Analyze the media's excessive purging of sequels to the public. Are sequels more or less becoming strictly a financial gain, as opposed to continuing a beloved story to audiences that is worth value? Why is it that sequels are generally deemed disappointing?
Another thing to consider would be "reboots" of certain films. For instance the Spiderman movies (how many origin stories does he have at this point?). Other interesting areas would be Disney's insane sequealing habits vs. Pixar (who has a substantially small amount of sequels with Toy Story being the only one with such a high amount of them). Do these films need the sequels? Nonetheless something I would like to see in this topic/article is a compare and contrast. Have their been successful sequels? Why so? – Mela8 years ago
I totally think that sequels are a financial gain, a story line could truly come off as brilliant and beyond great. However once it ends that should be it, but I suppose instead of making a total different story line and different characters it's somewhat easier and cost efficient to use that same story line, revamp it and drag it on a little bit more. Besides, from a writers stand point it is easier to use the same characters that the audience has already known and gotten to love. – Karolyn118 years ago
I agree with the "reboots" comment. The obvious example is Harry Potter, both Cursed Child and Fantastic Beasts. I'm a huge Harry Potter fan, but I'm really not sure whether to be happy about the spin-offs. But I'm still paying to see/read them! Maybe you could go into that - the extent to which potentially bad sequels to a good movie still can make a profit. – jonese198 years ago
