Should Land before time have so many sequels?

Chihuahualover77 · **Posted:** Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:47 pm

Should Land Before time have that much sequels? They have like 11 or 12 don't they? I don't know. But they have alot more then they should. Do you think they should or not (I didn't feel like making this a poll to lazy LOL)

Chihuahualover77 · **Posted:** Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:56 pm

Aleulover wrote:

Should Land Before time have that much sequels? They have like 11 or 12 don't they? I don't know. But they have alot more then they should. Do you think they should or not (I didn't feel like making this a poll to lazy LOL)

I totally agree!

Chihuahualover77 · **Posted:** Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:58 pm

Flare wrote:

I don't bother watching the new episodes 'casue its gets stupider every time :roll:

The first four movies where alright but keep going with the movie sequals?That is just to much! I think that LBT is the only longest movie series ever recorded! :shock:

Sorry, the double posting is a acciedent, I quoted the wrong person. And I totally agree.

Grey Wolf 777 · **Posted:** Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:02 pm

Do the sequals even leave off from the story before it? I think it's pretty annoying how they keep making sequals.

Chihuahualover77 · **Posted:** Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:37 pm

wearedoomed wrote:

They shoulda left it at....Oh, I don't know...1 !!! :lol:

I agree. I mean, they make it to there great land or whatever you call it, and what more is there to tell. Yes they're happy and there with their family so whatever. The end. LOL!

jose philapino · **Posted:** Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:36 am

And did you know that they're making a 13th seqeal?

tatsu_okami · **Posted:** Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:09 am

jose philapino wrote:

And did you know that they're making a 13th seqeal?

Well, I can't really say I'm surprised at that, considering Universal seems to be on a roll for making LBT sequels. They probably are still making them because there aren't a ton of complaints about how many there are. Personally, I think the only good ones were the 1st and 3rd LBT (excluding the annoying sing-alongs, of course), because they seemed like the darkest of the LBT films (even though I've only seen the first three :lol:

).

Canis Lupus · **Posted:** Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:06 am

No hosay. There only ever needed to be one movie. To keep a franchise going, there's plenty of cheap alternatives to churning out sequel after sequel.

Cobaltié · **Posted:** Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:33 pm

I think it the only good one was Journey Through the Mists (LBT4) and all of the others were crap. The third one was basically 'OMG DROUGHT' and Channel 10 liked to show it back in 2001-ish a lot simply because Australia is well-known to be going through the worst drought evar and they thought it would be nice to show it to the little kiddies.

LBT2 deserves a mention, that was okay, although I don't have it anymore because the tape it was on screwed up

but I would of liked only LBT2 and LBT4 as sequels and the others to go *flick* flying away from existence!

TalaMattYazamaki · **Posted:** Sun Oct 28, 2007 2:23 pm

too many sepuels can ruin a good film!

Olivia_the_Harper · **Posted:** Sat Nov 03, 2007 6:20 pm

The LBT sequels are basically animated fan fiction. Universal needs to come up with a better method of keeping LBT successful than making 100 sequels.

In fact, take a look at this: http://thewizardess.deviantart.com/art/ ... I-44266587

Animation Source Forums

Should Land before time have so many sequels?