[roshiq]

A good film with a great or potential premise or with an open ended finale doesn't have to have/need a sequel to explain or explore more, IMO.

I do see the point for the most of the film people like to talk about for a sequel but one of the main reasons that I think we love all those originals just because the way they are from start to finish. But that doesn't mean I hate sequels. There are plenty of sequels I enjoyed and although they were enjoyable but most of the cases they were unnecessary.

Now here's my "sequel" opinion about the films that V mentioned:

Shaun of the Dead - Yeah, a sequel would be fun too, I guess.

Grindhouse - Nope! Not interested.

Unbreakable - There is a high possibility for the sequel to become "Unbearable"!

Cloverfield - What?! They still haven't start filming the 2nd one?!!

Trick 'r Treat - Yup! I don't even mind for a franchise too.

In The Mouth Of Madness - No need.

The Mist - hummm. I'm not sure,,,

Burnt Offerings - Yeah, may be....then what about The Shining?

Dawn of the Dead (remake) - yeah...Doubtful.

The Thing - Please, No sequel!

The Craft - I need to see it again!

The Faculty - I liked it, it was okay...don't mind for a sequel.

Near Dark - Sure..Sure! Why not? But it'd better if they done a sequel in 80s.

Like to add some more...District 9, Freddy Vs Jason, A straight sequel of 2003 TCM remake, Dr. Phibes rises again, Eden Lake(!), Martyrs (with a sci-fi twist:D), Dog Soldiers, The Host (Korean), Teeth, Dead Silence & Eight Legged Freaks!