I would prefer that artists work more on original Intellectual Properties. Generally, the sequels and remakes are inferior to the original.

I thought the Alien series with Sigourney Weaver held up pretty good. But I'm hard pressed to think of others.
Permalink | Report

1. Terminator 2 (kicked ass!)
2. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves (sorry, this is pre-emptive for PS3 gamers)
3. Batman: The Dark Knight (Remake of awesomeness)
Permalink | Report

There are a few sequels that are worthwhile and add to the comprehensive story, but I agree that a great original film is certainly more of an achievement. The problem is that while it may be more impressive or even interesting, sequels are much less risky to make (even at a higher cost). Sequels are able to play off the reputation of the original movie and even if they are not as good, they often do as well or better than the original. Take a look at some of these box office gross figures from a random assortment of sequels (from Boxofficemojo.com)

1. X-Men - $300 Million, X2 - $400 Million
2. Spider-man - $821 Million, Spider-man 2 - $783 Million
3. The Terminator – $78 Million, Terminator 2 - $520 Million, Terminator 3 - $433 Million
4. Shrek - $484 Million, Shrek 2 - $920 Million, Shrek the Third - $799 Million
5. Die Hard - $141 Million, Die Hard 2 - $240 Million, Die Hard With a Vengeance - $366 Million, Live Free or Die Hard - $383 Million
6. Legally Blonde - $142 Million, Legally Blonde 2 - $125 Million
7. Madagascar - $533 Million, Madagascar 2: $603 Million

Most of the sequels I listed are actually pretty good, but the Legally Blonde sequel and the third installments (Terminator 3, Shrek the Third and Die Hard with a Vengeance) are all far worse than previous movies. Yet they all did very well (some extremely well) at the box office. I also included the Madagascar and Shrek examples because while Pixar is mostly focused on new content, Dreamworks Animation is using sequels as a stated part of their strategy (they call it “franchise-building) – because while it may not always be the most artistic solution, it often makes the most business sense.
Source(s):
www.boxofficemojo.com,
http://www.dreamworksanimation.com/2008AR/docs/DWA2008AR-ShareholderLetter....

Permalink | Report

Sure I do. And I'm not thinking of only movies but of video games, books and similar too. Sometimes, sequels do make the things worse and ruin the actual series but wouldn't you want for your favorite story, video game etc. to have a continued plot, to meet the same-old fun characters once again? I sure would.

The first thing that crosses my mind is the Chrono series of video-games on Super Nintendo system and PlayStation. I sure would like to see a true ending to that series as well as to the series of books written by Robert Jordan - The Wheel of Time.

Someone might call the creation of sequels "money milking" but if there's a huge fan base demanding the sequels, a good story to build the sequel on it then yes, I'm all for it.
Source(s):
My thoughts actually.

Permalink | Report

It depends. If they would make a sequel or they would remake previous successful movies they should make it better than the previous movie. Usual sequels and remakes fails at this.

The first or the original movie always seemed better and why, because people (viewers) are expecting more from the producers, directors, actors and each staff. They've seen the first one, now they must beat it with what they're going to show now.

If they wouldn't do better than the first or the original one, people would just want original or new films rather than sequel or remakes...
Permalink | Report

it depends on the subject matter. sequels such as harry potter, lord of the rings, star wars, etc are great because you know they were going to be sequels from the beginning. however movies that have 2's and 3's such as i know what you did last summer, scream, saw, etc, seem to lose their initial impression. it makes me wonder if hollywood is really running out of ideas.

hope this helps

best regards
Permalink | Report

Remankes are not even remotely as good as the originals. Sequesl are ghastly with the ecxeption of James Bond and Indiana Jones movies which were concieved of as being episodic.
Permalink | Report

well,, it depends... sometimes sequels r so boring..it should be upto some limit.. nt like X-Men..Wolverine,, the biggest flop yet...
Source(s):
http://moviewatchlist.com/

Permalink | Report

Yes and no. I like the idea of a sequel/remake continuing a good movie that I just can't get enough of. On the other hand, I don't like it much because sometimes the creators kill the plot and change so many key essentials.
Permalink | Report