Sequels vs. Orignal Ideas

This one is a toughy...
Some sequels in my humble opinion have bit the big one... (uuhh Saw II, #2 Pirates), then some sequels are just as good.. if not better than the original.. (Bourne Identities, Rush Hour, etc)
I think it has a lot to do with the success of the original.. also whether or not the original actor/actresses are returning?
I mean how many Batman movies have we seen.. how many actors have played Batman... LOL.

I'm pretty okay with sequels that tend to follow a prewritten storyline, such as Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, the Bourne movies, because those are stories that are adapted from the books of very intelligent authors who know what to give their audience.

But when people just create sequels for the sake of doing so (you all know what I'm talking about, National Treasure 2, Cinderella 2, even Pirates and Spidey) sometimes they just end up falling flat and REALLY ruining something that was innovative and even magical. It screws up the original opinion of the movie in general because we now associate the sequel with the original, simply because the producers of the original got greedy and thought they could get creative....my advice: stick to the books, unless you are SURE that the sequel will fly...

i say this because some sequels can be good. like the spidy 1,2,3. but then then some just purly suck. like saw should have stoped at 3. the 4th one was no manditory. the makers were better off stoping at 3. my final thought is some are good and some are unnessisary.

Why can't we hear more of them? Because we're constantly remaking old movies, or sequelling things that don't need to be sequelled. (Yes, I just made that a verb.)
Cinderella? Cinderella doesn't need a sequel! The Little Mermaid doesn't need a sequel! Just because you want to tell another story in the same world as those stories doesn't mean you have to make it a sequel. Make it something new.

There are writers out there for a reason. They get paid to write what they are told to do. And while many writers are pleased as punch to get a paycheck to churn out the next Bond or Batman or whatever, I'd like to think that more writers would like to doing something new. Something unexpected. I'd like to see better screenplays get their time in the sun. Something maybe NOT based on a book. Something NOT based on a comic. Something totally fresh and original.

Or have we reached our limit? Are there no stories left?

No. One indication is a television show called "How I Met Your Mother". It's the most original, funny, and yet very familiar story. But the format and humour is completely different from most of the things you'll find on television today. The acting is solid, the writing is solid, and the jokes are worth hearing, even if they have the air of a Shakespearean comedy on it's most wacky of days.
Good writing is out there. The fact that Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy is getting made into movies is one sign. The fact that it's getting dumbed down for children and any reference to religion is getting shaken out of it like a wet rag is a sign that we need to relax a little. I was impressed at the violence they were willing to show in the movie, but not that they strayed from the original plot. (No spoilers here folks, don't worry.)
But there are countless more movies that come from books that have failed miserably. Neil Gaiman's Stardust would have made a great movie, if they didn't futz with the entire storyline and kill it entirely. That was the one movie recently that I nearly walked out on. It was depressing, because I love Neil Gaiman's works, but not what people do to them.

Directors need to grow a set and stop censoring our movies just because they're afraid of backlash. Movie executives need to stop looking at money and start looking at value. I'm not saying animate a book. I'm saying stop dumbing down stories that are vaguely intended for children. Stop destroying stories because they might not be politically correct. Stop making characters and actors look like idiots as they parade around on a stage for our enjoyment. I hated Stardust as a movie. It was awful. And I'm afraid they may do the same thing to Coraline. I want my Mirrormask back.

Independent films all the way!

I admit that most of the sequels I've seen sucked. Sucked hard. But I will continue to see them, hoping for one of the good ones.

It's just like seeing a movie or reading a book for the first time. You don't know if you'll like it until you try it.

For example, the Saw movies were, I thought (before seeing them) stupid as hell gore-fests. Now, after seeing them, I know I was correct, but there was an engaging story underlying the slashing and tearing. I wouldn't watch them again, I won't watch the next ones, but those movies held more than I thought they did and it surprised me to see an actual plot.

As for the Bond movies, Casino Royale was awesome, but a new story (pretty much) a complete new look and a different approach all over. Sequels (or in this case, a series) can be just as good in 20 different iterations, it's when they try to cash in on the commercial success of the original that you know you've got a worthless piece of crap.

It's all about the money- it has been noted that if after compensating for inflation, if the same budget and production values are invested into a sequel, it will yield more profit than the first. Even if the first sequel was not as successful, the second or third will compensate for it (for instance, this happened in the instances of Rush Hour, American Pie trilogy, etc.) Hence, in the perspective of investors/directors/actors, sequels are considered lucrative and propitious.

On the other hand, it can go either way for viewers. Most sequels I have seen suck, but I will watch them anyways out of sheer curiosity. And on the rare occasion, the sequel may help finish a plot line. For instance, with Pirates, although the third one was crap, I felt like its airing was very necessary for the movie's denouement.

Seems to me that's its a business thing kwidge, if you made money on the first one, make another and make more money. Hence why you will never see the end of spider mans, supermans, etc. They are legendary films and there will always be remakes of good things if not sequels.

With the 22nd James Bond in the works and deals to produce three more Saw movies, when is enough, enough? Are sequels bad? And are you more excited about a new addition to your favorite franchise, or a fresh, innovative experience all together?