It seems that Warner Bros. has hired someone to write a script for a sequel to the film “Beetlejuice”. Michael Keaton seems to be “gung ho” about the project as well. But should it be made? I mean, how many of the movie going girls and boys right now even remember the original? I know I would really be interested in seeing it, but I’ve also been holding my breath for “GhostBusters 3” since I was 10 so what does my opinion mean? So I’ll throw it out there and ask: Which films really need a sequel?
No good romantic comedy needs a sequel. They should all end happily ever after. The end.
Comedies in general go by a film-by-film basis. “Hangover” was great and seemed like a second was a must, but after watching the first half of “Hangover 2” I realized that maybe it didn’t really call for a sequel. Some comedies that still need sequels? “Bridesmaids”, “Ace Ventura” (I think a third would be great), “Superbad” (these guys in college), “Beverly Hills Cop” (enter the illegitimate son who also happens to be a cop).
Action movies? “Indiana Jones” (they need to make up for Shia LeBoeauofoulo), “Terminator” (with the new Batman trilogy coming to an end, Bale needs work), “Top Gun” (maybe no volleyball scene this time), “True Lies” (the daughter was Eliza Dushku who has become a bit of an action star now), “National Treasure” (what was on that page the president had him look at?).
Horror. Yes. Any horror film can have a well done sequel provided one thing: it must be done by the same director/writer/producer team.
I’d love to see a sequel to “Labyrinth”. Have it be David Bowie coming back for Jennifer Connely’s kid a-la “Hook”. That’d just be a fun flick.