What is Your Take on Sequels Being Released Years After the Original?

Our mission at SAW is to foster conversations about this thing we all love (or love to hate): film/TV. Many of our features are designed with you in mind. Your opinions, to be more to the point. You have ’em. We want to hear ’em.

Question of the Day (QOTD) is exactly what it sounds like. It’s a film/TV-related question that we put to you, the reader. The comments section below is like the feedback box at work; except, in this example, we actually read what you write and care about what you have to say.


It’s no secret that Hollywood goes through certain trends, whether it be a remake, reboot or prequel. Sometimes it comes in the form of an unnecessary sequel.

So, the question I ask today is: What is your take on sequels being released years after the original?


In the 2010’s, Anchorman (2004), Dumb and Dumber (1994) and Zoolander (2001) all received sequels years after the original had released. Not only did the entire original cast return but the original directors returned, as well.¬†All three of the original movies could be deemed as “classics”, with all of them having an abundance of jokes and one liners that could get repeated with your buddies for the sake of a laugh. However, their sequels seemed to come and go without making anywhere near the same cultural impact.

It was just recently announced that Dodgeball (2004) will be getting a sequel with Vince Vaughan returning … and as much as I love the movie, I don’t really know how I feel about it getting a sequel all of these years later. It’s safe to say that I will more than likely check it out but in the same breath, I can’t say it’s a sequel that I feel is truly necessary.


So what about you, screenagers? What is your take on sequels being released years after the original?

I’ll see you in the trenches.