|
I mean, movies themselves aren't necessary. They don't need to be made. There isn't a single movie that was ever "necessary", for any reason.
"Necessary" is rarely ever a relevant point when it comes to movies. The original trilogy told the story rather well, so yeah, you're right, it wasn't "necessary" to further the story. The story was furthered because these movies make a ton of money and there is value in the franchise. That's literally the only reason it got made, and most movies are the same way. If it completely tanks, there's no reason to make a sequel, right? But when the movies make a shit ton and develop a loyal, rabid following, well.... there's always a chance a sequel gets made, whether the narrative demands it or not.
I'm sure movies like LOTR could be said to have "necessary" sequels, in that the narrative more or less required all three films to tell the whole story.
I don't see how 4 Lethal Weapon movies were needed either. We didn't "need" a second. We got 2, 3, and 4 because we all loved Riggs and Murtaugh and the studios knew we'd come to see them.
That doesn't mean people need to think the movie is any good, but saying it's "unnecessary" isn't really insightful or thoughtful commentary. A sequel can be perfectly good even if it's not "necessary".
|