• testfactor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Sure, but he said “weren’t a thing,” not, “were less common.”

    Like, yes, there have definitely been a rise in needless sequels, but it’s not like 1995 (year chosen at random and googled) didn’t have a sequel to “Ace Ventura: Pet Detective” as one of the top 5 movies of that year.

    And if ever there was a franchise in which sequels were needless, lol.

      • testfactor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Also, (sorry for the second post), but did you actually read your sources? Cause I just did and they actually say that the number of needless sequels has either stayed the same or gone down since the 80s.

        They are performing far better than they used to, but there are actually less of them now than ever.

      • testfactor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I didn’t put words in your mouth. I was quoting the post I originally replied to.

        I said that he said needless sequels “weren’t a thing.”

        (He actually said “needles” sequels, to actually be pedantic, but I think that was probably a typo)