Unnecessary Sequels

You know you're having a great Friday night when you're actually enjoying a Spelling Bee, am I right?? (Total sarcasm, by the way. But there just aren't any good movies on, so what else am I supposed to watch? Oh, and it's the 2010 Scripps National Spelling Bee, which makes it even better. Not.)

Anyway, so as you may have heard, Sex And The City 2 came out whenever (frankly, it's "whenever" because I don't really care) and Sarah Jessica Parker, the movie's star, says she wouldn't mind doing a third movie.

Okay. So I have never watched the show, but honestly: how long are American people going to care about four women who shop around and sleep around? To me, the commercials feature only that, which frankly, looks a little degrading to women. But that's another story.

The real problem comes with the content. Sequels to movies are different territory than just making a first. I mean, just today there was a headline that read: Christopher Nolan Will Never Bring Back The Joker In His Batman Movies. No matter what happens in the movies or in real life, sequels and trilogies and even sagas are a dangerous matter. Audiences have to be willing to watch another installment of the same world. The story must be interesting. Has anyone seen Zoolander, the crazy comedy with Ben Stiller as a male model who gets brainwashed to kill the Prime Minister of Malaysia? (I know, even writing it just makes me feel silly.) Well, for a while it looked like there would be a Zoolander 2. Even a Ron Burgundy 2.

And don't get me started on those Shrek movies. The first one was good, the second was all right. But the third was a little pointless and the fourth looks plain irrelevant. Seriously, a lot needs to be thought of when planning sequels. We need to like the characters, the setting, the general world.

What makes me annoyed the most are the movies where it's clear no sequel was ever intended, yet they make one anyway. Like Hitman or Ocean's 11 or Inside Man or The Lost Boys or all those Psycho movies. All of these movies (and a ton more, I'm sure) were great as one. Singular. As in, not plural.

And though Hitman 2 and Inside Man 2 haven't exactly come out yet, I'm not really sure how much they'll matter, since a few years have spanned since the first ones, and as they say, the sequel is never as good at the first one.

What are my blog-readers thoughts on this? Would you watch a sequel to your favorite movie of all time (that does not need a sequel)? Personally I would not watch Pride & Prejudice 2. There is a fine line between movies with good everything and movies that audiences want to revisit with new stories and sometimes, I think Hollywood suits forget that.

Oh, and if you would like to laugh:

Anyone heard of the awesome buddy-show Psych? They have an entire episode devoted to the world of Spelling Bee, and the episode's title is (wait for it....wait for it...)

Spellingg Bee! (But I couldn't find it anywhere to watch online...so you'll just have to trust me on this one.) Awesome, isn't it? Now you'll always hesitate when you write 'spelling'! I know I do!

Have a great weekend, everyone!