oh dear,
we went from sucky sequels, to gay hobbits, to hoses, to mutant ferrets. anyway, so back to the subject.

i almost agree with the opinions in the article, sequels never do measure up to their predessers. but some of them i will admit to liking.

however, i do kind of disagree with Pirates of the Caribbean. yes, there sequels may not equal the greatness of the original, but they aren't bad.

and i never actually disliked Jaws: Revenge.

they'll keep making sequels though, whether they're shitty or not because the make money, maybe not much, but some. because people enjoy seeing and hearing about characters they already know and like/love.

My ferrets arn't mutants.They just explode on contact and are trained in the art of jujutsu!







DUH!

I thought everybody knew that.. :rolleyes:

Well,if some of them read one of the older threads,they would know that!









:D

something is wrong with you.

ok ..I apologise .
I meant to say Dusk till dawn part 2..

n c'mon ..don't tell me you liked part 2 :o

Part 3 was horrible!

nice rant about the hobits. fucking hilarious! surprised no one brought up the fact that one of the hobits was called mary. you do realise that frodo's buddy was called S.A.M., not sam, and that it stands for sexual appetite for men? anyway, back on topic. the bond franchise is also a notable exception to the anti sequal arguments as, IMO, casino royale is up there with the best of them. also, the good the bad and the ugly is my favourite of the trilogy.

LOL..
Hobbits go'ne come kick you ass too :p