Because The first is much better than a sequel would be, sequels are never as good, with a few exceptions.
2006-11-09 10:49:42
·
answer #1
·
answered by Scotty 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Money.
It took years and a lot of effort to make the original Nightmare.
And what would the story for a sequel be, anyways? Halloween takes over Christmas...again? I don't think so. Once is enough, in this case.
So there's no good reason to make a sequel.
Making a 3D version is a nice way to get more money out of the first movie with little additional work. It's also something that fits the movie - it gets a Halloween release and anything spooky in 3D is fun.
2006-11-09 11:11:44
·
answer #2
·
answered by Koko Nut 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Nightmare Before Christmas was a huge success. Tim Burton knew that if he decided to make Nightmare Before Christmas 2 people would be mad. Nightmare is 13 years old and still going strong. All of the Nightmare merchandise kept selling and he knew his fans would enjoy Nightmare in 3D. He also knew that because people would go and watch the movie in 3D and still buy his merchandise and he would still be making tons of money. The movie is great and it will never get old like 'Rocky Horror Picture Show'. Saw it the first day it came out and there was a huge line. Everyone was excited.
2006-11-09 10:57:57
·
answer #3
·
answered by Lupita 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
My dad reported the grudge 2 wasn't that solid besides the undeniable fact that the nightmare replaced into so i say the nightmare. The grudge 2 replaced into nto as solid because the first one thats the purely movie my dad did not like.
2016-11-28 23:36:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
well who cares it looked really cool.i would enjoy a nightmare before Christmas 2.imma big fan and i was there the day it came out and there was a lot of rockers there so i guess some people enjoyed it.
2006-11-09 10:50:45
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because then Panic wouldn't have been able to record this is halloween for the movie
AND plus, that movie is just awesome.
2006-11-09 10:48:51
·
answer #6
·
answered by JessicaMLM 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
it's a cheaper way to milk more money out of the 1st film.
2006-11-09 10:56:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by goldenbrowngod 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
because doing a second one would destroy the beauty and genious of the first one
2006-11-09 10:49:08
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