I think it's an acceptable time frame. The Harry Potter movies have been 2 years apart, same as many series films. It does seem like a long time to wait, but hey, they've got to make money on all the little Spider-Man figurines and stuff!
Permalink | Report

Ideally a sequel should wake for the best script, no matter how long it takes. Spiderman took a beating on #3, I'm not sure I've met the person yet that doesn't feel down right angry about that one. That's what happens when you put speed (get it out fast) over quality (put out something good).

Star Wars? Empire Strikes Back? Jedi? 3 years apart, between each.

On the flip side, most of the early James Bond movies came out one a year.

It's interesting that bernices up there uses a term I hadn't heard before, 'series films'. I suppose Harry Potter is indeed a series, but something like Spiderman? When people start assuming that "sequel" means "we're pretty much gonna keep cranking out sequels until they stop making money", I think they've changed the meaning of the word a bit.

Source(s):
http://us.imdb.com

Permalink | Report