HDC Debates #1: Do the newer successful horror films really need a sequel?

[_____V_____]

There is a Sinister 2 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2752772/?ref_=nv_sr_2) in the works, and Insidious 3 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3195644/?ref_=nv_sr_3) is slated for 2015. Paranormal Activity 5 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2473510/) returns in Halloween season this year, while the critically acclaimed The Purge gets a sequel (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975578/) later this year as well.

Not to mention, The Conjuring 2 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3065204/?ref_=nv_sr_2) is also under development, with a spinoff, Annabelle (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3322940/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1), scheduled to come in earlier than that.

http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/conjuring-2-confirmed-october-2015-release-one-year-annabelle/

Yes, a mildly successful horror film these days goes into a franchise mode since studios have found a great way to mint money through these.

But do we really need to see more of the same, or explanations of the finer stuff hitherto left unsaid, to the viewer's imagination in the original film? Does the paying public return to the theaters just because of the brand name, or because those hair-raising moments and jumpy scares make them feel the film's good enough for their money's worth?

I watched Oculus (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2388715/?ref_=nv_sr_1) last night. Disturbing little film with an interesting, scary premise. I bet that once it recovers it's cost at the BO, we will hear an announcement about a sequel in development almost immediately.

Do all these films really deserve sequels, or do they act better as standalone films?

Choose from the options above, then sound off below.

[hammerfan]

I can see one sequel if the story wasn't finished in the first one. But, I think Hollywood goes overboard (as usual) with sequels. If the first film is successful, they want to make it a cash cow. And usually fail.

[newb]

I can see one sequel if the story wasn't finished in the first one. But, I think Hollywood goes overboard (as usual) with sequels. If the first film is successful, they want to make it a cash cow. And usually fail.

agreed

a movie shouldn't need a sequel but if it was a fun ride then I wouldn't mind a little more....like the aforementioned Troll Hunter.

[totem]

Sequels (and nowadays prequels) frequently represent - in my mind - either:

1. "We should have told you this in the first film, but didn't." or

2. "We trashed these ideas when we made the first film but you might like them after all." or

3. They make up some continuance on the fly to ride the wave of success before the culture moves on to something else. But it's gonna be rushed, cheap, & nonsensical. (i.e. Howling II: Your Sister is a Werewolf)

The few that don't are remarkable (i.e. Aliens). But the ones that are OK (Paranormal Activity 2) I really have to wonder if they would have been as successful had the first one never been made.

[The Villain]

If there's still a story to tell I think a sequel is fine as long as its a good story. The first movie doesnt necessarily have to leave it open though.

But then there are others where it should've been left as a stand alone movie as some sequels actually hurt the first. Insidious 2 comes to mind. I liked it but I think the old lady was a lot scarier when we didn't know her entire backstory.

Other sequels can just ruin a good movie with oversaturization. The Saw films, Paranormal Activity, REC, and even the classics.

A sequel is tricky but I think the movie should decide if there's a possible sequel and not how much money it made.

[Straker]

It kind've depends on the motivation and execution.... Sometimes I don't mind the cheap/ trashy action styled sequels that just rely on story/ character familiarity and throw a ton of special effects and action at you for 90 mins. But its rare I look at it like a legitimate piece of cinema, its usually just a bit of bullshit to pass the time with a few beers. Quality, stand alone sequels are quite rare.

[Sculpt]

Nobody needs a sequel, in the sense nobody needs a film, but I just consider sequels as new films. Some sequels have little to do with the first, and some depend on it. Sequels don't bother me, accept they tend to be less original and more formulaic than "original" films. Still the vast majority of films are overly formulaic.

[realdealblues]

Do newer films need sequels? No, they don't. Now, if there is an interesting storyline and we can take it someplace new then I don't mind them. Or if something is intended as a trilogy or something similar, I can understand making sequels, but most of the time they are only made for quick profits and are usually not worth watching.

[Fearonsarms]

I'd say no they aren't needed but I really don't mind them and will usually watch them with low expectations. I see them as separate films and don't think they ruin the originals-if I don't like them that's fine but they don't change in any way how I view the original film.

[Freak]

To me the majority of newer horror films aren't that great. With the exception of a few, most just follow the same formula of creepy music and jump scare. I feel like most film studios will keep cramming the same crap down our throats because will be keep eating it up. Like the Paranormal Activity films for instance. Do we really need five or six of those? No we don't but as long a people will continue to pay to see the same movie over and over again, film studios will make the same movie over and over again.

[Despare]

You know, the old me would say no but when I see the movies we're getting (Jem and the Holograms, Barbie, Peeps for God's sake...) I'm oddly ok with horrible sequels.