How many sequels are enough?

I dont think there is an absolute upper limit - as long as good films are made.

Unfortunately film makers/studios seem to see sequels of successful originals as a cash cow and put little effort into them - and hence we end up with utterly rubbish films like AVP2, Batman and Robin etc.
 
What SciFi isn't full of plot holes? In fact what films aren't full of things they shouldn't have in them? No one's made a perfect film yet.

T3 is just fairly average fun - nothing really bad, nothing really good. It's an easyish way to spend a couple of hours, as long you don't expect too much.

RegarRAB

Mark
 
I agree! I loved the original trilogies but hey're so blatantly gonna screw it up by doing a 4th. Is Neve Campbell even gonna be in it? Oh well I guess I'll still go see it, but i won't like it :D
 
Funny how people can have different view points! I hated Back to the Future 2 which I feel sullied the good name of crap whereas 3 redeemed all concerned.
 
Exactly! I was about to say pretty much the same (well, I was going to say "one sequel is a sequel too many"). Cries and Whispers is one of my favourite films too so I really agree on that point.

Sequels are hardly ever as good as the original and sometimes even spoil it. I did recently see the 'Three Colours Trilogy' which was very good, but that is different because the three films in it do not follow on from each other (although they all feature characters from each film crossing paths through a series of coincidences and the end brings them all together) and they were conceived as a whole even though they are still great films individually so the second and third parts of the trilogy are technically not sequels.
 
BTTF 3 felt different to the first two, so I find it more difficult to compare. Of the recent sequels including Rocky, Rambo, Die Hard and Indiana Jones, they were made quite a while after the originals with the main stars a lot older now. I feel there is a point when they should stop, but I suppose it is better than a re-make which enRAB up being poor (most of the time) to the original and adRAB nothing to the franchise. There was talk of a BTTF 4 and Indy 5 is on the way, plus don't forget there may be Toy Story 3 to come as well
 
Toy Story 3 is certainly do-able, seeing as animation doesn't age.

The problem is they're damned if they stick with the original star, and they're damned if they do a re-make. Either the original star is past it, or the new guy replacing them isn't anywhere near as good.

It seems if they're going to make a bunch of films, they need to use the original cast before they collect their bus pass.
 
Indeed. And it is based on a series of books. As was the James Bond franchise originally, and the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I think basing a franchise on a series of books isn't really the same as making a movie sequel out of nothing. With the books you know whether you've got good material before you start, and you are less governed by the formula of the early movies.
 
I easily prefered BTTF 3 over the second,which in my opinion was a bit too mean spirited and dark for what was basically a family movie.Although it was a very clever movie.
I liked the whole big movie,epic feel BTT3 had,and felt it brought to story to a fitting conclusion.
 
When I last saw BTTF 2 and BTTF 3 I had not seen any of Leone's films (a situation I very shortly corrected). I will have to watch these two again now. While I'm on the western theme, if we had a new western trilogy for our generation, who would be worthy of directing and who for the leading role?
 
Are there any film franchises where you just wish they'd have left the original alone?
-No, don't have to watch the sequels. Like I remember one great Jurrasic Park, and don't care for it's sequels. Some people must enjoy them(I think).

Are there any films you'd like to see a sequel to?
-Titanic(joke)

-Can't think of any really, I think either films are self-contained and have their happy ending or any potential for sequels of a successful movie is already done for the possibility of extra revenue.

Actually I do have one, War of the WorlRAB. Not sure it'll retain it's original charm, actually it probably wouldn't, but this is some years on and Martians attacking again but they've developed immunity this time to the bacteria.


"How many sequels are enough?"

DepenRAB how much room for creativity there is in something I think. Like Carry On films theres a fair bit as it revolves more around the characters than anything else, James Bond you got all the creativity of the books already there. Some films are sort of limited, in fact, something like Jaws is surprising that it has sequels.
 
Yeah, but in saying that, the characters in the Carry On Films are generally stock characters, aren't they? I mean, there's always at least three lecherous characters, then the busty thick blones, and the bossy woman with some power. It's only ever really the title and background that's changed in those movies, in my humble opinion.
 
Well, the remake of 3:10 to Yuma was very good, but the original wasn't exactly a classic.

I for one have no interest in seeing remakes of any of Leone's films, if anybody is foolish enough to attempt to update them that is.

As for another Leone? I doubt it. He was the Italian Spielberg.

The man just went from strength to strength.

A Fistful of Dollars
For A Few Dollars More
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Once Upon A Time in the West
Once Upon A Time... The Revolution/Duck, You Sucker/A Fistful of Dynamite
Once Upon a Time in America

All great films. I proudly own them all. ;)
 
I just re-watched Final Destination 2, and I think it's another sequel which works. The idea now is mature without yet being tired. The sequence in which the lottery guy gets entangled in his flat is classic.
 
To be fair though, the films are almost completely different from the books.

Pretty much the only commonalities are a few names and Bourne being found in the sea with amnesia.

I think the filmmakers deserve credit for a cracking trilogy.
 
Back
Top