why are sequels not as good as the predecers????
By schummi
@schummi (924)
India
November 11, 2007 9:33am CST
its been in while dat i have seen many to sequels not satisfying and just raking the buzz on the original......
The best example may be taken with The Matrix and Spiderman....both these movies' first and second parts were awesome( yeah dats da word...) but the final part is just too much or taken too lightly by the makers....
does this means dat the hollywood wants to rake on the name of the original ...and get continuing their contracts with the stars and directors....
2 responses
@maybebaby (1230)
• Canada
11 Nov 07
I agree with you that the sequel is very rarely as good as the original movie. I think a reason for this is the they are made much too quickly so that the production company can make more money off the hype of the first movie. If people are still talking about the original they are more likely to go and see the sequel. It's sad but they are just money makers after all, they don't have to be as good, they just have to follow in a timely fashion.
@f84yourlive (32)
• Italy
12 Nov 07
another good reason for making sequels is that whenewhere it comes out a new one,they are ready for a new dvd box including it,just to let you know that this new one is the definitive edition
@f84yourlive (32)
• Italy
11 Nov 07
it's tipical of american blockbuster movies,I'm sick and tired of it,maybe the main reason is the lack of new ideas,
so it's better make comfortable all the fans with sequels,it doesn't matter if they're worse than the first one,take for example Shrek 3 or matrix 2 and 3.I think the only good sequel was Alien 2 and of course Lord of the rings because the lenght of the book needed sequels. American producers may startr thinking like the european ones,better a new original story than the same old cliche,but also the crowd may start not going to see them
