Are Some Movies Too Perfect To Have A Sequel?

[DrNewGod]

The Usual Suspects was probably my favorite modern film and while I am curious if the detective went after Kaiser Soze that movie is the epitome of too perfect for a sequel.

I'm with you. At the same time, I prefer wondering if Kint was actually Kaiser Soze, or if that was merely a myth on to which he glommed, leaving us with no idea who that master criminal actually was.

[Vakanai]

I would add to the Matrix rumblings here.

I enjoyed the sequels but that movie is pretty ideal for standalone. What my imagination does is far better than the sequels. It could be and should be looked upon like Inception is right now.

While I quote Ghostbusters II all the time and really enjoy the universe and Afterlife looks good ... I would say Ghostbusters. That hurts to even write!

Basic Instinct, Caddyshack, Blues Brothers, Dumb & Dumber, Godfather, Speed, Grease, Independence Day, Mask, Teen Wolf ...

From your examples, it feels less like your problem is movies being too perfect for sequels, and more hating the crap sequels that got made.

[BeastieRunner]

From your examples, it feels less like your problem is movies being too perfect for sequels, and more hating the crap sequels that got made.

I wouldn't say hate.

All those off the top of my head really added nothing to the story. Godfather is debatable. Even GBII. I enjoyed it but it added nothing to the story.

[Vakanai]

I wouldn't say hate.

All those off the top of my head really added nothing to the story. Godfather is debatable. Even GBII. I enjoyed it but it added nothing to the story.

Does it matter at all if it adds to the story any? As long as the sequels are good, who cares if stuff is "added"?

[Mister Mets]

I never really trucked with the notion that ambiguity is some great plus to keep up.

It could work if the resolution ends up being more complex than the initial question.

The Before trilogy is pretty good at this.

But it is a balancing act.

[Vakanai]

It could work if the resolution ends up being more complex than the initial question.

The Before trilogy is pretty good at this.

But it is a balancing act.

I'm just saying I think an ambiguous ending might be fine for some movies, but that is a lame reason to refuse a sequel. Like somehow a sequel is going to make that ending less good. Feels like bull to me.

[Timothy Hunter]

I'm just saying I think an ambiguous ending might be fine for some movies, but that is a lame reason to refuse a sequel. Like somehow a sequel is going to make that ending less good. Feels like bull to me.

Personally, I think that some ambiguous endings are great because of the fact that they are open to interpretation and leave the viewer's imagination run wild for what they personally think would happen next. The final episode of the Sopranos. The ending of Fargo season 3. Rosemary's Baby. The Watchmen comic (and show for that matter). It's damn nigh impossible for these cliffhangers to be explained in a satisfactory manner so I believe some endings should be left open with no possibility of a sequel.

[Vakanai]

Personally, I think that some ambiguous endings are great because of the fact that they are open to interpretation and leave the viewer's imagination run wild for what they personally think would happen next. The final episode of the Sopranos. The ending of Fargo season 3. Rosemary's Baby. The Watchmen comic (and show for that matter). It's damn nigh impossible for these cliffhangers to be explained in a satisfactory manner so I believe some endings should be left open with no possibility of a sequel.

Disagree - if the sequel doesn't live up to the ambiguous ending of the last? You're free to ignore it and continue to imagine what could've happened. Sequels don't really undo the ambiguous endings. This isn't retroactive. The endings can still work the same as is, even with sequels. So I believe some endings being ambiguous doesn't and shouldn't shut down any possibility of a sequel.

[Username taken]

I don’t think the issues of sequels are about quality as much as they are about the previous movie’s resolution.

If certain characters stories are closed up, then direct sequels aren’t a good idea. I remember the talk over a sequel to “Wanted” and the possibility of bringing back Jolie but she stated in plain terms that her character was dead and simply couldn’t come back. That’s not to say you can’t make a sequel to Wanted but when one of the main protagonists (and arguably the main draw of the movie) is gone, it changes everything.

Certain movies can get spin-offs set in the same world but direct sequels could be illogical considering how the previous movies end. And this doubly the case when the movies are a single narrative.

[marshal88]

some movies like face-off and demolition man were all wrapped up nicely by itself as a whole , great hero/villain chemistry, good ending to a great story, any sequel would fail to replicate that.

[Styles]

Friday; didn't need to have sequels

[Hellion]

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

Oh man, have you heard about the potential plans for a Gladiator sequel? Thank the film gods that such a monstrosity never came to be.

[BeastieRunner]

Does it matter at all if it adds to the story any? As long as the sequels are good, who cares if stuff is "added"?

A sequel should add to the story or tell something different, not just be a rehash of what made the first one good (unless it is very clever about it like BTTFII).

If it is good, then it added to the story.

Not sure what you're getting at?

[Mister Mets]

I'm just saying I think an ambiguous ending might be fine for some movies, but that is a lame reason to refuse a sequel. Like somehow a sequel is going to make that ending less good. Feels like bull to me.

I wouldn't say you have to refuse a sequel. There are ways to handle it.

Before Sunset went with a complex resolution to the unanswered question from Before Sunrise, before setting up a new ambiguous ending. Before Midnight kinda did the same thing from my understanding.

The Watchmen show did something similar as a sequel to the comic.

In some cases, you can do a sequel without resolving the ambiguous ending. The Knives Out sequels don't have to feature the Thrombey family.

[Vakanai]

A sequel should add to the story or tell something different, not just be a rehash of what made the first one good (unless it is very clever about it like BTTFII).

If it is good, then it added to the story.

Not sure what you're getting at?

I'm getting at is the only thing a sequel needs to do is entertain the audience. All the grand stuff you're talking about is nice and all, but honestly, it's kind of high and mighty artsy fartsy for me. A sequel just has to entertain an audience that wanted more. Everything else just feels like elitist crap. I mean, we're on a forum that is founded on sequels - comic books.