Sequals...are you tired yet?

[stryfe]

Is it me or is every movie made now part of a "trilogy"? Is anyone else getting bored of this practice? Seriously I think its really out of hand. Or maybe Im just getting old. Thoughts?

 

[Mr. Credible]

it is you... not every movie is a sequel, or part of a trilogy, just like every movie isn't a remake.

 

[stryfe]

it is you... not every movie is a sequel, or part of a trilogy, just like every movie isn't a remake.

Im not saying every movie im saying alot of movies. It seems every other movie out there now has plans for more sometimes even before the movie comes to the box office. Take a look around the boards here at the hype and Youll notice about 3 NEW movies I.E. movies that are not sequals. Thats just a guess. (im talking about the forums) Thats just seems crazy. Its not just superhero movies either its all kinds. I dont know.

 

["Iron Man"]

The only real big problem I have with sequels is the waiting. I get pretty obsessed with a franchise and then the wait is friggin unbearable! (for instance...Spider-Man 3....I CANNOT wait for this sequel!!!!) But I do like movies that have only one part, and are not part of a trilogy. It's just that with trilogies or sagas, you have more to watch and more great stories usually.

 

[Hudson]

I'm tired of people misspelling sequel.... and prequel...

 

[stryfe]

I'm tired of people misspelling sequel.... and prequel...

90% of the time I would agree with you but since im so tired I didnt bother to spell check.

Lord of the rings is not counted in this for 2 reasons:

1) it really started the whole craze.
2) Theres no way to make it into one movie and still have it watchable.

Mods if you read this please fix the spelling of the thread it really is annoying when I see its not spelled right.

 

[Speedball]

90% of the time I would agree with you but since im so tired I didnt bother to spell check.

Lord of the rings is not counted in this for 2 reasons:

1) it really started the whole craze.
2) Theres no way to make it into one movie and still have it watchable.

Mods if you read this please fix the spelling of the thread it really is annoying when I see its not spelled right.

If the story needs to be split into two or three parts, such as LOTR, Kill Bill, POTC, and Star Wars, it ok.
But some sequels are just unnecessary, like Big Momma's House 2 andthe Whole ten Yards.

 

[CrypticOne]

Is it me or is every movie made now part of a "trilogy"? Is anyone else getting bored of this practice? Seriously I think its really out of hand. Or maybe Im just getting old. Thoughts?

Hell No! I love sequels. Trilogys and everything.

 

[tzarinna]

I'm not

 

[stryfe]

Hostel,scary movie, saw, FF all these movies deserve sequels?

 

[Speedball]

Hostel,scary movie, saw, FF all these movies deserve sequels?

Out of all of those, Scary movie is the only one that DOES NOT deserve a sequel.

 

[CrypticOne]

Hostel,scary movie, saw, FF all these movies deserve sequels?

No to Hostel, that movie sucked. The first Scary Movie was okay, but the others don't have my interest. Saw really picked up in its sequel. And all comic bokk movies should have sequels.

 

[stryfe]

No to Hostel, that movie sucked. The first Scary Movie was okay, but the others don't have my interest. Saw really picked up in its sequel. And all comic bokk movies should have sequels.

But why most people didnt even like the first one?

 

[Mr. Credible]

Im not saying every movie im saying alot of movies. It seems every other movie out there now has plans for more sometimes even before the movie comes to the box office. Take a look around the boards here at the hype and Youll notice about 3 NEW movies I.E. movies that are not sequals. Thats just a guess. (im talking about the forums) Thats just seems crazy. Its not just superhero movies either its all kinds. I dont know.

i hear what you're saying, but you're really over exaggerating. infact i'm not sure there's a thread about a sequel on the first few pages of the movie section, with pirates 2 and 3 being the exception.

 

[stryfe]

i hear what you're saying, but you're really over exaggerating. infact i'm not sure there's a thread about a sequel on the first few pages of the movie section, with pirates 2 and 3 being the exception.

