Films Better Off Without Sequels

I'd say most movies are uneffected by the fact that they have bad sequels. Caddyshack 2 and Airplane 2 will certainly not stop me from rewatching the crap out of the first movies.

But I'll say Halloween didn't need a sequel. Part 2 just isn't that good and I didn't need them to create this big backstory for Myers. The fact that you didn't know anything about was what made him so creepy in the first one. And I liked it better with the ending of the first movie with just having him disappear. Learning more about Michael ruined the mystique.

>The Pink Panther also should have stayed as a one and done.

Disagree. Shot in the Dark is by far the best movie and it's the sequel.

>The Exorcist, I adore III but one of the worst managed franchises in history in my eyes.

Was never meant to be a managed franchise. Same with the Omen.

All the sequels after Terminator 2: Judgment Day ruined that franchise.

While I don't have any strong opinions on the Halloween series, I think what you just mentioned is precisely why a prequel or sequel shouldn't happen: to explain and demystify what made the original story so fascinating in the first place.
There are exceptions (e.g. Fire Walk With Me) but overall these films give you more than you want to know (or worse, retcon it).

Then there are examples of fictional characters that simply cannot exist beyond that one particular story (e.g. the Disney sequels).

Sequels are perfectly fine for stand-alone adventures or films based on a series of novels.
I'd argue that the appeal of those sequels is in its familiarity rather than doing something completely new.
Final Destination may be the best franchise of all time. All they need to do is give us more freaky death scenes, and it's fun in the same way Wile E. Coyote's schemes backfire, again and again and again.

Exorcist III is a funny one. I don't appreciate the link with the original, but in isolation it's a pretty decent horror film.

Most popular horror films with numerous sequels (e.x. A Nightmare on Elm Street) likely would have been better off without them, since they tended to be low-quality and made just to make money.

A film can be made for artistic reasons, commercial reasons or artistic and commerical reasons.
But sequels, especially the ones inspired by the commercial success of the original, are always made for commercial reasons. Therefore these sequels are inherently inferior by design.
And yet, some (not many) of these sequels are better than the original (e.g. Toy Story 2, Shrek 2).

The Pirates of the Caribbean sequels are another example of sequels which shouldn't have been made. They changed the plot of the original film too much, and were mainly about big budget special effects rather than a good story.

And as always...
It's not that Highlander (1986) would be better off without A sequel, but it would have been better off without THAT sequel: meaning, the one it got.

>The Pirates of the Caribbean sequels are another example of sequels which shouldn't have been made. They changed the plot of the original film too much, and were mainly about big budget special effects rather than a good story.

Disagree. The Pirate movies were never about a deep plot...it's about this crazy cast of characters being thrown together and watching Depp have fun as Jack Sparrow. I felt the 2nd movie was excellent and, while the plot of the 3rd is a complete mess, it's still fun seeing Sparrow doing Sparrow things, especially when he clashes with Barbossa. Even the one-off 4th movie was fun since it was a simple adventure movie.

Can't defend the 5th though...just plain awful.