Quantcast

Have Sequels Gotten Out of Hand?

Film 2012/03/23 19:00:00
You!
Add Photos & Videos
The New York Daily News reports "The Hangover Part III" and "Fast & Furious 6" are coming out on the same weekend (Memorial Day weekend 2013). We could ask which of those you'd rather see, but... First of all, we know "Hangover" would win, and second of all, there's a bigger issue to be discussed here: sequels. Have you had enough of 'em?

In some cases, sequels can be justified. For instance, the "Harry Potter" series continued in part because it was successful, but also because J.K. Rowling had a literary vision and it made sense to continue the film element. Also, it had an end in sight. But when you take one-off films like "The Hangover," "Fast & Furious" and "Saw" and make never-ending sequels out of them -- clearly for the purpose of dragging out profits -- it can get a bit frustrating, no? Have sequels gotten out of hand or is that just part of the industry?


Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Just Jenn for Now 2012/03/24 03:26:33
    Yes
    Just Jenn for Now
    +13
    The first movies are dedicated to telling an epic tale, be it adventurous, humorous, daring, fast-paced, dramatic, or simply being purely epic...


    The sequels? All about the MONAY!!

    make it rain  money gif

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • bmacklowe 2012/06/12 09:11:17 (edited)
    Yes
    bmacklowe
    But we go see them anyway. Not all sequels are bad, but now it's not even a second thought about it. Years ago, a movie had to do REALLY well to get a greenlight on a sequel. Now if a movie even comes near re-couping its budget, no matter how bad the movie is, it will almost always get a sequel. It's too much! Jaws the Revenge
  • Rebecca 2012/04/03 15:53:23
    Yes
    Rebecca
    desperate search for more money. uugh -.-'
  • Jess 2012/03/30 18:05:18
    No
    Jess
    I think you generally will only consider sequels 'out of hand' if you personally have no desire to go and see it. For example, i would consider 'the hangover' sequels to be a waste of time since i thought the first one was pretty boring. However, i am VERY excited for fast and furious 6. Sure there's not much to them, but they're fun and so i'll keep watching.
    But lets put it this way, sequels will only prevail if people go and see them. So if there are sequels, it's only because there's a market for them. The public keeps going to see them and so the film companies will keep making them. If sequals are such a waste of time, don't go and see them. Simple as. But until we stop paying to see them, they won't stop getting made.
  • Andy Whanarere 2012/03/29 14:05:20
    No
    Andy Whanarere
    i don't mind sequels because if the first one sucked then there's no point watching the sequel..easy..Remakes on the other hand are getting way out of control.its almost every 2nd to 3rd movie released.and i've only seen 1 that i liked in maybe the last 3 years and that was beastly..that was done pretty well i thought...Hopefully this new Snow White movie we'll see some Original ideas thinking
    :)
  • MissNovemberTuesday 2012/03/29 09:02:15
    Yes
    MissNovemberTuesday
    For the most part, yes. I recently was looking over Netflix for things to add to my queue and saw there was a Hellraiser 6. I had no idea they had gone on that long and for all I know, there could be more of them. I do have to admit, though, I might go see Hangover 3. Those movies do crack me up. And I agree, series, like Potter and LOTR and epic greats like that deserve the sequels. And I am a bit partial to Pirates of the Caribbean. I actually liked the last movie better than the ones right before it.
  • bmacklowe MissNov... 2012/06/12 09:13:55
    bmacklowe
    +1
    Both Potter and LOTR had the foundation of books to draw on for continuing the stories of its characters. A lot of sequels are just rehashes of the first movie, and usually are not as well-done.
  • cooldude9404 2012/03/28 11:56:40
    Yes
    cooldude9404
    Hangover 3 ?!?
  • Cathy 2012/03/27 17:34:05
    No
    Cathy
    As long as they are interesting and entertaining, then I will keep watching them.
  • compufreek 2012/03/27 13:58:19
    No
    compufreek
    As long as they are entertaining, who cares? On the other hand, sequels have the way of turning out movie goers!
  • Guru_T_Firefly 2012/03/27 12:41:10
    No
    Guru_T_Firefly
    +1
    No, sequels haven't gotten out of control, but remakes certainly have.
  • Aksana 2012/03/27 09:44:25
    Yes
    Aksana
    yes
  • Meljahun 2012/03/27 09:40:51
    No
    Meljahun
    Ony if there not making back the production cost and profit to produce the project.
  • Kenneth Huang 2012/03/27 08:01:37
    Yes
    Kenneth Huang
    Yes. Yes. Yes. YES.

    Though of course, this is nothing new. Sequels (usually bad) have always been irresistible to movie execs who care more about enriching their bank accounts than making quality films.

