Badmovies.org Forum

Three reasons I'm skeptical-

1: Many films are more effective when audience members don't know what should be expected.

2: For filmmakers who seem talented at first, repeating their films just gives the feeling they didn't really have much ambition or vision. Besides, was there really anything that could have been done with "Grave Encounters" that wasn't already?

3: It falls into the "reuse the same characters" trap sequels often fall into more recently, and backstory stuff we "didn't know" about the first. If the first worked without telling the audience that information, logic dictates the audience doesn't need that information.

While I haven't this yet it kinda looks like "Grave Encounters" is apparently travelling that "sequels for a non-sequel-compatible movie" route previously travelled by "The Blair Witch Project", "Paranormal Activity" and allegedly "Donnie Darko"

I loved GRAVE ENCOUNTERS so much I am willing to give this one a chance, but I am not optimistic.

I didn't much care for the original, so I'll probably skip this one anyway. 

One thing I will build off is point number 3.  I find that the less they explain, the scarier things are.  One problem I have with horror sequels is they tend to dole out more backstory and give explanations behind supernatural events.  If a franchise repeats an antagonist and develops it further, then said antagonist ends up gaining more of a personality and consequently becomes less frightening. 

I'm with indianasmith, the original Grave Encounters was one of the best movies I have seen in recent years.

A sequel is stupid and makes me sad.

I understand why they are making it. Horror movies have always been the quick easy way for budding filmmakers to make money.

But a sequel to one of the most inventive horror movies in years? I'm guessing it will be garbage. Look at those [REC] movies. Not everything needs a sequel. Instead of rehashing success, why not try for a new movie?

Oh, yeah. The money.

Disappointing.