<![CDATA[Usually if a movie is not good they don't make a sequel. If the second one was terrible why did they make a sequel?]]>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Film and Television Discussion

gpapa1998-24-961204 — 11 years ago(July 28, 2014 05:17 PM)

Usually if a movie is not good they don't make a sequel. If the second one was terrible why did they make a sequel?

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/57237/usually-if-a-movie-is-not-good-they-don-t-make-a-sequel-if-the-second-one-was-terrible-why-did-they-make-a-sequelRSS for NodeTue, 12 May 2026 19:38:20 GMTMon, 13 Apr 2026 11:10:31 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to Usually if a movie is not good they don't make a sequel. If the second one was terrible why did they make a sequel? on Mon, 13 Apr 2026 11:10:32 GMT]]>Woodyanders — 8 months ago(July 30, 2025 12:26 AM)

Because the second film made a pretty nice profit at the box office, that's why.
You've seen Guy Standeven in something because the man was in everything.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/604860https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/604860Mon, 13 Apr 2026 11:10:32 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Usually if a movie is not good they don't make a sequel. If the second one was terrible why did they make a sequel? on Mon, 13 Apr 2026 11:10:32 GMT]]>jnoble11 — 11 years ago(October 18, 2014 11:14 PM)

part II wasn't a good movie but it still earned it's budget back after release and made money. So I guess Universal wanted to ring whatever dollars was left from the Bandit franchise with a 3rd one even though two of it's biggest stars didn't want to return. I enjoy part 3 way more than the boring depressing part II which barely had any chase scenes in it whatsoever

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/604859https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/604859Mon, 13 Apr 2026 11:10:32 GMT