2000Man
It seems most sequels, as we touched upon, are made because the first one made so much money. If there is no more to tell of the story, why tell it? (Yes, I know the answer is "Make more money!"
wink If there are more stories or more ideas, it usually turns out better. Although, I have difficult thinking of sequels that I really enjoyed, the exception being James Bond. But each one is more of a story or adventure on its own.
I think the worst sequels are the ones that are made well after the original or the original trilogy ends. Like Indiana Jones, should have been left alone. I love Tron. I've seen it many many times. But I don't want to see the sequel because I know it is going to be a let down.
The exception to the sequel rule seems to be horror movies. It is almost mandatory that you have at least one sequel, if not more.
James Bond ones are essentially you just need James Bond, hot Bond girl, evil villian, cool gadgets and some plot to take over the world. So every new movie is it's own movie (maybe some minor plot points are from older movies but not too many) and not just continuing a series.
Yes, I agree. Some movies should not have sequels because all the major points where put into the first (couple) of movies and adding more just ruins it.
Ah, well they're horrors and usually made to be somewhat tacky and sequels tend to be the epitome of tacky.
100
200
200
