Trilogies:
Cashing in. People liked the first one, so they must like more, right? Right?
Zombies:
Fuck if I know. I wish this one would go away. There's nothing new you can do with the source material.

Also, wouldn't it have taken less time to post an appropriate picture and just out the words in the comment field than it did to make that image? Why do you people do this? Seriously.

I don't get it

If a movie is good, why bother making a second one? The first should be enough. You only make more of something if the thing isn't perfect to begin with

Second and third one can still be good.
But there are certain movies that shouldn't have sequels/prequels, that is true.

>>12741625
idiot

I don't get it

If a TV pilot is good, why bother making more episodes? The first should be enough. You only make more of something if the thing isn't perfect to begin with

>>12741661

man fuck that "oh it has to be a trilogy" thing. if you can't tell the story in one movie, do a miniseries on HBO or something.

or if you had a successful movie, do a sequel. if that's successful, do another one. keep making sequels until they stop making money. insisting it has to be a trilogy is pretentious and a blatant cash grab.

>>12741690
youmustbenew.jpg

The problem isn't trilogies, it's one-movie stories that get shoe-horned sequels to make money. Ala Saw. There was really nothing to add to the movie. Knowing the little information we've learned in the proceeding five movies has added no new meaning to Saw 1.

The Matrix. Yes there was a slight cliff-hanger but it was okay. There was no need to develop the story any further. The impact of the movie was greatly reduced by explaining shit that need not be explained.

The only reason a sequel or trilogy should exist is when a story is too long or heavy to fit comfortably in one movie.

very basically it's like so; begining, middle, end.
stop being retarded