example: Scary Movie(1-4) the first 2 were really funny then they just went down from there. 4 was just horrible. not funny what-so-ever.
2006-10-29 12:35:44 · 9 answers · asked by ♥Brown Eyed Girl ♥ 5 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
clomtancy...i said some....not all sequals are bad...
and to the land before time comment...couldn't agree with you more!! i didn't even know how many they were up to....i liked the first few but wow 10!!
2006-10-29 13:39:21 · update #1
The reason is that the days of a movie making a lot of money in the theaters is coming to a close. To have a major hit a studio has to hire big name actors and spend hundreds of millions of dollars just to hope they will break even. The endless sequels that you have mentioned are cheap to produce, the movie company hopes for a big opening weekend at the box office and then maybe 2-3 more decent weeks before the film is pulled from the theaters. The real money will come from the DVD rentals and sales... The next time you are in Wal-Mart and you pick up a movie that you only kind of liked because it was on the shelf priced at only $9.99 you will understand why they keep making cheap sequels. That is why you will always find Adam Sandler cranking out movies and Pauly Shore too!
2006-10-29 12:45:28 · answer #1 · answered by No More 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are ten Land Before Time movies. TEN. My dad says one was too much, and I am almost positive I agree. I wonder if Rush Hour 3 will be any good. Ditto for Pirates 3.
The reason Hollywood does that is simply because we are running out of ideas. I saw the new Zorro movie with Antonio Banderas, and I was so appalled. They took things, almost directly, from Indiana Jones, and The Three Musketeers!
And just one more thing. The Emperor's New Groove was a pretty good film in my opinion, but then they made that God-awful Emperor's New School on the Disney channel. Don't watch it. I'm serious. Actually, don't watch the Disney channel in general, regardless of your age.
2006-10-29 20:43:31 · answer #2 · answered by Teresa 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
well i agree that some sequels do ruin a movie.. Harry Potter 4 was a great example of this. It was terrible done and with bad taste. Makes me worry about the 5th.
I dont agree with the prequels comment. I think the reason people didnt like Star Wars Ep 1-3 was because Lucas waited 20+ years to make them. I would rather have watched them sooner. I think they were well done and needed.
Not all sequels are bad. I wish people like you would stop making stupid comments on how bad sequels are. Yes Scarry Movie got bad (3 was pretty good) but not all are bad.
GET OVER IT>
2006-10-29 21:32:56 · answer #3 · answered by clomtancy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's called "PROFIT", my dear.
Just because you have the brains and good taste to recognize a really bad movie, doesn't mean that other people have brains. You probably know kids who will go see anything just for something to do with their time. And there are some films that are so bad they actually are funny.
Was it P.T. Barnum who said that "nobody ever went broke underestimating the bad taste of the public"?
2006-10-29 20:42:39 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think sequels KILL movies. maybe if there is only 2 of the movie, but when they start making 3's and 4's its stupid
2006-10-29 20:38:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably cheap to make and see some good profit on DVDs.
2006-10-29 20:39:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately, movies today are not made for entertainment value anymore...they're made for PROFITS. That sucks, but it's life...
2006-10-29 20:45:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
pretty simple if theres a profit keep making them
2006-10-29 20:39:20 · answer #8 · answered by keoni_21 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What about the pre-quals?! They're just as bad, if not worse.
2006-10-29 20:38:28 · answer #9 · answered by the_fatmanwalksalone 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