Wait, how did they “search for Spock?” Didn’t he die in “Wrath of Khan?”
IncredigirlVirginia: Just watch the movie.
I suppose I have no choice, but I don’t have that movie, any money, or Netflix. 
Oh, in that case:
[spoil]He gets resurrected by the Genesis Device. The movie is about the crew’s attempts to recover his physical body and reunite it with his katra (that is, emotional self), which had been previously transferred to McCoy.[/spoil]
I believe someone already pointed out that the poll options are too distinct but in any case.
Sometimes even when sequels weren’t planned out, they can be BETTER than the original. Now for me Toy Story 2 was a near equal to the original and a good story. I’m a little less confident about how TS3 may pan out, but we’ll see.
You guys already know why an Monsters.Inc. sequel is necessary to me. It didn’t feel complete esepcially when we take into account if they want the world they made to make sense. (And fiction should of course strive to do so). That being said of course, I’d rather NO sequel than to a terrible one even IF the original story is with holes, because at least then you’re free to imagine more and try to fill them without them making them bigger/worse. A bad sequel puts the world or the canon in a small boxl and can impede on the imagination of the fans. Even trying to disregard it from your personal canon does not help usually, because while I can love AUs, I don’t want it to be my only option if the sequel is so bad it means thats the only fanfics I can read/write.
Granted, sequels are also difficult to GET right to begin with. They are under subject and the scrutiny of the original film. They are even secondary canon to it. For instance if Boo was the exact same age as she was in the first movie in the sequel, the second movie is therefore AU canon at best itself- because that is completely -unworkable- given what we see in the first movie. Boo -has- to be a year older. At least. There’s no getting over this. We saw Sulley’s clip board- and a year had gone by. (At least). If they forget this detail and have Sulley meet Boo again at the same age, the sequel simply doesn’t work. At all.
Plus of course, it cannot -ever- be said truthfully speaking that writers in sequels, even the original writers, cannot ever write their own characters OOC let alone make the world created unworkable. They have to watch/read the original MULTIPLE times probably for things to make sense, particulary with a very large time gap and even THEN they might miss things. They will have forgotten a lot of seemingly minor, but perhaps important things if they do not do this at all though. OOCness is of course a lot more subjective, but it can still happen. Plus it must always be remembered that in a created world and with characters both of these areas intermingle and blur. Your character is affected by the circumstances of the world. The characters actions and own words also tell us something about the world they’re in at times. Like Mike’s line about jury duty- means the monsters of Monstropolis have trials and a justice system. You’ve heard this before so I won’t bore you, that’s just an example. Sequels can perhaps make things unworkable and not FIT the canon of the first if they’re not careful. There is that danger. It doesn’t matter if you created them. If you forget the details of the predecessor, the sequel may be a logical nightmare set against the backdrop of the original film. I will grant that some mistakes are still possible. But it is still something which should be strived against. But that once again is what makes sequels very hard to get right sometimes when they’re not planned.
Pixar tends to get away with longer gaps better because a lot of people of various age groups watch them. Fans of the first Toy Story when it came out are usually going to be watching the third after all, let alone the fans which came about during the second.
Sometimes sequels are just for money, and usually the quality can at times reflect that. Sometimes though it’s because the writer may come up with an idea that would fit the world or characters they’ve already created all too well or realise a plot hole/unanswered question in their original work which is very tempting to play with or fix.
Lewis was asked about a logical plot hole in his first Narnia book by a fan (the victorian lampost being there in the first place). This spawned the rest of the Narnia series.
Indeed however it must be said that money can usually play a small part, and not necessarily due to the writers themselves (if they’re independent anyway, but sometimes even then if they’re in the company itself). When a studio decides to go for that individuals idea, or a publisher for a book- a well meaning writer would find if more difficult perhaps to get an original idea accepted for a movie/book then say the sequel of an already very popular book/movie. They’re guaranteed to make SOME cash, and its less of a risk for said studio/publisher.
Granted, if the writer has already proved their gumption elsewhere (say this is their second original story rather than a sequel), they might get accepted, but its still a bit more of a gamble perhaps where the studio or publisher is concerned, in their eyes.
In other words, while writers can (at times) be well meaning and simply want to create a NEW story from the already established universe, because of the infinite possibilities, or to fix a mistake or perhaps both even if the sequel -wasn’t- previously planned, those which DISTRIBUTE and PACKAGE said work are more likely to go for it if its predecessor was very successful since sequels are definitly less of a gamble for them.
Of course sometimes writers too are in it for the money a little as well with perhaps the (percieved)* less effort, but they’re rarer than the studio/publisher I believe.
*I say percieved, because if they’re -trying- to do it right it might actually be HARDER sometimes in some ways (getting it to fit the original canon), while maybe easier in others (you’ve probably already shown a bit of how the world you created works so you can devote more time to other things.)
Oh, thanks. 
Neither did I (although now I own it). But you could always see if you could get it from a library, like I did. Thats how I first saw the older Trek movies. I didnt have the money to buy or rent them all.
It really depends, because a film with characters I like a lot and has an open ending are more than often sequel worthy
not always though
I’m divided when it comes to sequels. Some are just made to make money, like most horror franchises (Saw VII? Really?), and the seemingly limitless amount of sequels Dreamworks and other animation studios throw out year after year. In cases like, they completely negate the effect the original had on me, if I even see them. Others, though, are actually decent movies, and in rare cases, even better than their predecessor.
The only sequels I liked as much as, or better than the original are:
-Toy Story 2
-The Dark Knight
-Spiderman 2 (huge improvement in my opinion, but the third just ruined it)
-Hot Shots: Deux (the second one is at least watchable)
-Clerks 2 (I’m probably alone in thinking this, but the second was loads funnier than the original)
I’m fine with movies that HAVE to be finished like Madagascar 3 coming out,
but when like Dreamworks extends Shrek to his 4th MOVIE!. That is really wearing out a franchise I have to say.
Sure TS is one of Pixars classics, but to my feeling, many people would have asked Pixar to make TS3, also another reason is because Disney wanted a TS3.
It really depends.
But IMO they need to stop after a third one. I LOVE seeing new stories, new characters, new animations (who knows, it may even turn into fangirl material for me… though my most recent obsession were the Bone comics… discovered them last year)
so yeah I dislike the whole sequel fad. But I’m excited for TS3. If it wasn’t that sunny outside I could’ve gone to teh cinemaz… /does rain dance
Actually Halloween III: Season of the Witch isn’t a sequel. It’s a totally different movie.
I’m aware that Halloween III has nothing to do with the plots of the preceding two movies (and nor did I refer to it specifically as a “sequel”). But it’s still an official part of the Halloween series. If not, then why would it call itself Halloween III, of all things?
(FYI, the plan with Halloween III was to move the series on into telling different Halloween-related stories every time, making it more of an anthology series. But it didn’t work out, and by Halloween 4, Michael Myers had become the series’ fixture.)