#sequelssuck

There are those plots that spawn sequels because they think it's for the same reason even though it's not, but we end up not caring

And then there are those plots that spawn sequels just for the money

… Yes, scars. I haven’t seen it yet, nor does a big part of me want to – though since I am a ridiculous little child at heart, I will inevitably cave in to the other part of me that is desperate to see it – yet I am already scarred.

That’s ‘scarred’, by the way – as in ‘marked or afflicted somehow’… With two r’s, instead of one… ‘Cause that spells ‘scared’ – as in frightened. And you should really fucking know this, Internet People! Learn to spell correctly! Especially words that have similar appearance but mean two totally different fucking things! No… Actually… I apologise, Internet People. My anger is at Pixar, not at you and I should have recognized that and not taken it out on you. I’m sorry. Please continue to pollute the World Wide Web with your sub-standard take on the English language and its grammatical rules as you see fit. I suppose, actually, my anger is aimed broadly at sequels in general and the very concept of sequels, itself. We all know – we’re all wise enough now to recognize – that sequels only exist as a means for the people behind the film to try and prolong the (financial) success of their idea. We also all know – or at least generally accept – that there are very, very few good sequels. And even less that have been considered better than the original. There are numerous older examples of this, sure, but the past few years have seen a shameless boom in this line of moviemaking…. “Terminator 3: Rise of The Machines”, for example, appeared in 2003 – a whole 12 years after the second instalment. Not to be outdone, Schwarzenegger’s Hollywood-hardman rival Sylvester Stallone delved into his past and launched Rocky’s sixth outing – “Rocky Balboa” – just three years later, in 2006. This was sharply followed with a fourth ”Rambo” in 2008 – a gap of 20 years between it and “Rambo III”

Compare and contrast those things with the paths of “Toy Story” in 1995, whose trilogy took ‘only’ fifteen years, and the “Fast and Furious” series which began in 2001 and is on it’s fifth film in just ten years. It’s madness. And that’s without mentioning the lumbering "Shrek" vehicle, which has more slapdash, slipshod, haphazard sequels than there are months in the year and whose last shred of dignity was comprehensively torn into teeny-tiny pieces when it somehow managed to morph into a musical, ‘starring’ Amanda Holden and Richard Blackwood. Pixar, however, are taking the piss with the concept and seem to believe that just because Toy Story went massive, and the third film (of which I am a massive fan) received acclaim from all quarters, that anything they turn their hand to sequelling will also succeed. I’m worried they’re beginning to believe their own hype. "Cars" was a great film, in and of itself. Why do they need to extend it? Why couldn’t it be left as a stand-alone piece? The answer is simply one word: Greed. Rolling out another "Cars" film – to an almost-new generation – means countless tons of new money merchandise, from which to make more money. And frustratingly, it works! There are new models, new reading books, colouring books, new platform games, new toys - ride-on shit especially - bags, clothes, costumes... EVERYTHING! Literally EVERYTHING they could lay their hands on, they did so then sent it to China to have 'Cars 2' or Lightning McQueen stamped, stitched or stickered all over it, and it fucking works. Whichever shop you choose to go into, there will be an aisle packed to the rafters with this junk and hoards of fucking kids want, want, wanting in front of it. Pester-power is alive and well in the immediate vicinity of any Pixar-related product. And this news… http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/apr/23/monsters-inc-2 … only serves to depress me further. At the birth of a successor, the original “Monsters Inc” will just be another great film pillaged by the pressure of reproducing its magic, even if the sequel does prove successful. It simply taints the original. Another issue is what they plan to do after the sequels. They won’t/can’t just leave it at two. Even in spite of my anger that they made a second in the first place thus causing this dilemma, I’d still rather they completed the trilogy. It is some kind of odd benchmark, and although it used to mean something that it clearly doesn’t now, it’d be rude to just leave two.