How many sequels are enough?

Are there any film franchises where you just wish they'd have left the original alone?

Maybe you liked one of the sequels but cared not for the third installment.

Are there any films you'd like to see a sequel to?
 
A sequel doesn't automatically make anything good or bad. It's just another opportunity to do well or badly. If someone manages to keep doing things well then there's no reason to stop making sequels. Of course sooner or later they're going to make a coRAB of it, but the same is true for any movie, new or sequel.

If you look at the most protracted series, such as James Bond or the Carry On films they both have low lights and highlights. The interesting thing being that which is which varies depending on who you talk to.

RegarRAB

Mark
 
Yeah,just about every horror movie has been devalued in some way or another,by being given a handful of worthless sequels (Hellraiser,Halloween,Child's Play).
The Fly (1986) should have been left as a stand alone movie because it's 1989 sequel was an insult.
In retrospect,they should have left the original Rocky alone.Even though most of the Rocky movies were good,I feel they devalued the original (a true classic) in someway.


I feel they could have got (or could still get) a great follow up to Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
 
Are there any franchises that have yet to release a poor installment?

By the way, I think Casino Royale is the best bond film, then Goldeneye, just in case anyone wanted to know (which you didn't).
 
I've not seen IV since about 1989, but I've seen IMDB reviews and they all despise it.

III wasn't THAT bad, was it? Richard Pryor was alright, anyway.
 
I was absolutely dismayed to learn recently that a Donnie Darko sequel was in the works. Even more so when I discovered that Richard Kelly has denounced any involvement in it.

This film changed my life, and the idea of a sequel is pure blasphemy!
 
I say, if you're going to do it, make a trilogy. Plan the story arc from the first one and make three. Then leave it alone.

Riddick does not require another 2 films (as stated in the news) plain and simple.

I loved back to the future 2, dare i say it more than the first one. I care nothing for the third.
 
Any sequel is too many. Once is enough.Leave a brilliant thing alone to stand om its merit imo.

Imagine if Orson Wells or Ingrmar Bergman had done Citizen Kane version 4,5 6 ,or Cries and Whispers version 3,4, or 5.
 
Yeah, you're right. :sleep:



You sound like my brother. He ordered me never to watch Terminator 3, ever. So I haven't, and I have apparently saved myself from a world of bad memories.
 
T3 suffered from the mortal sin of simply being okay. After the heights of T2 it's hard to see how it could have been anything else, but it's far from being terrible or unwatchable, or any of the other nonsense spouted by fanboys.

RegarRAB

Mark
 
i was also gutted to hear about this sequel....i felt the same finding out about Lion King 3....Lion King was amazing Lion King 2 was good, I cant even bring myself to watch 3
 
Back
Top