The title of this thread is fairly self-explanatory. Personally, I think Twilight could have been chopped down to about three, maybe even two books. I'm no fan AT ALL (having said that, I did read the whole series), but as a genuine constructive criticism, I think the latter books were extremely repetitive. That's my biggest one. As for books which need sequels, I wouldn't have minded a Catcher in the Rye sequel, just to see what further adventures Holden Caulfield could have gotten into. Thoughts? Or am I off my nut?
I on the other hand, didn't think it was possible to squeeze out any more self-pity from Holden Caulfield.
There is a "sequel" to Catcher in the Rye. It just wasn't written by Salinger and has been the subject of some legal fights.
A sequel to Catcher would be cool, if written by Salinger, I suppose. I really enjoyed that book. The only book I can really think of right now that I -really- wanted more of would be The Town [aka Prince of Thieves]. But the ending would have to be changed -- I want more of the four guys robbing banks. Maybe if they were just caught, rather than killed, and then escape somehow like John Dillinger in Public Enemies [the movie]. Can't think of anything else that already had a sequel or is already part of continuing a series. The only one that hasn't had a sequel yet that I can think of at the top of my head would be Power Down, by Ben Coes, but I'm pretty sure a sequel is in-the-works.
The Gunslinger (Volume I of Stephen King's The Dark Tower series) didn't NEED any sequels. Although it could be considered not to have any really, truly closed ending, I think it would have been excellent if left as a stand-alone novel (which it was for a while before King planned on continuing writing). Still, the sequels were quite magical; it's just that the first one was very much a western, but as the series went on, it lost its western vibe and got the epic feel and dark fantasy feel. I'm not a massive fan of westerns, but The Gunslinger was . I can't really think of anything else off the top of my head. To be slightly off-topic, Shrek, Toy Story, Ice Age, and probably all other Pixar films definitely did NOT need sequels. The fourth Shrek film was a tear-jerker (first time I cried in a "kid's movie", I think :s), but I stand by my sentiment that they were entirely unnecessary. Assassin's Creed would have been good as a stand-alone title. So would any of the Final Fantasy games up to Final Fantasy IX (PlayStation 2 and onwards were NOT great). And the sheer level of Final Fantasy VII spinoffs was ridiculous. It was just greed and rape of the original game, which was fantastic.
Agreed... Although I was mainly aiming for the fact that I thought the first one was pretty rubbish really
I haven't read it yet, and I will read it and try to enjoy it, but I definitely think that Catch-22 didn't need Closing Time to tell me what happened to Yossarian. I mean, it's probably a good book and all, but I liked the end of Catch-22. Besides that, any sequel comissioned by the Asimov estate on behalf of Isaac Asimov is basically just fanfiction in my books. Again, they're okay books, but authors should leave other authors' works alone.
I agree but they had a bad guy to get rid of and the squeals where not that bad. I think it is about time we end the Dark Hunters books. Way too many of them. Plus, I can't weight until Ash and Nick face off.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "sequel". Dune didn't need sequels, but Dune Messiah and Children of Dune are not bad. But God Emperor skips ahead thousands of years, and then they skip ahead thousands of years after that again in the next. I didn't like God Emperor because it was too weird, but the rest wasn't so bad. But seriously, even more sequels and spin-offs by his son? What's the point? You don't see Lord of the Rings 2 anytime soon, do you? "Angels & Demons" is another book that did not need any sequels. The two sequels are just the same boring story all over again with new names for the characters and locations. Once you have read one, you have read all three. And this is the guy who "defined" the genre? There are so many better writers out there that I don't understand why people bother with Dan Brown at all. He's not a good writer at all, and most of the "facts" in his books are BS.
I liked it okay. I read it for the first time when I was 9 or 10, and it's not something I'd reread over and over like my favorites, but it was okay.
I totally agree. I tried to read Closing Time but it was absolutely nothing on Catch 22, which is one of my top ten books of all time. I also agree that authors should get their own ideas and not piggyback on other successful writers eg. Wild Sargossa Sea, which is a sequel to Jane Eyre. A good book in it's own right, but leave the classics alone!
In my opinion Twilight should have been cut down to no books and the world would be much better off. Got halfway through the first book before I got tired of constantly reading about Edwards good looks.
Anything after Saving the World and Other Extreme Sports (the third book), in the Maximum Ride series by James Patterson. Until around about the fifth book, Max, Maximum Ride had gone dramatically downhill for me. And what a shame, the first three books were fantastic. . Twilight, even though I haven't read it, should be destroyed, every copy burnt. Not releated to this topic, but what the hell.
