Shrek 4 Coming to Theaters in 2010!!

[Escapay]

Why must studios feel the need to release all these crappy, unneccessary sequels.....

Studios are out to make money. If something is successful, they'll want to milk it for all its worth. Back then they'd do it by keeping a movie in theatres longer or by re-releasing it every so often. Now, they make sequels because the original's out on DVD and cable television.

Besides, what would the world be like today if we didn't have the greatness known as "The Empire Strikes Back"?

Escapay

[Dottie]

That's what I said earlier: Some movies are intended to have more parts and are made as a trilogy like Star Wars fo example. Lucas' idea had always been a trilogy.
But some are forced to being a trilogy or even more. The end of Shrek I was really good, and so was POTC. DMC wasn't bad, but it now changes the whole end of movie 1 with ------- not really being gone/being back. That's what I don't like about it.

[lord-of-sith]

Besides, what would the world be like today if we didn't have the greatness known as "The Empire Strikes Back"?

Escapay

Well, lord-of-sith would most likely not be my sn.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

The same goes for Madagascar, the first one wasn't that great, so why should the 2nd be better?

Well, the ending I thought lended itself to a sequel. Just the fact it ended with the characters in a Loony Tunes esque situation. I like Madagascar. It's not great by any means, even for it approaching a fun comedy, but I think(or hope) that the sequel, if made right, could do a lot to improve that and hopefully tone down on crude jokes.

The one thing though is that I hope they go to different places like suggested at the end. The potential to that could be great. In fact, the fictional Devil's Bayou is as far as different a place from Australia as you can get, and don't most people here love "The Rescuer's Down Under"?

It's the same in Hollywood. Every fricking movie that is kind of successful gets a sequel. That messes up the ends of the original movies, and for me it changes the story of the first one, and I can't enjoy the original anymore as I used to. Of course, there are movies that are intended to have sequels and are conceived that way (e.g. Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Lord of the rings...), but for most movies the sequels mess up the original.

If a sequel can mess up a movie, it only proves the original must not have been good in the first place.

No spin-off of any kind can ruin an original piece of art. If you don't like the sequel, just pretend it doesn't exist. I believe that if another company made National Treasure other than Disney, and then made a sequel, no one would mind.

Because other companies are allowed to get away with sequels, but Disney can't.

That's what I said earlier: Some movies are intended to have more parts and are made as a trilogy like Star Wars fo example. Lucas' idea had always been a trilogy.
But some are forced to being a trilogy or even more. The end of Shrek I was really good, and so was POTC. DMC wasn't bad, but it now changes the whole end of movie 1 with ------- not really being gone/being back. That's what I don't like about it.

But technically The Empire Strikes Back changes the entire end of the original Star Wars, as audiences knew from Obi Wan that Darth Vader actually betrayed and murdered Luke's father.

[Dottie]

But in the case of Star Wars everyone knew there would be another one, so you expect plot twists and surprises. And the end os Episode IV isn't such a great ending to th movie, since the war isn't over yet.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

Well, Lucas wanted to make them, but no one could predict Star Wars would be the huge success it was, and Fox wasn't interested in distributing the original, so had it flopped, would they really want to make a sequel.

And there was no mention that Star Wars was going to be a series when it first came out. That's why they called it "Star Wars" instead of "A New Hope".

And Pirates actually did call for a sequel at the end. Sure it was a surprise hit and Disney thought of the original as a big risk, but in the words of 2099net, when you think about that 'cute' little ending with the monkey, it was like they wanted a sequel and didn't give it an ending.

Not to mention, DMC worked wonderfully in giving little "facts" about the original by expanding the POTC universe, most specifically the compass and the East West India Trading Company, and we'll see the same thing in "At World's End" with elements like the characters going to Singapore.

[Dottie]

Well, Lucas wanted to make them, but no one could predict Star Wars would be the huge success it was, and Fox wasn't interested in distributing the original, so had it flopped, would they really want to make a sequel.

And there was no mention that Star Wars was going to be a series when it first came out. That's why they called it "Star Wars" instead of "A New Hope".

And Pirates actually did call for a sequel at the end. Sure it was a surprise hit and Disney thought of the original as a big risk, but in the words of 2099net, when you think about that 'cute' little ending with the monkey, it was like they wanted a sequel and didn't give it an ending.

Not to mention, DMC worked wonderfully in giving little "facts" about the original by expanding the POTC universe, most specifically the compass and the East West India Trading Company, and we'll see the same thing in "At World's End" with elements like the characters going to Singapore.

Is "At world's end" the official title of no. 3?

[NarniaDis]

Yes, AT WORLDS END is the official title

[Kingpopper]

Update, Comingsoon.net has now posted dates for Dreamworks 2009 films.

Flushed Away - November 3, 2006
Shrek the Third - May 18, 2007
Bee Movie - November 2, 2007
Kung Fu Panda - May 23, 2008
Madagascar 2 - November 7. 2008
Monsters vs. Aliens - May 22, 2009
How to Train Your Dragon - November 20, 2009
Shrek 4 - 2010
Puss in Boots - 20??

[Escapay]

The one thing though is that I hope they go to different places like suggested at the end. The potential to that could be great. In fact, the fictional Devil's Bayou is as far as different a place from Australia as you can get, and don't most people here love "The Rescuer's Down Under"?

Had to re-read this several times before I understood what it meant. At first I thought you were saying that Devil's Bayou was in Australia, lol.

One of my biggest gripes about POTC:DMC was that it relied *too much* on assuming that the audience had seen the first film. It had too many references to the first in order to support the story. Two signs of a great sequel is usually that it tells its own story while pushing the characters forward, and that it could be viewed and succeed as a standalone film. "Hannibal", despite many people not liking it, was *great* as a standalone film, and a worthy followup to "Silence of the Lambs" and as the ending to the Lecter Trilogy (Manhunter/Red Dragon, Silence of the Lambs, and Hannibal). DMC, unfortunately, had way too many references to the first that in the mindset of a firsttime viewer (who never saw COTBP), they'd be confused for about 1/4 or 1/3 of the movie. As a sequel and second in a trilogy, it works well because it's meant to be one epic story told in three parts. But as a standalone film, it'll be puzzling and confusing as hell.

Sequels are not necessarily bad, but some are entirely unnecessary. Did we really another Charlie's Angels remake? The first wasn't even that great.

Escapay

[numba1lostboy]

^^I totally agree with you, Escapay.

The only thing that I didn't like about DMC was that I felt like it was forcing tiny details from the first film into the plot of the second.
I didn't think the first movie called for a sequel. I was under the impression that they wrote the two sequels after the first made such a bang.

The way I see it, the trilogy should have gone the Indiana Jones route and done three films with thee separate adventures.

[NarniaDis]

Done in Indiana Jones Fashion probably would have worked better in the long run - DMC doesn't have the rewatchability that it could have had if it had been stand alone

[Caballero Girl]

I'm not a huge fan of any of Dreamworks' animated projects (their - apparently waning - collaboration with the vastly superior Aardman is the only thing which currently redeems them in my eyes, though I do have my reservations about Flushed Away), so I don't find myself getting terribly excited at the prospect of sequels to any of their films. I was underwhelmed by the original Shrek. Shrek 2 made me smile a few times when I was watching it, but in the scrutiny of aftermath fell completely apart. And I loathed every single little thing about Madagascar.

I could go into the details of why these films don't really appeal to me (celebrity voices, pop culuture references, etc, etc), but you've probably heard it all before. I won't bore you.

I will point out, however, that nearly every one of their movies ends with all the characters uniting in some massive upbeat song and dance number. Hardly the kind of open-ended conclusion which warrants a sequel.