Why do most movie sequels suck?
For horror movies, sometimes the movies get better as they iron out the premise and explore possibilities. Often sequels are disappointing because the main motivation behind them is to capitalize on the success of the first movie as opposed to it being a good idea. The best example is Pirates of the Caribbean, which was an outstanding closed ended stand alone movie. It surprised everybody by being a smash success, so they tacked on two unneeded horrible movies (and now they are working on #4). There are a lot of reasons that sequels aren't made. Cast can be unwilling or unavailable. The plot line doesn't lend itself to continuation. Many times scripts are written and producers or directors don't like them. The book sequel to Forrest Gump (Gump & Co.) was never made into a movie because the producers thought it wasn't as relevant after 9/11.
What movies do you wish didn't have a sequel?
There are a few that immediately come to mind:HIGHLANDERTHE STINGJAWSTRUE GRITTHE KARATE KIDBUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KIDTHE FUGITIVEBACK TO THE FUTUREJURASSIC PARKTHE TALENTED MR. RIPLEYMy reasoning being that the sequel (or sequels) to these films do little to advance the characters or story. Further, they actually tarnish the original, by exhausting what goodwill audiences had for it the first time through. Being fair, though, there are a handful of sequels that compare favorable to or surpass their originals. They include:GODFATHER, PART IICOLOR OF MONEYSPIDERMAN IISUPERMAN IISTAR TREK IIALIENSTERMINATOR 2THE DARK KNIGHT
What Disney movies don't have sequels?
Most Disney movies have unknown straight to DVD or VCR sequels, so it would be surprising for there to be any that don't, although there are and most are unknown Disney movies anyway.1. Dumbo There is no Dumbo sequel, nor was there any planned.2. The Black CauldronConsidered by many critics and Disney fans to be the worst Disney movie ever made, the Black Cauldron is fairly unheard of and theres no surprise there was no sequel.3. The Sword in the Stone:Thank Heavens there were no sequels, or midquels for that matter, for Sword in the Stone either. I don’t think they can come up with a story as good as the one in the first movie, and I highly doubt they could find a replacement for Madame Mim… Still, I think it would be nice if Guinevere was added to the Disney Princess lineup, but I’ll leave that to fanfiction writers… so yes, Sword in the Stone is another good example when it comes to sequel-less Disney movies.4. The Nightmare Before ChristmasThis dark and twisted musical adventure ended with no hope or desire for a sequel.5. Snow White and the Seven DwarfsThis was the first feature film ever made by Disney and so Walt decided to continue with other fairy tales and leave a sequel for later, yet none has been created.6. Mary PoppinsMary Poppins was either the most boring or most loved Disney musical adventure. The story ended with everyone happy and flying kites, so there was no need for a sequel, they probably didn't want to go through the dispute with author P.L Travers anyway. (See film "Saving Mr. Banks")7. The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad:This is one of Disney’s movies that almost everyone forgot about and there was obviously no need for a sequel.8. PinnochioPinnochio ended with a young puppet a real boy... roll credits.9. A Bugs LifeIn all movies with happy endings, why would there be any need for a sequel??10. Robin HoodSurprisingly this movie was hated by critics and its even rare to see a Robin Hood character at any Disney Park. No sequel created.11. Sleeping BeautySleeping Beauty's sequel CAN BE CONSIDERED MALEFICENT.But this was a prequel/spin-off so no sequel was made.
Which movie should never get a sequel?
IMHO, all of them. That's not to say that there are not some really good sequels. However, most movies that I can think of that spawned sequels were somewhat diminished by being made part of a series. So I shall amend my first sentence: most of them.Take Star Wars. I like most of the movies. I even think ESB is a better film that the first. However, seeing Star Wars was a magical moment. I recall how overwhelmed I was by that film. The sequels did nothing to improve the experience. SW stood on its own. The others stood on it.Books, too. Harry Potter 1 is far from the best of the series in terms of structure and style. However, it was undeniably charming. Of course I wanted more. But everything's my else was trying to play catch up to book 1. There was a lot of pandering going on. The books lost their charm very quickly.LOtR could be seen as an exception. It was, as many know, one novel published in three volumes. (Much the same with the films, though it is clear PJ went and touched up some things to pander to the audiences). I have read much of what has been published since (Silmarillion +). It's beautiful. An amazing piece of world building. Somehow this story of Hobbits gets lost in this mass of information. Frodo and Sam and Merry and Pippin are every men/hobbits. All the myths are about gods and demigods. M2C
Why do horror movies have so many sequels?
