I was just looking at the upcoming releases at movies.com and found the following:
Terminator 3, The Matrix Reloaded, X-Men 2, Spider-Man 2, Freddy vs. Jason, Star Wars: Episode III, Superman V, Rocky IV, and more.
Obviously there are other horrible movies, but these pose a specific question: No one’s gonna see them, so why are these idiotic sequels being released?! (There isn’t even anywhere for them to start off from–there were no cliffhangers, everything was resolved!)
X-Men 2 should be pretty good. It didn’t end resolved, it ended with Wolverine deciding to find out who he really was. In fact, one of the criticisms of the film was that it ended on a “sequel ending.”
Ep 3 can’t suck any worse that Ep 1 and 2 so… we could be in for a pleasant surprise. maybe.
Hey! Wake up! 
IMO, with the only exception of Rocky 6 :eek: (and that is VI actually) , all the other movies have enough of a following, to warranty a good return at the box office.
Now if you are talking about new ideas . . . Yes, The future looks bleak. Wake me when the latest Pixar release comes to theaters.
Everything was not resolved in Spiderman either. The son of the Green Goblin was angry with spiderman. There was some definate forcasting here.
Well, T3 looks dumb, Bad Boys II is questionable at best, and certainly Dumb and Dumberer is going to be worth avoiding like the plague, but not all sequels are bad. Spider-Man 2 shows some promise (if the first is any example), and X-Men 2 will probably be good.
And how can you (sleeping) possibly say that “nobody” is going to see Star Wars III? I’m not even a big fan of the series, but I’m sure many will see it. And of course, at the rate Two Towers is going, Return of the King may just be one of the most hotly anticipated sequels to boot!
I agree that there’s a dearth of sequels coming out next year, but that doesn’t mean that they’re all going to be bad by definition. A few of them might even be worth watching. 
They were pushing Finding Nemo during the trailers at The Two Towers.
It looks a bit crap for Pixar.
A dearth of sequels? More like a deluge.
Slight hijack, but sequels tend be announced farther in advance than other movies because the distribution deals tend to be finished sooner than for movies that aren’t sequels. Also, blockbuster movies, like Spiderman 2 and X-Men 2, tend to be released around major holidays, so studios announce them far in advance in order to tie up those holidays and scare away competitors.
Another factor, is that smaller independent movies generally have much more flex in when they get released, depending on word of mouth, how they do at indendent festivals or even on the success of other independent films.
Essentially block-buster films are released regardless of outside influences, but indie films are released when the timing is right. The mix of blockbusters to independent films remains about the same, but sequels and other large films are announced much earlier, giving the impression that there are way more sequels coming out than smaller films at any given time.
As far as the OP goes, sequels almost always do pretty good business and it is rare or even unheard of for a studio to release a major film these days that cannot have a sequel, to do so is just stupid as they would be ignoring quite a bit of money.
I don’t think SW:Ep III will be out in 2003, IMDB has it out 2005.
There IS LOTR:Return of the King. (but lets not have the “is it a seqel or not” arguement here)
I’ve heard the Finding Nemo is the “worst” Pixar film, but that still puts it in top 10% of films overall.
Brian
Forgot about Matrix: Revolutions? That and Reloaded will be released in the same year. Schweet, unless the sequels won’t be half as good as the original.
I don’t know about anyone else but the trailers I saw before LotR were just terrible. They had one called The Core, hell from just the trailer I can tell it would be bad. I guess I’m glad I don’t see too many movies then.
Finding Nemo looked really disappointing. My son gave me his 'Do we have to?" look when that trailer was over.
Production hasn’t started yet, but the cast is in place and it might show up by the end of the year:
Big Fish, directed by Tim Burton.
It’s from a first novel. And it ain’t no sequel.
One you all may have missed: is Prisoner of Azkaban going to be ready for next year?
Nah, Prisoner of Azkaban isn’t supposed to be out until 2004. I don’t even think they’ve started filming yet. I’m interested in seeing how that one turns out…it’s my favorite book.
Ah, there will be plenty of great movies that we haven’t heard about yet. That always happens.
And anyway, even if 2003 produced nothing of note except the two Matrix movies and Return of the King, it’ll still be a truly wonderful year, because of them. (I have complete and utter faith in the Bros W and PJackson).
i second that
matrix nor LOTR can suck, its not allowed 
Isn’t The Hulk going to be released in the summer of 2003? I was never a big fan of the character, but I expect good things with Ang Lee directing.
I also have high hopes for ROTK and the next Matrix.
Well, according to the Wachowski brothers, The Matrix was originally conceived as one story told in three parts, so The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions are not sequels, but separate chapters of a narrative just as The Two Towers and Return of the King are not sequels tro Fellowship of the Ring, but its completion.
Dirty Dancing 2 is scheduled for 2003. Run away!
This looks interesting. George Clooney and Billy Bob Thornton reunited with the Coen brothers.