We’ve all seen a sequel to a movie before. Whether we enjoyed it or not, you can’t deny you’ve watched at least one, either at home or in theaters, with friends or alone. Ever since sequels started up, there has always been the question of their importance. Are they needed? Are they just a way for the film industry to catch cash? The way they kept being made – the way some of them felt useless to certain franchises – raised questions. It’s a good question: are movie sequels needed, or are they just a way to get richer?

Movie sequels are always a hit and miss. Either they surprise you – or disappoint you. Are they needed?

…well, it really depends. Does it add anything to the story? Does it accomplish anything? Is it essential?

For a sequel or a prequel to something to be needed, it must be based on the story it is adding to. It must continue the story in some way. It must make connections, fill plot holes.

This idea is the same for movie sequels. For a sequel to a movie to be needed, it must advance the story in some way. It must fit into the story.

Well, a lot of money is put into making movie sequels in the first place. “A lot of time and energy is put into making it fit with the story,” Samantha Thompson says.

But at the same time, companies can be pretty greedy. We see this because every human naturally wants to take and take. Disney themselves are this way nowadays, trying to make hot cash without the decency of a good story.

We’ve seen sequels we can call nonessential, and we’ve seen some that we can call essential. Some sequels are needed, and some shouldn’t have even been made. Some are just a cash grab, while others are made with decency and actual care. But I would say most of them are not needed, as most of them were just made for cash and don’t add anything to the storyline at all. 

Thompson calls “Toy Story 4” “like a side quest.” Like Thompson, some might argue “Toy Story 4” was not needed, as it butchered the characters. It did feel somewhat useless to the story, in my opinion.

Although “Mufasa” is a prequel, some might argue “Mufasa” or the second “Lion King” wasn’t needed for “The Lion King’s” storyline. It did add to the story, but it did feel essentially useless.

Megan Ivy states that “Zootopia 2 was hilarious and made connections.” Some might argue that sequels like “Zootopia 2” were needed, as they made it fun for the audience and did give us more information on the world of Zootopia itself.

It really depends on the sequel.

Sequels that are needed in my opinion are sequels to “How to Train Your Dragon,” “Toy Story 2,” “Toy Story 3,” “Frozen 2,” and others that add more to the story because they fit into the story decently and fill the plot more. 

“Frozen 2” gave more information about Elsa’s powers and Elsa and Anna’s parents. The sequels to “How to Train Your Dragon” keep adding and adding to the story in a good way. “Toy Story 2” and “Toy Story 3” added more characters to the plot.

But that’s just my opinion. It depends on how you see it.

In other words, it depends on the sequel, but what’s important is that it’s your opinion. Whether you think sequels are needed or not, that’s your opinion. Whether you think a certain sequel is essential to the story or not is your choice.