Still doesn't stop them from introducing new mysteries, or adding new wrinkles to answers we assumed we had. Plenty of self-contained stories have had worthwhile sequels.
No, they don't. No sequel has ever ruined or diminished the story that came before. For some individuals yes, but objectively, no. We wouldn't still be talking about Jaws, Halloween, the original Star Wars trilogy, Ghostbusters, Robocop, Terminator, and others as fondly as we do if that were the case. Sure we may bitch and whine when new sequels are announced for those films, but if they were really diminished at all we wouldn't care so strongly to continue making such statements.
Agreed that it doesn't need a sequel - disagree that's a valid reason to not make one. Because we
didn't need The Big Lebowski to begin with! The film does not exist that was "needed" so applying a need for films to get made is not an argument I buy into.
Maybe the ghost of the dead horse is the villain?
You can't judge a potential new sequel based on the **** quality of the previous sequels - time's passed, it's a different script, different crew behind the camera, saying this or that sequel added nothing to the original does not equate to the quality of a new unfilmed sequel in any way. Could be crap, could be great, but we can't say it shouldn't be made because Exorcist 2 was a cheap ass film a few decades ago.
And this is one of the things I love about Hollywood - their not afraid to franchise a success, and sometimes that willingness to chase after IP gives us real gold - and the times it turns up a turd? Just toss it, ignore it, and forget it. We lose not a damn thing when a shitty sequel gets made - except maybe the price of a ticket and a couple hours, which is a small price and is negated if we wait for reviews and word of mouth first.
Look, the original Godzilla of 1954 was a standalone never intended to spawn a franchise, but the studio decided to pursue sequels because of how well it did. As a result earlier this year I saw Godzilla vs Kong and thought it was absolute **** and I truly regret the time spent watching it. Does that mean I wish Godzilla had remained an untouched classic from 1954? No, because as **** as I found Godzilla vs Kong to be, it doesn't detract from the original plus I got a film like 2016's Shin Godzilla which I freaking love. If GvK is the price I have to pay to occasionally get a Shin, I'll take it.
No - because no movie in history "should" or "shouldn't" get a sequel. Should and shouldn't doesn't play a role in film. All that matters is - does someone have a story to tell? Is there a potential audience for it? Does the studio think the chance at profit is worth the risk and investment? If the answer to those questions are all yes, I personally don't see any reason why those films shouldn't get a sequel. I mean personally I've never seen the originals and don't care to, I expect they're too highbrow and dull for me, but there's a ton of movies I love that have had sequels both good and bad. Love Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade, less so the other two, but I'd still be up for an Indy 5.
And sometimes, years later, someone adds something new to it and all is well.
Miracles do happen, and even if not, it can always be avoided - and someone might still enjoy watching it to kill a lazy afternoon. Even bad sequels have their fans. What does this really cost us?