Sequel Equals Reekuel

Why are sequels so horrible? I honestly don't understand. More so I don't understand why sequels even exist. I mean why does it matter what happens after Shrek marries Fiona? Who cares? Why is it necessary to continue to portray the thousands of possible alternate realities. I just don't understand. I actually somewhat enjoyed the second movie, it was interesting incorporating Fiona's parents, Prince Charming, Puss in Boots, and human Shrek into the movie, though it seemed like a completely different series. Come the third movie I was sorely disappointed. And as for the fourth movie? I refuse to even watch it. I mean in an alternate reality where Shrek doesn't marry Fiona she would STILL BE A PRINCESS! Not an ugly ogre superhero, or whatever she was supposed to be. I mean she had plenty of men interested in her: the King, Prince Charming, I mean surely one of them would've broken the curse. I mean what has this once great Pixar comedy come to? Resorting to sequels, please!

Unfortunately, Shrek is not the only series guilty of sequels. Take for example Air Bud. That dog lost popularity in the 90's. Come on. Just end it. And The Princess movies? What are you trying to prove?! Are you trying to make everyone hate you by destroying classics? Well guess what? It worked. In Cinderella 2 an ugly stepsister finds happiness and a mate. NO. She doesn't deserve happiness because she is too mean and ugly. In the second Little Mermaid movie Ariel has a twelve-year-old daughter. NO. Ariel is what, 16 in the first movie? I don't see much difference in her appearance in the second movie. Also, her daughter is super annoying. I don't think Ariel would have such an annoying daughter:

Again, no.

Now as usual my point does have another side. Think Harry Potter. I think most people would agree that the first movie is not the best movie. The reason for this? The series is based off of books. Each book builds on the previous so that the series as a whole only makes sense after reading every single book. You don't have to watch the fourth Shrek movie to know that it is stupid and pointless.

But what about other good sequels not based on books? You may ask. Well, I think that Toy Story is pretty darn good. But think about the time period between the second and third movie: years. The creators of the movie were planning on making sequels right from the start, they didn't just decide to make one last movie spur of the moment. The movie was meant to go on. It was meant to apply to the generation of kids who loved the first movie and who will love the third movie.

The one thing that really just kills me is when they change actors. WHAT ARE YOU DOING?! Oh our audience is too unobservant to notice the complete reconstruction of one of the main characters. Uh, no. We will notice. And we will hate it. You can't just replace Macauly Culkin, he makes the movie! What was the point of the sequels? I know I've never seen them. So what was the point of wasting money to make them? Another movie: The Mummy. How can you replace Rachel Weisz? She's a main character. Why even make the movie without her? Everyone will know and everyone will hate it. The result of replacing an amazing actress: a horrible hokey sequel. Truth is, Rachel Weisz refused to participate in the 3rd Mummy movie because the script was so badly written:

The same source that broke that original info to us contacted me tonight to update us on why Weisz left. Our source says, “the script is still in the same shape that it was the last time I told you about, meaning that its still crap and Weisz finally took the high road out of there.” It sounds like even if they do manage to get other key cast members to participate, it won’t matter. It will take a miracle to make The Mummy 3 good. (cinemablend.com)

So yeah. Sequels are horrible unless they are planned before the first movie. I honestly don't know why they exist. I mean, they can't bring in as much profit as the original. I guess I will just never understand what really goes on in the film industry.