I have a friend on Facebook who posted his massive disappointment that Blade Runner was getting a 30+ years later sequel, even casting a "shame on you" movie producers for being so greedy. To which I replied, "But you'll still go see it, right?"
30 years does seem a long time to go and then tap a sequel (unlike say, Alien movies which clipped along every 5-7 years or got co-opted with Predators). But I'm still interested.
And then we have the new sequel coming out to 20 year old Trainspotting. I really liked that 1996 Danny Boyle film, but is a sequel necessary? Will it be just more of the same re-hash; will it be something completely different ('Well...THAT wasn't a "Trainspotting movie!" ') or something in between?
Are there any "unnecessary, but interesting" sequels I've not heard about? A lot of times a movie comes out and the sequel follows in 2 years and it's just not that good because, frankly, all of the "good ideas" were used in the original. Or they take some of the characters and put them in a totally different movie. But with a 20-30 year gap, is there hope that new ideas have percolated to the surface? Or will I be shouting at the screen "Shame on you, you nostalgia peddling cash whores!"