but I agree that most sequels aren't worth watching. Among the good sequels, a series like "Back to the future" were good, and "Home alone" 1 - 3 were good but then they went too far! I would say one sequel is enough. An example of overkill is the "Spiderman" series. Although there are probably enough stories to make another dozen movies, they became too predictable and just an excuse to show off the special effects. Much the same applies to "Harry Potter". It really is better to read the book!
@megamatt (14290)
• United States
9 Feb 11
Spider-Man is really an interesting point about super hero movies in general. The rule of four movies(illustrated by the first set of Batman movies and Superman movies as well and maybe X-Men, although I haven't seen X-Men Origins: Wolverine yet)
First movie is a good movie.
Second movie is also a good movie, maybe slightly better.
Third movie is so so, with moments but a real let down.
And the less said about the fourth movie, the better.(Batman and Robin and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace really tell you all you need to know).
I think Spider-Man if it had gotten a fourth movie in the series, as opposed to getting rebooted, might have feel into this trap. I really think that the one movie that might break the curse is the Dark Knight series, but we'll see.
And also book adaptations can be hit or miss, even with the original, mostly in the miss. Still some sequels are good but others are overkill. Thank you for your response. It is much appreciated and it contributed to the topic well. Have a nice day and thanks.
@craigy123456789 (1758)
•
9 Feb 11
I fully agree with you. No matter what the original will always be the best movie as it is the irst of it's kind. The others that come after it are still similar but yet i feel not as good as the original. There could be some movies that do a few sequels, like rush hour, fast & furious, police academy, etc. They may create different things and may have a slightly different storyline but normally it is still same cast and still same direction as the original movie. I guess if the ending of the original does allow another movie then great, but surely after 2 movies that should be it? Sometimes i guess people play on the fact that if a movie earns them so much money as it does well then an easier way to make more money is to do a sequel to it as not much thought would need to go into it compared to making a new movie with different people and a completely different storyline.
@megamatt (14290)
• United States
9 Feb 11
Yeah there are sometimes where you can tell a story with two movies(or maybe three, in the case of a trilogy), but really when you think about it, it is really pushing it when you get past that point. Yet people see the movie that the movies are making money, so they get greedy. Thank you for your response. It is much appreciated and it contributed to the topic well. Have a nice day and thanks.