Nope, only money. I guess they're easier to make sequels to for they don't have a definite ending, so it's easy to drag them on until you chose to end the series. For example, in Saw, people still don't know who Saw is (or I think so, I didn't see the seventh..), and well Paranormal Activity is a ghost that affects different people.. They'll juice that one 'till there's nothing left
Why are so many bad movie sequels made?
For example, Daddy Day Camp. Looks terrible, corny, and it's been done a thousand times before. They don't even have Eddie Murphy in it! Just seeing the previews for these things makes me embarrassed for the people involved in the movie. Now, I'm not saying all sequels are bad. All the Pirates movies have been very good, the Lord of the Rings movies have been great,and so has Harry Potter. The only reason I can think that these are made is to get a little extra money(though I can't see that happening. I don't even think they'd make back as much as they spent on the movie) Does anyone know the logic behind them? The people who make the movie can't possibly think it's going to be amazing.
What movie got a sequel that shouldn't have had one?
Highlander 2: The Quickening. In the first Highlander, the Immortals are born naturally, seemingly chosen by destiny to live forever, fighting each other for dominance to eventually lead humanity. The concept was simple enough. Plus, Queen writing the music for the movie “Princes of the Universe" and “Who wants to live forever". The sequel retconned the origins of the immortals to fugitives from an alien planet fighting an intergalactic battle and the life force they absorbed from killing each other is what kept them young and immortal. Most fans prefer the Renegade cut of 2 as it cuts out all the space alien bs.
What movie are getting sequels that I didn't know about?
Paramount Studios has given Tom Cruise’s “Top Gun” sequel a July 12, 2019, release date — 33 years after the original.Variety reported on May 24 that Joseph Kosinski ��� who directed Cruise in “Oblivion” — was the frontrunner to direct “Top Gun 2” for Paramount and Skydance Pictures.Skydance CEO David Ellison and Jerry Bruckheimer, who produced the 1986 original, will produce with Cruise. This latest project will be set in a world of drone technology and fifth generation fighters along with exploring the end of the era of dogfighting.Cruise said recently the title would be “Top Gun: Maverick” although Paramount listed the title Friday only as “Top Gun.” “Maverick” was Cruise’s character’s nickname in the film in which he played Naval aviator Lt. Pete Mitchell.The movie is the first title to land on the July 12, 2019, release date. It will open a week after Sony’s “Spider-Man: Homecoming” sequel.
What movie has the most sequals ever?
My family and I were dissgussing it over dinner and we came up with Halloween movies or James Bond or even Star Trek, but we can't figure out which has the most.
What movies deserved better sequels?
Hangover 3: The first was original and crazy fun to watch; 2nd was almost an exact copy but still fun to watch. The last part, termed as "the epic finale to the Hangover trilogy", was definitely epic. Just that it was an epic disappointment. Completely ruined the series.The Bourne Legacy: This was no Bourne. It just tried to take advantage of an already famous series and mint money at the box office. It might have succeeded in that but it was below par in terms of content and direction as compared to the original trilogy. The Sting 2: I'll go with numbers here. The original won 7 Oscars, collected almost $160 million at the Box Office(in 1973) and starred the two legends, Paul Newman and Robert Redford(not a legend then but still a big star). This one was nominated for 1 Oscar and collected around $6 million. The first is a classic and the second mostly unheard of. Actually it's a good thing that a lot of people haven't heard of this. Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd: Replacing Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels? The makers thought this could recreate the magic of its predecessor. Really! Son Of The Mask: Another Carrey-less sequel. The Mask was all about Jim Carrey. It became a classic because of his antics. He carried the movie completely on his shoulders. It was always going to be a herculean task to come up with anything comparable to the first one without Jim Carrey. The result: this movie ranks in the bottom 100 of IMDb. This completely killed the series.