When you go to select a forum look at all of them and count how many are not sequels. Heres what I got...Ghost Rider,300, Iron man, Transformers. All the others are sequels. To me that seems alot considering this board caters to a VERY select crowd. PoTC,Hostel,Narnia,Saw,Clerks,,steve martin movies that I dont know the name of, big mommas house etc etc. Theres a big list.

 

[CrypticOne]

But why most people didnt even like the first one?

Which are you talking about? Saw? Because it sold alot of money in the theatres.

 

[Mr. Credible]

When you go to select a forum look at all of them and count how many are not sequels. Heres what I got...Ghost Rider,300, Iron man, Transformers. All the others are sequels. To me that seems alot considering this board caters to a VERY select crowd.

well, yeah, man... but those are all franchise comic movies, all with very rich backgrounds of stories to pull from, and all (or more like most) of them produce alot of money. why wouldn't they have sequels?

 

[DACrowe]

Well there was a time when sequel was dirty word but those days are long gone.

In those days though movies were genuinely about quality (think the 1970s) and save for Godfather Part II sequels generally meant really lousy studio cash-ins that everyone forgot (the Jaws sequels for example).

But with Star Wars that all changed. Now whether that is right I don't know if its good but whatever.

I do think movies have become overbloated with sequels and SFX but they do sell. That is why today there are two movie seasons. One for the franchises (the summer) and one for the more creative or at least prestiegous (not neccessarily good) films in the winter.

Personally I like when the two can meet, but unfortunately scared studios and lazy filmmakers tend to play cliches and dumb franchises instead. The difference between Peter Jackson and Brett Ratner as it were.

Just my own little rambling thought.

 

[stryfe]

Well there was a time when sequel was dirty word but those days are long gone.

In those days though movies were genuinely about quality (think the 1970s) and save for Godfather Part II sequels generally meant really lousy studio cash-ins that everyone forgot (the Jaws sequels for example).

But with Star Wars that all changed. Now whether that is right I don't know if its good but whatever.

I do think movies have become overbloated with sequels and SFX but they do sell. That is why today there are two movie seasons. One for the franchises (the summer) and one for the more creative or at least prestiegous (not neccessarily good) films in the winter.

Personally I like when the two can meet, but unfortunately scared studios and lazy filmmakers tend to play cliches and dumb franchises instead. The difference between Peter Jackson and Brett Ratner as it were.

Just my own little rambling thought.

This is what im talking about. You hit it right on the head.

No I was not reffering to Saw but Fantastic Four. Does that movie really deserve a sequel?

 

[Poetic Chaos]

This is what im talking about. You hit it right on the head.

No I was not reffering to Saw but Fantastic Four. Does that movie really deserve a sequel?

Yes it does. Like another poster said, all comic movies should have a sequel. The first is always a set-up. There's always more to tell because there's 40+ years of stories to choose from. Fantastic 4 is especially deserving because they have Galactus in their rogue gallery. Not many heroes have the ability to take their franchises to somewhere out of this world.

 

[Danger Mouse]

If the sequels are good, bring it on. But I do hate limiting the franchise to just 3 movies. Already Raimi has proclaimed this to be the last Spider-Man. And other movies are in the fad. Why not let it go on like the Potter movies or 007?

 

[primemover]

Any popular media deserves sequels, why spend all this time establishing characters and a world when you'll only visit it once.

'The further adventures of . . ' sounds good to me.

 

[Poetic Chaos]

Potter isn't a trilogy but it does have a predetermined set amount of movies. 7. But I agree. If you can keep making quality stuff, why not make more? Films are definitely too hung up on trilogies.

 

[Speedball]

If the sequels are good, bring it on. But I do hate limiting the franchise to just 3 movies. Already Raimi has proclaimed this to be the last Spider-Man. And other movies are in the fad. Why not let it go on like the Potter movies or 007?

Where did Raimi say that?

 

[Danger Mouse]

Where did Raimi say that?

Has he not? I'm pretty sure he did, though I could be wrong. In any case, I'm just too lazy to look it up.