Why no sequel?

[deleted]

Why a sequel?

Generally speaking, I hate sequels. Loathe them. Despise them. I just plain don't like sequels.

Why? Because--to paraphrase Yogurt the Wise ["Spaceballs (1987)"]--sequels are made for only one reason, to search for more money.
When conducting this search, nothing else matters, not even the history, events and characters established in the original movie (a.k.a. the only one that counts).

Yes, when I see a movie I enjoy--including "Night of the Comet"--I do wonder, after it ends, what happened next? But, having seen a large number of typical sequels to movies I enjoy over the decades, I then hope that a sequel will never be made.



I'm living proof that a mind is a terrible thing.

I saw this movie in it original release and loved it!

However, for me when a movie has an "unique" premise such as did this movie, the premise imo in a general sense it can't be used again -the premise would fall flat the second time. Not fresh and new. Imo if they had a sequel, they would have had to "better" themselves and I didn't then nor now see how they could have "bettered" themselves.

There are exceptions to this rule of mine, but they are very rare. I can't think of any examples but will say that it all depends on how any given sequel is made. If a sequel has the fresh ingredients and is done right, it would be equal or perhaps better then the first.

I suppose Die Hard movies would be examples.

[deleted]

I would have liked to see them learn to live in the world now and look for other people that survived. We could get other peoples survival stories. It would make a good comic book.

From what I have been told, the film was a success ($15 mill theatrical box office from a budget of $3 mill) but then the company that owned the film went bankrupt. Too many creditors had too many pieces for anyone to get a clear title if anyone wanted to make a sequel.