Do you like sequels?

[CylieDanny]

Im a bit inbetween

When there's a movie, game, Book, Tv Show, or so fourth that did amazing so they make a new one. However sometimes the sequeals go off in another direction

Im always mixed on it. I mean when I look at Ice Age, i think about how I much I loved the first one. Then look at the sequel and see that they almost completly changed the characters.

So whats your opinion? Would you rather relive the first entry again and again. Or would you rather something new all together?​

 

[Belle T]

I'm not big on squeals, myself. I prefer whines and hollers and yelps.

 

[CylieDanny]

I'm not big on squeals, myself. I prefer whines and hollers and yelps.

Ah well, fixed ^^;
i just woke up ​

 

[Seastar]

Hmm, for me it depends on the quality of the sequel. A lot of old Disney movies had bad sequels as an example. But then movies like Toy Story 2 and Shrek 2 were good in my opinion.
I guess this also applies to games, though the disappointments I can think of are not really sequels to me but rather one entry in an entire series.

 

[Xara]

oh good, the title actually said squeals for a moment. i just woke up and thought i was seeing things LOL

it depends on the sequel for me. i’m a big believer that the first is usually always the best, especially when it comes to movies, but there have definitely been some exceptions over the years imo, like the hunger games: catching fire and shrek 2. there of course have also been sequels that i think are stupid and/or refuse to acknowledge, like mean girls 2 and the last of us part II.

 

[CylieDanny]

oh good, the title actually said squeals for a moment. i just woke up and thought i was seeing things LOL

it depends on the sequel for me. i’m a big believer that the first is usually always the best, especially when it comes to movies, but there have definitely been some exceptions over the years imo, like the hunger games: catching fire and shrek 2. there of course have also been sequels that i think are stupid and/or refuse to acknowledge, like mean girls 2 and the last of us part II.

It did indeed lol, I pretty much was only half awake when I wrote it lol

 

[Ravenkitty22]

It really depends on the sequel. (This is obviously not counting book-to-movie adaptations of a series) In general, I tend to believe the first one is the best, second is the worst, and third is the redemption (if they make a third one). Anything after three seems pointless. That’s not to say there aren’t exceptions though! (Toy Story 2, Shrek 2, Puss n boots the last wish, and The Hunger Games: catching fire come to mind)

 

[Belle T]

Serious contribution to the thread: It depends on whether the nature of the film is episodic or continuous. If it's the former, I don't really consider them "sequels" in the traditional sense of the word, even though they by definition fit under that category. If every movie is a new adventure with little to no connection between the others, then the only reason I would really be opposed to more films of it is if they're on a streak of continuous failures or if I just didn't like the first one to begin with. If the film is continuous, meaning that each sequel should theoretically build off the themes and plot threads of previous films, then the question branches off into multiple sub-questions. "Is this film a good film?" "Is this film a good sequel?" "When is time to end it?"

For the first two questions, I think it's possible for a film to be bad on its own merits, but work well as a sequel to the original film. My go-to for this is The Lost World: Jurassic Park. Terrible movie on its own merits, but because it does expand upon the themes of the first film in a somewhat meaningful way, I can look at it as an experiment that just didn't quite work out. Contrast with any of the Jurassic World films, where the themes of the original movie are not expanded upon but rather re-stated in a less appealing way. That's not the only reason why those films are bad, but they do make them--to me, as a big fan of the original movie, maybe not so much to casual audiences--useless as films go.

The question then comes as to when a film or film series has reached it natural conclusion. The Toy Story series is a great example in this regard. Toy Story 3 is often regarded as the perfect end point of the series. It's an emotional send-off to many of the beloved characters of the first two films, and the film's entire central thesis is about accepting the impermanence of life. So when Toy Story 4 was announced, many fans were skeptical of its necessity, and while the film does have its defenders, many fans also feel their concerns were justified when the final product dropped and ended up backpedaling on crucial character development and severely mistreating legacy cast.

In short, it's complicated. Sometimes sequels are good, sometimes sequels are bad.

 

[Flicky]

It really depends on a number of factors.

The main one requires the writers to think, "How can we move forward with this series in a way that seems genuine?". A lot of sequels rely far too heavily on family members that were previously never spoken of popping up, instances from a character's past that more often than not clash with what's already been established about them, or just inserting characters that were clearly never there in the first movie but are now suddenly best buds with a main lead. There's also the worst option - butchering a character's personality or goals so that they fit the new direction the movie will take, or so that they can use them as a plot device (*cough*Wreck-it Ralph 2*cough*). I don't mind minor plotholes, but big, glaring ones make it clear that the writers couldn't be bothered to check their basic source material, and I'm not going to waste time with them if I find out beforehand.

