Browsing the list of 2003 movie releases, I note that the long-delayed "Freddy vs. Jason" is opening on the same day as "The Rugrats Meet the Wild Thornberrys."

I have a pretty good idea which one of these movies will be scarier.

Speaking of movie franchises, 2003 looks to be even more sequel/prequel laden than most years.

The Return of the King
Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions
Terminator 3
Spy Kids 3
Scary Movie 3
Jungle Book 2
The Fast and the Furious 2
Bad Boys 2
Barbershop 2
Legally Blonde 2
X-Men 2
Charlie's Angels 2
Tomb Raider 2
Shanghai Knights (Shanghai Noon 2)
Once Upon a Time In Mexico (Desperado 2)
The Whole Ten Yards (The Whole Nine Yards 2) *
Gods and Generals (Gettysburg prequel)
Dumb and Dumberer (Dumb and Dumber prequel)
The Exorcist: The Beginning


(* This title sounds exactly like something that came out of the now legendary Sequel Game thread in the old forum, in which preposterous sequel titles are proposed.)


It's not cool to be excited about Hollywood producing sequels, but I have to admit I'm interested in a number of these.

At any rate, is it just me, or do threes seem generally more respectable than twos? If you make a two, you're likely just cashing in on the success of an original movie, whether or not a sequel is called for, whether or not the sequel is any good. But if you make a three, it's likely you are rounding out (or, in fewer cases, continuing) what seems meant to be a series, or at least lends itself properly to one.

Obviously this is a big generalization, because some twos make sense and a most threes exist because of successful twos, but still:

Of the various twos in the above list, only X-Men 2 (conceived as a franchise from the beginning) and Gods and Generals (not the sort of prequel one makes to cash in) aren't being made as purely money-grubbing afterthoughts. (Charlie's Angels 2 and Tomb Raider 2 get a little lenience, being based on established franchises in other mediums.)

On the other hand, Return of the King, Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions, Terminator 3, and Spy Kids 3 all, whether planned from the outset or not, seem more like natural series progressions, leaving only Scary Movie 3 as a money-grubbing sequel.

There may be a loose connection between how good these sequels will be vs. how money-grubbing they are, but it's hard to say, especially before they are all released. But I think it's safe to say that in the past, the better sequels are generally the more "natural" ones.

Although I'm interested in a bunch of these titles, I don't have a lot of confidence that they'll all be good. Return of the King and the Matrix sequels are pretty sure bets. There's no reason I can think of to doubt that Spy Kids 3 won't deliver what the first two did.

But as much as I loved the originals of these, I don't really have any confidence in Terminator 3, Legally Blonde 2, The Whole Ten Yards, or, heaven help us, Jungle Book 2. Shanghai Knights will probably also suck, but in an entertaining sort of way, so who cares.