    Sequels (and their even uglier cousins, remakes) should be made only if there's something new and worthwhile to tell. Most of the time, sequels and remakes just offer the same thing that was in the last movie, except with some new characters/actors and special effects.
  • MissNov... Kenneth... 2012/03/29 09:04:36
    MissNovemberTuesday
    +1
    Yeah, remakes. Can we all agree that if a film is a real classic, leave it alone? I can see if you take a film that was a BAD interpretation of a book and someone would like to make it as it SHOULD have been in the first place, then go for it, if you can do it well. I would actually like to see a proper version of Anne Rice's Exit to Eden, without the stupid comedy elements.
  • bmacklowe MissNov... 2012/06/12 09:20:37
    bmacklowe
    I agree. Remake the movies that seemed like a good idea, but didn't quite work the first time. But I admit, there are some remakes I have liked even when the originals were good to begin with. Example: "3:10 to Yuma" (1957, 2007), "La Cage aux Folles" aka "The Birdcage" (1978, 1996). For the most part, though, remakes are often as pointless as sequels.
  • MissNov... bmacklowe 2012/06/29 11:51:39
    MissNovemberTuesday
    Yeah, in all cases, it is really about the quality. If all you are doing is hashing out a movie to make cash, then you should not be making it. But if you actually have a vision and agood story and can make something that is worthwhile, give it a go. I agree about Birdcage. I can see why a lot of foreign films are redone for American audiences. Most would not have seen the originals. But have the decency to do them justice.
  • ~HopelessRomanticM17~ 2012/03/27 06:55:06
    Yes
    ~HopelessRomanticM17~
    +2
    Hangover one wasn't even that good....we don't need more!
  • dekecds 2012/03/27 05:08:56
    Yes
    dekecds
    As an avid Cinematic Adventure Lover, I demand better experiences than re-hashed into oblivion sequels! One sequel is great if you couldn't get enough with the first movie (not counting on going series of Dramas), but a third(or more) helping of pie just makes me sugar sick! Give me better stuff!
  • bmacklowe dekecds 2012/06/29 18:37:49
    bmacklowe
    Can you name a series of straight dramas? Other than "The Godfather," I fail to remember one that wasn't action, horror or comedy. Not expecting a sequel to "Precious" anytime soon.
  • dekecds bmacklowe 2012/06/29 23:32:11 (edited)
    dekecds
    Well, my definition of Drama is a little more broad than some. I could say that the godfather was an action flick, for instance, since a lot of places place it in the action section for rental/purchase. Personally I don't agree with that, but I can see it. Here is a short list:
    Harry Potter(This drama could stand alone without all the magical garbage, but hey, count that as a bonus if your into high strung imagination)
    Star Wars (seriously, Empire strikes back was almost all drama except the opening scene and from a critic's standpoint it is technically a space opera)
    Rocky (yeah, it had boxing....a lot...but it was the drama outside the ring that carried it past other "action" movies)
    Star Trek (most of this movie series is dramatic with very little actual action)
    Jean de Florette and Manon Des Sources (hailed as one of the best couplets of the 80's)
    The Hustler and Color of Money (yeah, their 25 years apart, but so true to the books!)
    Before Sunrise and Before Sunset (fantastic if you like basic, crotch novel,drama!)
    Wall Street and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps
    Hunger Games is looking to be a promising Drama, but we'll see
    I list the Man with No Name trilogy, though I consider all of the old westerns as Drama and rightfully just belong in the "Western" category, though that's a bit...
    Well, my definition of Drama is a little more broad than some. I could say that the godfather was an action flick, for instance, since a lot of places place it in the action section for rental/purchase. Personally I don't agree with that, but I can see it. Here is a short list:
    Harry Potter(This drama could stand alone without all the magical garbage, but hey, count that as a bonus if your into high strung imagination)
    Star Wars (seriously, Empire strikes back was almost all drama except the opening scene and from a critic's standpoint it is technically a space opera)
    Rocky (yeah, it had boxing....a lot...but it was the drama outside the ring that carried it past other "action" movies)
    Star Trek (most of this movie series is dramatic with very little actual action)
    Jean de Florette and Manon Des Sources (hailed as one of the best couplets of the 80's)
    The Hustler and Color of Money (yeah, their 25 years apart, but so true to the books!)
    Before Sunrise and Before Sunset (fantastic if you like basic, crotch novel,drama!)
    Wall Street and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps
    Hunger Games is looking to be a promising Drama, but we'll see
    I list the Man with No Name trilogy, though I consider all of the old westerns as Drama and rightfully just belong in the "Western" category, though that's a bit out dated.
    Elizabeth and Elizabeth: The Golden Age (These are not sequels in the strictest sense, but since they have the same star, Cate Blanchette, and deal with two different time periods of the same queen, beginning and end of her reign, I stand on this firmly)
