2006-06-22 09:41:52 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
There's a big difference between worthless and unnecessary. While I agree with most as to the overall skepticism to sequels, I would place to importance on the viewer themselves. If someone loved a movie and they left the theater feeling stoked and ready for more, then the following sequel--while perhaps not as good--quenches their desire to see MORE. Unnecessary, yes. Worthless, it all depends on the taste.
In the other answers are ratings (some I agree with and some I don't) of 'good' sequels, but the bottom line is--if you didn't like the first one, chances are you will dislike the sequel even more, simply because the excitement and anticipation are level zero.
2006-06-22 10:00:13 · answer #1 · answered by Matt 1 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I wouldn't say all movie sequels are worthless. Some are more entertaining than the original i.e. Aliens and National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. I do agree most sequels are unnecessary. If a movie needs further explanation after the original than it was not a good movie.
2006-06-22 09:50:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why do you watch movies? If you're a indie snob who attends cinema so that they can absorb the director's "vision", then yes sequels are the suck, if they couldn't get he message across the first time it won't work the second either, and if they did make teir point, then the sequel is redundant.
If you are a normal human being and watch movies to be entertained, sequels are even more entertainment (a good thing)
2006-06-22 09:52:01 · answer #3 · answered by juicy_wishun 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A lot of them definitely are just cashing on in the name that's been made from the first one but there are still some good ones. Terminator 2 for instance. Actually I'm having trouble thinking of anymore than that so yeah I think I'm gonna have to go with worthless and unnecessary. Sometimes they totally ruin the first one for you as well.
2006-06-22 10:35:33 · answer #4 · answered by smitten_kitten 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No... just some are.
Saw 2, The ring 2, Final Destination 2, Jeepers Creepers 2, Scary movie 2, and Blade 2 Were Star wars 2, Lord of the rings 2, X-2, all good sequals.
Now Spider man 2 was ok but un-necessary, And i could of done with out the Lion Kind 2> LOL
2006-06-22 09:50:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No not all. Haven't you seen the Lord of The Rings Trilogy or Star Wars? I have found each and every Harry Potter equally entertaining in it's own right. But then again there are some bad remakes out there, I guess you need to ask around before you go see, huh?
2006-06-22 09:57:53 · answer #6 · answered by JENNLUPE 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most are what you say. There are a few that are as good as the original or, in small ways, surpass it. The second Star Wars movie was the best of the series, I think. Harry Potter movies are a series of books, of course. But there have been some real stinkers.
2006-06-23 17:46:20 · answer #7 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
nope not all of them but some of them
it's so so
if original is good & smart well the 2nd will be good too ( most of the time) there were sequels i really loved more than Original for example Spiderman 2
2006-06-22 09:57:57 · answer #8 · answered by ali_movie2002 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, sometimes they are worthwhile such as Godfather II, great acting and very interesting. Although the Scary Movie movies are the worst thing out.
2006-06-22 09:47:26 · answer #9 · answered by corleonelover 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No way. I loved all the Batman sequels.
2006-06-22 10:11:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