Comments on: Video Blog: Does Any Movie “Need” A Sequel?

By: Jeremy K.

Jeremy K. — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 02:12:36 +0000

People that have a passion for film can also want to make money from their creations. If that was not the case then there would never be any movies made as those with passion for film would have to do something else to make money other than make movies. Your acting like each are mutually exclusive, which is absolutely not the case.

By: SlashBeast

SlashBeast — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:00:13 +0000

To my knowledge it was originally planned to be a stand alone film. I’m not completely sure though.

By: Aaron Leaman

Aaron Leaman — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:07:54 +0000

I was hoping, and thought john made this movie, because he had a huge passion for film, and wanted to share his movie with the world. no matter how much money or recognition he got.

upsets me thats its just because he need the money.

By: Jeremy K.

Jeremy K. — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:22:37 +0000

I’d have to research it, but I am pretty sure Matrix was originally planned to be a trilogy. I could be wrong, but I could swear I remember reading that somewhere prior to its release.

By: Garrett Sears

Garrett Sears — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:45:32 +0000

obviously the only movies that actually “need” a sequel are those designed for them. open-endings, loose ends and such are made for the plan of a possible sequel. the only movie i find as an exception to this rule is the Matrix. the Matrix wasn’t designed for a sequel but after i first saw it, it deffinetly needed on to tie up loose ends. such as “what the hell does Neo actually DO to stop the computers exactly?”

then there’s the other kind of movies that need sequels due to fan demand or just public demand. if you can make money off a sequel then i don’t see why not make it. if it’s bad, it’s bad. but they still got your money so they don’t care.

unless it’s the rare time when a movie doesn’t need a sequel and they make one and it’s actually good. as long as you get good writers and story you can still tell (or stretch for a new one) you’re going to get a good sequel. if the WRITING is good.

By: Dragonslayer

Dragonslayer — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:17:56 +0000

“Having said that, Spider-Man 3 still sucked ass”

By: Phil Gee

Phil Gee — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:35:14 +0000

No I mean it’s already viable. It doesn’t NEED a sequel.

By: Jeremy K.

Jeremy K. — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:56:12 +0000

I’ll have to take John’s side on this one. On a very rare occasion a movie is made strictly to get a point across, more often than not these are documentaries or such films as Schindler’s List. Even then these movies are still hoping to at the least recoup their losses. Other than that there are only two reasons a movie gets made:

1. To make money. Takes a lot of different jobs to make a movie and each job requires pay. The people that work these jobs do as a way to make a living. If they aren’t getting paid, then they aren’t making a living. Not to mention investors are not going to put their money into a project just to break even or lose money. They want a piece of the pie as well.

2. To make a name for yourself so you can reach reason number 1. There is still a hope to make money here, as they are putting time and effort into the task, but the end result is to get bigger and better projects to make more money.

Like anything in life, why would you sink money into something without expecting to get it back in the end with hopes of getting a large return in the process? I like to get paid, if I can get paid doing something I like then all the better. People in the movie industry are doing what they like and hopefully making what they want, but if they weren’t getting paid for it they would not have the means to continue doing it.

By: Jeremy K.

Jeremy K. — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:45:35 +0000

Johns point was that if a movie is made to have a sequel, then it kinda needs to have the sequel made; otherwise, sequels are not “necessary”. That does not mean that a sequel cannot or should not be made, nor does it mean that said sequel will be good or bad.

By: Jeremy K.

Jeremy K. — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:42:37 +0000

It’s called “The Hangover”, not “The Bachelor Party Hangover”. Trust me, people get hangovers events other than bachelor parties. And yes, often times the same group of people will have crazy shit happen to them on more than one occasion. The effects of alcohol can be quite unpredictable. Did the end of The Bachelor give the impression that these people would never party again? I have not seen it yet, but I highly doubt it. Logically speaking, a sequel could be easily done and plenty of new adventures could follow in the wake of a hangover. Trust me, I speak from past experiences in that regard.