Leave it to Hollywood to find a way to stretch the Harry Potter film series longer than it needs to be.
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" was the seventh, and last, book in the literary series. The Los Angeles Times recently reported the book will be broken up into two movies.
There's no hint of a possible title for the alleged eighth movie, but it will supposedly come out in May 2011 - nearly 10 years after the first film in the franchise was released.
My suggestion for a title is "Harry Potter and the Search for More Money."
It would be a great homage to the movie "Spaceballs," in which Mel Brooks, as Yoghurt, told Bill Pullman, who played Lone Star, they'd meet again in "Spaceballs II: The Search for More Money."
Why does Hollywood do this?
Why sequel a great movie concept to death?
Face it, "The Fantastic Four" was terrible. The studio went ahead and made "The Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer," though.
The "Batman" franchise, which ran from 1989 to 1997, should have stopped after 1992's "Batman Returns." No, we got to suffer through two attempts by Joel Schumacher to build on what was started by Tim Burton.
All I remember is lots of bright colors, bad jokes, Val Kilmer, George Clooney, Bat Nipples, media fascination with cod pieces, and Arnold Schwarzenegger trying to be funny and sinister at the same time.
Who can really differentiate between Friday the 13th III and Friday the 13th VIII? I mean, who besides devoted fans of the horror genre?
"Saw" came out in 2004, yet the latest sequel, "Saw V" will come out later this year. Is there ever a point where the writers and the director think they have "Saw"ed the audience to death?
Don't even get me started on the "Bring It On" series. I think that franchise has almost gone on long enough to have the children of the original cheerleaders as the central characters.
Let's face it, sometimes it's best to stop at one, despite the potato chip commercial which used to say you can't.
Take "Interview With a Vampire" as an example. It was a good movie. A bit long-winded at times, but still a good movie. "Queen of the Damned," the sequel - not such a good movie.
Granted, there are occasionally a few sequels which hold up to the standard set by the original. "The Godfather II" is better than "The Godfather," and I personally prefer "From Russia With Love" over "Dr. No."
"Elizabeth II: The Golden Age" was good as well, and, thankfully, the producers waited 10 years before they made the sequel.
The vast majority of sequels are junk, though, and that's putting it nicely.
Anyone remember "Speed II: Cruise Control"?
I like some originality in the movies I watch. If you're going to make a sequel, don't do it just to make a few more bucks. There is something called substance, which is essential to making a good movie. Also, and here's the most important factor, if the movie is really good, more people will come to see it.
Then more people will come out when the next sequel comes out.
Just remember one thing. Every sequel should include "and the Search for More Money" in the title.
Curt Yeomans covers education for the Clayton News Daily. He can be reached at (770) 478-5753, ext. 247 or via e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org.