For videogames, it's more about how they can improve the first game. Back in the early days they would do just that, but I find nowadays a lot of times it's the same thing just in a different setting. Some games, like Pokemon, will even start removing mechanics and replacing them with new ones which may or may not be as interesting as before. I'm a lot pickier with games these days, and there's a lot of big-name franchises I've left behind because there's nothing really new about the sequels other than one new tiny mechanic and the storyline.

For books? I lose interest when romance starts to overtake the main plot point. Which means that my options are very limited before we even consider sequels.

Tldr; There's a lot of bad sequels out there, many of which will still receive praise regardless because most people just want to see these characters again. I'm personally at the stage where I could live without sequels unless they have a genuine necessity or reason to exist. I'd like to see more new franchises appear, but I think now more than ever, people want reliability rather than innovation.

 

[Croconaw]

I’m also not big on sequels. I prefer originals.

 

[Hunter_Gr33n]

What Seastar said. It all depends on the sequel's quality.

 

[.: Meri :.]

Like others have said, it depends a lot on the quality for me—if you can tell something was always planned to have a sequel, or that the writer(s) clearly tried to leave that possibility open, I find that the sequel is usually pretty good, and I tend to prefer serialized works to standalones in general. But when it was a complete story to begin with and a sequel is clearly only done just because it was successful... there's still some cases where it can work out, but that's when it could also just get really, really bad.
One type of sequel I pretty much always roll my eyes at is the "children of the original cast" next-generation type story. The main characters' personalities generally get watered down (sometimes to the point of unrecognizability), and the kid characters are almost always either direct opposites or carbon copies of their parents, but less interesting. I rarely even ever give them a chance anymore.

 

[seliph]

it 100% depends on the thing that came first. a lot of things are fine as they are, but if there's a ton of loose ends or loopholes there might need to be some explanation.

though i do find studios are milking sequels now and just relying on people's nostalgia for The Original Thing to be enough and frankly it's not, a lot of recent sequels we've gotten have been garbage.

 

[Halloqueen]

Depends on the individual context.

If a movie was made with sequelization in mind when it was being written and conceptualized then sure, why not. If they're just making a sequel to something out of the shallow motivation to make more money off of a movie that performed well then I'm not so on board with that. That's not to say that there have never been good sequels, whether as good or even better than what came before, that have been born of that situation. That has definitely happened a number of times. I'm just more hesitant about the idea and the sequel has to prove itself to have been worth making.

I dislike the concept of franchises unless you have a really good, strong concept that actually necessitates being broken apart across different movies. As a horror fan, I'm familiar with godawful franchises. Again, not to say that there aren't good sequels within certain franchises, but there are usually only one or a couple good sequels and then a bunch of garbage with maybe some redeeming qualities if you're lucky.

 

[Midoriya]

Not really, but it depends on the reasoning for the sequel. I do believe there are good sequels out there, but they're few and far between.

 

[Kamex]

It depends on the motive behind the sequel. For movies, they can be cheap cash grabs and wasted potential, though of course not all of them are bad since some sequels advance the work of their predecessors. While I'm not a moviegoer, I thought Shrek 2 and Toy Story 2 were handled well and are excellent examples of sequels that were worth investing in.

When it comes to TV shows, they can really drag on when there are so many seasons and filler episodes that are just tedious to keep up with. Also, I've got no interest in watching reboots, especially if I've already watched the original. The same goes for spinoffs.

 

[Violet Witch]

It depends on the reason for a sequel in the first place. Top Gun: Maverick was the perfect example of a sequel working and getting the story right that balanced out the nostalgia of the first film whilst bringing it up to date with the world we live in today. Also it wasn't rushed unlike a lot of sequels that are churned out just to make money for the studio with no respect for the story. The same can be said for revivals and reboots which are being done to death these days.

 

[Kitsuragi]

It really, really depends on the first iteration. Bayonetta has a sequel that I love more than the original but that's not the case with a lot of games.

 

[moonbyu]

like what everyone else in the thread is saying, it really does depend. i've seen some sequels that i enjoyed lots but i have seen some that honestly shouldn't have been made in the first time because they got it right the first time and adding another installment just wasn't a good idea. it's all about quality imo

 

[MiniPocketWorld]

Sometimes sequels are good and sometimes not. It is rare for a 3rd movie of a series to be good though.