Jon Voight has labeled the top Hollywood stars snobs for turning down sequel work. The movie veteran insists there's nothing wrong with giving movie fans more of what they want.

Voight, who joins a star-studded ensemble cast in National Treasure sequel Book Of Secrets, admits he isn't ashamed of lending his name to a franchise.

He says, "Sequels, they used to poo poo them. It used to be this idea that if you're doing sequels, you're not an artist. But it's so silly. Of course there's nothing wrong with sequels. Number one, it puts a lot of people to work. And when you have something people love, it's nice to have another chapter."

(This news article provided by World Entertainment News Network)

I am a movie fan and I can tell you a sequel is something I don't want. It is almost a bomb. Where does he think that fans want more of the same movie? The exceptions are Godfather, Star Wars and Terminator.

This coming from a guy who made a movie with J-ho and Ice Cube called Anaconda. :rolleyes:

I love many sequels, and don't like others. Die Hard is one of my favorites. Rocky, Godfather, Halloween, Terminator, Rush Hour, Star Wars, Raiders of The Lost Ark, the Bourne series, Romancing The Stone, Batman, Friday the 13th, Nighmare on Elm Street, Mission Impossible, Men In Black, Alien, James Bond, Ocean's 11, Hunt For Red October...so many good ones. I have nothing against sequels. Voight's right, it is nice to have another chapter. We always watch them.

I have always been a fan of sequels. And it always ticks me off when an actor won't do a sequel. Tom Hanks in the past said he doesn't do sequels. That was before he changed his mind with "Toy Story 2."

I can understand an actor always wanting to do something different and so not go back to jump in the same role again for a sequel, but still, I don't like it. And if I ever become an actor (which I won't) I'd be glad to do a sequel.

There are some movies that need sequels. Such as the superhero movies (Superman, Batman, Spider-Man).

That's why I like television shows so much more. Because we get to watch the characters grow. We don't just get them to two hours and that's it and maybe a sequel comes along and we get them for another two hours or so.

What I don't like are Prequels.

sometimes sequels are good if the same effort is put into them as the originals, but a sequel that was obviously thrown together because the original made a lot of money is something else. All we have to do is look at the Rocky franchise. IV and V were obvious cash-grabbing plots and Stallone even admits such nowadays, but yet last years Rocky Balboa was very well thought out and the heart was again restored to the franchise. Stallone did said installment because he wanted the series to go out with the same dignity and quality it came in as, and the movie got excellent reviews.

I think if there are places to take the characters in a sequel, go for it, but if it's a half-hearted carbon copy of the original de$igned to make a$ much money a$ po$$ible $ince the fir$t one wa$ a hit, it's best to turn it down.

A huge example of this is Sigourney Weaver. The Alien franchise ran it's course for the most part, and they have been offering her Alien 5 for some time, but she states she will only do another Alien movie if either Ridley Scott (who directed Alien) or James Cameron (Aliens) are onboard.

I don't get what Mr. Voight is getting at. Is he wanting sequels simply to put people to work? What a waste of a movie. If it is simply to have people work, then have them do something else. I don't watch a movie because it was made to give industry people something to do. I want to see a work of art, I want to be entertained, I don't want something thrown together. A good example of a bad sequel is Karate Kid 2 and 3, not to mention the other movie made with Hillary Swank. :puke: