All those sequels, whats the point?
Some movies lets face it should never have been made and then they ruin it by making sequels but sometimes even good movies get rubbish sequels.
Friday the 13th - It started out pretty rubbish with some but very few good parts and what did they do? Made loads more! Same old, Same old, Same old rubbish.
Childs Play - This was a good movie, I loved it. The second one drooped a little but was watchable but the third one could just be thrown out a window, not only is the story terrible but so are the actors!
Species - Alien Sex is all that is about, in the first one the alien was female but the second one they decided to add a male and although the sex was toned down it was still such garbage the video is best used as a paper weight.
Predator - The first one was brilliant! Good acting by Arnie (I'm dunno how to spell his last name) and good effects for the alien predator and this movie was truly tense and very enjoyable great! but then there was the sequel the first movie was set in the jungle but this one in the city and it was just terrible, there were no moments where you were sitting on the edge of a seat waiting it was just fast and silly.
So all those sequels whats the point? Yes I do understand some sequels are good like Terminator 2 was a very good movie but some why don't they realise they should stop while they're ahead. Other movies too like House of the Dead
and even childrens movie sequels are rubbish like Babe and Land before time.
So I ask you, whats the point?
I've wondered the same thing. I mean, there were four Iron Eagle movies! FOUR!? It amazes me that a mediocre movie can spawn three follow-ups. I have to assume that these make money somehow. Maybe the sequels are made on the cheap, so they turn a profit in direct-to-video release or something. That's the only rationale I can think of.
As for sequels of more successful movies, I do think stories set in the same "universe" have mass appeal. People (myself included) generally like to revisit familiar territory that we've previously enjoyed. Sure, it would be better if the sequels were on par with the original, but such is not usually the case. Still, if I loved the original, I find I'll usually enjoy even a merely competent sequel. I'm already emotionally invested, so all the sequel has to do is not suck. :-) Of course, that trick might work for a "2", but it rarely works for a "3", when it just gets tiresome.
I'm sure plenty of folks find the "2s" just as tiresome as I find the "3s." Understandable.
BTW, I thought the Babe sequel was pretty good. It was much darker. Rhoad Dahlesque, I like to say. Aside from the fact that both movies featured the same talking animals, there was little about the sequel that felt like the original. A bold move, and I think it worked. Of course, Babe is destined to be a children's classic, while Pig in the City is not, but still . . .