No More Than Two Sequels, If Any

Whenever any writer or screenwriter(s) have more than two sequels to a novel or a movie, to me, it comes across as milking the idea, picking up the check, phoning it in. Let me state that there are exceptions to the rule–Hellraiser, Wrong Turn, Paranormal Activity, The Exorcist (movies), Night of the Living Dead, and Ray Garton’s Frankenstorm series–but if you’re going to do it, it had better be incredible, at least if you want me to buy into it. And I know I’m not the only one who feels this way.

 

Why does there have to be any sequels? I was planning on never having a sequel until I came up with an idea I found exciting enough to write in a trilogy, but that’s a trio of novellas, not novels. And, many times, the first book/movie wasn’t even that great. But, if it is brilliant, why ruin it with overexposure?

 

The new cash cows are constantly thrown in my face: at this moment, Saw more than Nightmare on Elm Street, but there are so many great movies out there–just in the 1980s alone–that I could probably never watch them all. I’ve still gotta see Sweet Sixteen, The Curse, Fringe, The Incubus, and many more. So why am I going to shell out cabbage for your endless sequels?

 

This is not an attack, but a call to greatness instead of greed. There are so many great stories that the author or screenwriter(s) knew to keep as a trilogy or only have one sequel: The Exorcist (novels), Ginger Snaps, Evil Dead, Jeepers Creepers, Pet Sematary, The Descent, Poltergeist, and Basket Case. So what’s the mystery?

 

Please let me and the rest of the true fans of the genre respect you.