Viazon wrote:When you think about it, do any sequels need to be made?
Well sometimes a story is deliberately written with multiple parts. Often stories are deliberately presented as trilogies. The first one introduces the characters, the second one shows the heroes at their lowest, and the third one has the highest stakes and the ultimate pay off. It's a proven formula that works, and it's satisfying because each new chapter adds something new to the story.
It's pretty easy to tell the difference between a sequel that's a natural continuation of the original story, and a sequel that's a meaningless cash-grab. I love a good trilogy and there are a lot of sequels out there I really enjoy, but the majority of them being made nowadays just feel like cash-grabs. Hell, a lot of these sequels started out as scripts for an entirely different set of characters, who just got re-skinned to tie them into an existing franchise.
Though even when a sequel is being made for the sake of it, I think some are more appropriate than others. It comes down to the main selling point of the film. If the main selling point is a character (which is the case for most superhero films out there), then a sequel can just be the next thing that happens to that character. Which is pretty easy to get behind. If the main selling point is a high concept or situation, then creating a sequel is weird. Do you recreate the same exact situation? In that case, why bother with the new film at all? It's been done before. Or do you show the same characters in a new situation? But then, we don't care all that much about those characters, so why would we care what they do next? I think
Independence Day falls into the latter category. I don't see an obvious way to make a sequel work. Sounds like it'll just be awkward.