    (more)
  • bmacklowe dekecds 2012/06/30 01:16:16
    bmacklowe
    I would categorize "Star Trek" as sci-fi, "space opera" maybe. You did name a few good examples though. "Before Sunrise" and "...Sunset" will soon be joined by a third film, so that is a great example of a rare drama trilogy. Most genre films have an element of drama in them, but I was asking about straight dramas, of which few generate sequels and fewer beyond a second chapter. The first "Rocky" could be considered drama, but the others centered so much on their fight scenes that they would likely fall under "action." "The Hunger Games" is clearly in the sci-fi/action genre. "Harry Potter" has drama in it, but they are fantasy films; likewise the "Star Wars" films are just as much space opera/sci-fi as "Star Trek." Drama is a broad category, but most people would think of straight-forward drama as being about real-life issues or settings, like "Kramer vs. Kramer" or "Schindler's List."
  • dekecds bmacklowe 2012/06/30 02:57:03
    dekecds
    Yeah, that's what I mean about my definition of drama. It's hard for the hardcore drama crowd to even accept movies like Star Wars (at least the original three, c'mon) before they watch them, as drama. I wouldn't call Schindler's list a drama, I put it in the fictional documentary category, though it is clearly a drama at heart.
    On the ADD side of me, I've wanted a sequel to Out of Africa for a long time, but someone would have to replace Merryl Streep.
    To defend the hunger games, I'll say that most critics are calling it a "future" drama due to it's political points and the heavy drama in the story.
    I am looking forward to the third in the Sunrise/Sunset, I didn't know there was one in the works.
    Thanks for the input though!
  • bmacklowe dekecds 2012/06/30 17:01:53 (edited)
    bmacklowe
    A "Fictional documentary"? That's an oxymoron if I ever heard one. Are you saying it's propaganda and not based on truth? Also, "The Hunger Games" is futuristic because it takes place in the future.
  • ricknroll 2012/03/27 03:33:31
    Yes
    ricknroll
    probably so, but I watch a lot of movies anyways, so it doesn't bother me too much.
  • Flamingolady 2012/03/27 03:26:37
    Yes
    Flamingolady
    Most sequels suck.
  • Dana 2012/03/27 01:25:35
    Yes
    Dana
    I don't care for most sequels.
  • ShamshirMkII 2012/03/27 01:17:45
    Yes
    ShamshirMkII
    .....and now they're about to release Ice Age 4. God help the lot of us -_-'
  • bmacklowe Shamshi... 2012/06/29 18:35:34
    bmacklowe
    To be fair, the third one was better than the second one. And in the "Shrek" series, number 4 was better than the third one. Still, I agree with the sentiment: I'd rather see a brand new great movie than see endless sequels.
  • andrew.pullman1 2012/03/27 01:05:23
    No
    andrew.pullman1
    Aww crap wut have the guys from the hangover done now?
  • Sisimka 2012/03/27 00:04:20
    No
    Sisimka
    +1
    So long as it's entertaining, I'll keep watching.
  • T 2012/03/26 23:52:26
    Yes
    T
    +1
    As long as the sequels continue to be good, I am for them, but if they continue to be worse and worse, it needs to stop. the land before time vii
  • H-Dizzle 2012/03/26 23:04:53
    Yes
    H-Dizzle
    +1
    They are definitely out of hand, but I really don't mind if the sequels are good. Most of them seem to just be a ploy to make money off of a good first movie, and that's why they usually suck. But a good sequel can definitely be a good thing.
  • Tennessee3501 2012/03/26 22:58:53 (edited)
    Yes
    Tennessee3501
    +3
    Most sequels are never as good as the original. "The Godfather II" is generally considered to be the best ever made. I consider Harry Potter, James Bond, Superman and Batman to be a series and not sequels!
  • stevmackey 2012/03/26 22:53:40
    Yes
    stevmackey
    Just look at how many "Jaws" movies were made.
  • Rob Williams 2012/03/26 22:27:50
    No
    Rob Williams
    The only problem lies in the lack of originality in the sequels; repeated re-hashing of the same tired material is a sure sign of a franchise going on past the sell by date. For instance "Skyfall" is due out later this year and I fully intend to go and see it even though it could, legitimately, be called "James Bond 23: Skyfall".
  • El Prez 2012/03/26 22:26:20
    Yes
    El Prez
    They have been for some time. I am waiting for Rocky VIII. The greedy, untalented idiots at the points of distribution keep on thinking to make them until they fail. Why not try some other stories?
  • VenomHalos 2012/03/26 22:12:45
    Yes
    VenomHalos
    But what can you expect? Movie makers are clearly running low on creativity and, when that happens, it's either "what book can we turn into a movie?" or "what movie can we re-do horribly?"
  • Holmes 2012/03/26 21:54:41
    No
    Holmes
    Entertainment and jobs
  • Samantha 2012/03/26 21:27:31
    No
    Samantha
    they provide entertainment keep people happy and put money into the economy why would u want to stop them!!!!??
  • Headshot760 2012/03/26 20:33:55
    Yes
    Headshot760
    Except for Nolan's Batman movies. You can't forget they TDK was one of the best movies of all time. Hopefully TDKR will as good.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Entertainment

2014/07/22 21:35:16

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals