Two (somewhat related) articles:

First, Roger Ebert has an article on movie sequels:

“No movie executive has ever been fired for greenlighting a sequel. Once a brand has been established in the marketplace, it makes sound business sense to repeat the formula…. Movie critics despair of sequels as betraying a lack of imagination and originality. There is truth in that. But they address a hunger among fans of popular movies, who currently are waging an Internet war against Paramount for deciding not to make a sequel to 2004’s Anchorman.”

Secondly, Eric Schwarz of Critical Missive has an article at Game Banshee about the possibility of a Planescape: Torment sequel.

My feeling is that people are often too quick to denounce sequels as being inherently “unoriginal”. There are many cases in which they build in clever, meaningful ways upon their predecessors. It may be unusual, but it’s not unheard of.


  1. Sequels come with a brand name. Wouldn't the world be dull place if Paramount had decided they didn't need an animated Star Trek, movies, and multiple spin off series? There was plenty of originality and innovation in all of them

  2. I was honored with a lovely award today and would like to pass it on to you. I'm not sure how you feel about such things, but, I enjoy your blog.

What's your stake in this, cowboy?