Are movie sequels really that bad?

Question

Personally i like having a sequel to a movie i really liked. pirates of the caribbean, men in black,american pie etc - i like when sequels come out, am i the only one who thinks this?

Answer 1

I love sequels 2 and all 3 movies u mentioned.

Answer 2

Most sequels suck. They are only made because little twenty-somethings at a movie studio cannot come up with a new idea so they recreate the old. There are exceptions: Godfather 2 is in some ways better than Godfather 1; Empire Strikes Back is better than A New Hope; Indiana Jones and The Last Crusades was just as good as Raiders of the Lost Ark. And Back to the Future 3 wasn't bad either. But, in most instances, when we have sequels we probably didn't need the original. I am going to illustrate this by saying Jeepers Creepers 1 and Jeepers Creepers 2. Both shouldn't have been made.

Answer 3

It's fine that you like sequels. Nothing wrong with it, I like sequels. And there are some pretty good ones out there. Spiderman 2 was an amazing sequel, although I slightly like the first one better. Shrek 2 though, that was a disappointing sequel, although it made much more money than the original. Sequels usually though are worse than the first. That's because now that the movie was a hit, Hollywood wants to follow in the same pursuit and milk whatever made the first one work. See the endless Disney sequels for my point. But then, the magic of the first is gone because whatever they did right the first time, it's not there anymore, the prize is for the money, not the art. That's why most sequels suck. If more sequels looked to the first and incorporated what was in there and was made for the art of it, there wouldn't be so many bad sequels. But yeah, sequels are fine, but excuse all the people who roll their eyes when they say a sequel will come out, because there are a large number of bad ones.

Answer 4

Part of it depends on the movie. Some sequals are as good as or better then the orginal. Most seem to stink though. Other times they run a franchise into the ground. A perfect example is Scary Movie. The first two were by the Wayans Brothers. They knew that was enough and stopped. Well the franchise made money so the company got new people to make them. They already have Scary Movie 5 in the works and have a target release. They are running it into the ground because it makes money. Part of that though is people didn't realize that 3 would be totally different. I happen to like how some sequals are though. For instance you take Spiderman. Well it is a continuation of HIS story BUT not of the first movie in a sense. He has new villians and new challenges.

To the comment on Jeepers Creepers, just look into the side story as to how BAD the idea of 2 was. I was reading about it when it came out and how it was such a bad idea. They couldn't even find a director or producer, can't remember which, except this unemployed one who no one will hire. His name was already so destroyed that he couldn't hurt it by doing this.

Answer 5

well sequels generally suck. Pirates, which is part of a trilogy not a sequel, was good. But I mean do they really need to make sequels to those horror movies which aren't that great to begin with. I mean did we really need 2 I Know What You Did Last Summer, or 2 Jeepers Creepers? And I think the creators of American Pie and Scary Movie went a bit overboard..

Answer 6

Sequels are a tricky proposition: if the movie was great, you have all the buildup and expectation to "top" the other movie, and so they just add more of what made the previous movie good (see Scream 2 for some rules of the sequel...self parody...hilarious). But there have been great sequels before-Aliens, The Godfather, Empire Strikes Back... I think it is harder to do a remake or a prequel than a sequel. Its just harder for a sequel to stand on its own when you have part I to compare it to.

Answer 7

I like sequels when they are done to continue a story and not meant to revisit the first one over and over again. I think a lot of people see sequels and expect them to be the first all over again, but don't realize people have to change, grow, evolve. When they are shot sequentially, like LOTR, and meant to be one movie, then they are the best. It's like Kill Bill 1 and 2. A lot of people didn't like the second, but he shot the film as one piece and cut it in half after filming. It's really one movie.



The best sequels are Bourne Identity and Supremacy, Indiana Jones, Before Sunrise/Before Sunset. You can't even insult things like Harry Potter because each one is based on an individual book. It's not like the first was made, did well, and so someone said, let's keep going with that until we mash it to death.



The worst sequels lose the integrity of the first. My big example is The Crow. As far as I will ever be concerned, part 2,3, and 4 do not exist. Those are sell outs..

Answer 8

Grease 2 is the worst sequel in the history of movies

Answer 9

Lord of the rings sequels are very good, Godfarher 2 was awesome, star wars too, spiderman, xmen, harry potter, there are a lot of movies with nice sequels...

Answer 10

I like sequels too!!! Although I don't like the endings, cuz you have to wait so long to find out what happens next, like in POTC 2...

Answer 11

Not really



Take back to the future for example.



Part 2 rocked and part 3 was the best.

Answer 12

Those are the few good ones, most sequels are baaaaad

Answer 13

No. PotC2 was awesome!

And The Lion King 2 x3

Answer 14

sequells are not all bad matrix wass good

Answer 15

POTC 2 was soo cool.



but i think that it really depends on what you were expecting.

Answer 16

it's not so much they're bad, it's that they usually aren't as good as the original.

i liked dead man's chest && MIB 2.