Sequels/Prequels ARGH!!!

[Gullom]

For the most part sequels are "Beating a Dead Horse" I believe there are a few exceptions to this like:
-StarWars
(The prequels aren't needed, but they are nice to see to fill the viewer in on what the heck happened before luke was born)

-Termiator
(a sequel wasn't needed, but was very cool. It's too ealry to be said about T3)

-Rocky
(Rocky 2 could have finished the series,Rocky 3 was alright, 4 would have been a good place to stop, but 5 was just horrible.)

-StarTrek
(StarTrek sequels could be looked at as good and bad:

Bad - because after 9 releases in the StarTerk series (the 10th coming out in December), this could be viewed as beating a dead horse. Also because some of the StarTrek sequels have a continuing story line, but some are totally different & out of place with the story line with the prequel/sequel before or after it.

Good- because for those sequels that are a continuing story; it's cool to see where they end up next)

-Superman
(The sequels aren't needed, but it's cool to see what Lex Luthor can do to the Man of Steel in each movie)

Those that definately with out a doubt do not fall in the exception are:
-Jason (Friday the 13th)
-Gremlins
-Halloween
-Disney; These lame Disney sequels
(Disney can't leave well enough alone, they don't even hit theaters for heaven sake)
-Hot Shots
-Airplane
-The Mummy
(This should have stopped with the first one, but the sequel "bug" caught hold of someone and boom out came the "Mummy Returns" & the "Scorpion King" - Which had nothing to do with the "Mummy" series)
-Ninja Turtles
-Ghost Busters
-Charlies Angels
(this movie should have never been released in the first place!!)

The list goes on & on

[Moviefan1234]

I think sequels and prequels are great. I love them most of the time, if the original movie was good.

[Trixieangel]

I'm always weary of sequels and prequels, most are just made for $$$$[well actaually all movies are ultimately made for $$$]. Most are bad and add nothing to the franchise. You can usually spot a bad one when the francise changes hands between director. This is never a good sign. The orginal director probably thought, Hey lets not beat a dead horse, it's done. Whereas the director of the sequel or remake or prequel is like Hmmmm well that one made money, and i wanna piece of the action as their eyes turn cartoonishly into giant money signs.

The Godfather part two was good though.

[Big Pudge]

i wouldnt consider a single movie a "franchise" so if a sequal is made that would be the deciding factor of a franchise.. but even that is weary, i think anything after 3 should be a franchise... 1 is solo, 2 is a sequal, and 3 is a trilogy, 4 is a franchise!!

anyways, i enjoy sequals alot, its kind of like extending the running time of the original film!

[Moviefan1234]

Originally posted by Big Pudge
i enjoy sequals alot, its kind of like extending the running time of the original film!

Exactly.

[Tom Samborski]

Not all sequels are bad, it's just that some come very close to being as good as the original, and others come nowhere near close. That's the way sequels work, and the problem with them is that it's hard for sequels to come up with originality like their predecessors.

[James Logan]

Prequels and sequels are like all other movies: if well done, they're great; if not, they're lame. Simple as that.

[Jason Voorhees]

Well said, James. I wholeheartedly agree.

[syxxpac]

Originally posted by James Logan
Prequels and sequels are like all other movies: if well done, they're great; if not, they're lame. Simple as that.

I agree. After all, my favorite flick of all time is a sequel. So I'd be kind of a hypocrite if I said sequels suck. They just have to be done right.

[Michael_myers]

Jason needed sequels to gain a niche in horror, Michael Myers didn't

[El Bracamonti]

Originally posted by Tom Samborski
Not all sequels are bad, it's just that some come very close to being as good as the original, and others come nowhere near close. That's the way sequels work, and the problem with them is that it's hard for sequels to come up with originality like their predecessors.

agreed

[Congerking]

sequels and prequels are just the studios way of getting some more cash from the general public. they are not conventional cinema nor are they great movies. (excluding LOTR and Harry potter) the money leeching, heartless, blood-sucking stuidios just want more freaking money to finance other sequels/prequels to get more money to.....blah blah blah...it goes on and on and on. there are original movies out there, but if a big budget studio made a movie that wasn't a prequel/sequel, i would shit myself.

[CeMeTaRy_GaTeS]

I agree with James Logan on how sequels/prequels are like any movie. Yet the problem with sequels now is that there seems to be too many. Hollywood has no balls and I fear it may come to the point where we will be getting sequels to movies that don't need one or have been released over 30 years ago. Ones that come to mind:

SCARFACE 2
A CLOCKWORK ORANGE 2
TITANIC 2
PEARL HARBOR 2
INDEPENDANCE DAY 2

[freakandgeek]

one thing that bothers me about sequels are the fact that most of them just try to be better then the first and are unsuccessful....definately an example is austin powers:goldmember...i don't think i laughed outloud once....

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by James Logan
Prequels and sequels are like all other movies: if well done, they're great; if not, they're lame. Simple as that.

I wholeheartedly agree.

While it may seem that Hollywood only makes sequels, the fact is that the vast majority of studio films are original stories and one-offs.

But come to a message board like this one and all anyone ever talks about are the sequels. Those are the most talked about, anticipated films. Why? Because it's easier to talk about a sequel to a movie you've seen, like Spider-man, than it is some new movie or characters.

There are many people looking forward to the Matrix sequels, or Spider-man. That anticipation is why studios make sequels. If you want them to stop making them, then stop talking about them.