Are Some Movies Too Perfect To Have A Sequel?

[Timothy Hunter]

Every since Doomsday Clock was published and HBO's Watchmen aired this question has been circling around my head.

When is a sequel warranted and when should a movie stand on it's own?

[numberthirty]

Yes...

Obvious examples -

- Ride The High Country
- The Wild Bunch
- The Thing
- Streets Of Fire
- Crossroads
- Memento

[Vworp Vworp]

I suppose it depends on how we're defining perfect.

I mean, if it's a perfectly self contained story, then there's no need for a sequel.

But if we're using "perfect" simply as a subjective measure of quality though, then I don't see that as being a legitimate reason not to continue that story, if there are further avenues to explore.

What I would say is that a sequel (or any latter film in a series) shouldn't completely undermine the events of a previous film and render them utterly pointless. Yes Alien 3, I am looking at you.

[Somecrazyaussie]

Yes...

Obvious examples -

- Ride The High Country
- The Wild Bunch
- The Thing
- Streets Of Fire
- Crossroads
- Memento

The Wild Bunch would be hard given how it ended in a orgy of violence lol.

Streets Of Fire is a odd one. I love the heck out of it and would definitely have loved the two sequels Walter Hill had planned for it. On the other hand, it stands well on its own.

I wouldn't say some films are too perfect. But some films just end in a way where there is nowhere else that the story should go.

[Jackalope89]

You would think so, or even so good they shouldn't be touched.

And then they get remade or an unasked for sequel. Like Return of the Jedi would have been a fine place to end at least the Skywalker saga, but then the sequel trilogy literally made everything from that moot.

One that was remade that had no need of being remade, was The Music Man.

[Starter Set]

I always thought that Matrix was a pretty cool story with a satisfactory ending who really, really didn't need more of it.

Mankind has its internet Jesus, the story is told and you assume that from there things are going to get better for us neurotic apes. End.

That's the kind of story that by adding too much explanations and development to it, you are just killing what make it works.

And that's what happen in the second movie, BS explanations no one needed to hear and, sorry to the sisters but very awkwardly presented on screen.

[Castle]

Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen and Chris Nolan (apart from Batman) don't like the sequel ideas.

The problem with sequels, especially from an original idea is that, it becomes all about the money. the first film may have been more about a great idea, the sequels are just more about cash grabs.

[Godzilla2099]

The only movies I can think of at the moment would be The Wizard of Oz and Gladiator

[DanMad1977]

E.T
Watchmen (but then the show came along and I changed my mind)
Dirty Dancing

[numberthirty]

The Wild Bunch would be hard given how it ended in a orgy of violence lol.

Streets Of Fire is a odd one. I love the heck out of it and would definitely have loved the two sequels Walter Hill had planned for it. On the other hand, it stands well on its own.

I wouldn't say some films are too perfect. But some films just end in a way where there is nowhere else that the story should go.

Mild Spoilers On! -

spoilers:

It seems a lot like Thorton is about to accept the invitation that Sykes gives him when it comes to joining the revolution. While it's not the end of Evil Dead 2, it does certainly leave the door open to that there could still be some story to tell.

end of spoilers

[numberthirty]

Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen and Chris Nolan (apart from Batman) don't like the sequel ideas.

The problem with sequels, especially from an original idea is that, it becomes all about the money. the first film may have been more about a great idea, the sequels are just more about cash grabs.

The second and third "Saw..." films are not cash grabs.

[Kirby101]

I didn't think Blade Runner should have a sequel.

[Vakanai]

Are Some Movies Too Perfect To Have A Sequel?

No.

When is a sequel warranted

Whenever there is an audience for it, a creator with a vision for it, and a profit to be made from it.

and when should a movie stand on it's own?

All of them should be able to stand on their own, regardless of sequels. Otherwise they're not good movies.

[ZeroBG82]

Every since Doomsday Clock was published and HBO's Watchmen aired this question has been circling around my head.

When is a sequel warranted and when should a movie stand on it's own?

Ironically, the movie that most meets the criteria you are talking about in my mind IS a sequel. Terminator 2. A film that perfectly wraps up the story left from the original, and hits all the thematic conclusions in exactly the right ways. There should never have been another.

But Hollywood being Hollywood, that ship has long since sailed.

[Blue22]

I wouldn't necessarily say there are movies that are "too perfect" for a sequel. But there are plenty that have gotten sequels that I felt like they didn't need. One of the best examples that springs to mind is The Outsiders. That was already a really good movie (and book) that had a really good conclusion. Was the door open for more? Yeah I'm sure. But it really didn't need it. Especially not in the form of TV show that was "meh" at best.

Then there are....*sigh*....The direct to VHS/DVD Disney sequels.