I saw The Usual Suspects 7 times during its original theatrical release. I absolutley love this film. I always thought it was a perfectly self contained film, and that a sequel would be impossible. But who knows how this will actually turn out? I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

If Singer, McQuarrie and Spacey are in it, sure. They should really just make it like a spinoff movie instead of a sequel though because all the Usual Suspects are well...dead.

This is a movie that doesn't need one.

If McQarrie doesn't write it, then what's the point. He proved with The Way of the Gun (a slightly better movie IMHO) that he was at least half the force behind the film.

They could call it Soze.

If they did the rise of Keyser Soze, I guess it could work. I'd rather they leave it alone, though.

Jesus! Buy you soul back Hollywood.

Exactly! Though this post feels like deja vu!

I don't see it happening, especially since the rumor seems to originate from someone that serves Kevin Spacey coffee

Any sequel would ruin the mystique that was set up with Kaiser Soze. I don't want to see Spacey mess with another cast of characters, or find out that

Absolutely.

NOOOOoooooooooooooooooo. Please don't mess up one of the best movies there is out there with a sequel. . They just ruined my day what that piece of news.

The Usual Suspects 2: More Usualer

How does a sequel (or even a remake) somehow ruin the original? Has anyone ever seen a bad sequel of a great original movie and suddenly said "Well, that completely ruined the original movie for me. I can never see it the same way again."

What made The Usual Suspects great was its mystery. A sequel or prequel would most likely try to explain Soze and thus eliminate what made the first one great.

But no one has confirmed what the sequel might be about; it's all just assumption now. And the original explained fairly well who Soze was in flashbacks, so that has been covered already. And as for mystery, once you've seen the movie all the way through, the mystery is explained.

Plus, people seem to be putting a lot of stock into what a coffee house server told a tabloid in Australia.

I doubt this will happen, as the source isn't reliable like IMDB or AICN.

it's been a while, but wasn't Kayser Soze a coffee mug (or was that kobayashi?) and the rest of the movie was in one way or another fabricated from the surroundings of the office?

It was Kobayashi. Yeah, the whole movie could have been a lie made up by Verbal. We only ever see the rest of the crew alive through his flashback explanations. The origin of Keyser Soze was explained by Verbal too, so that could be his lies too.

Highlander 2 ruined Highlander 1 for me. And I'm sure some fans of the original Matrix felt that the sequels "ruined" the original movie. Although you are right in saying that it shouldn't matter.

But how did a bad sequel ruin the original for you in that case? Was it just the integrity of the film or something else? I honestly don't understand; the original should still stand on its own merits.

While I was never a huge fan of the original Matrix movie, I didn't enjoy it as much once the sequels came out. When you just have the one movie your imagination can fill in some of the backstory and missing pieces of information. The sequels came out and filled in some of those gaps and introduced new things which clashed with my preconceived notions of how things were and reduced my enjoyment of the original.

I remember reading a somewhat similar article around the time the third Harry Potter movie came out. Some kids thought the movies made the books worse because they had their own mental pictures of how all the characters and creatures looked, how Quidditch would look when played, how certain lines and scenes played out. Once the movie comes out (or in this case a sequel), it sort of kills some of that imagination aspect, things are more concrete. You can try and pretend the other material doesn't exist, but once it's out there and you've seen it you can't ever totally forget it.

Like I said, on paper, that should be true, since they are distinct works. Yet, in the case of Highlander, Highlander 2 took it upon itself to come up with some far out, science fiction explanation for who the immortals were, and since that's "canon" I have a hard time watching the first movie without thinking about how ridiculous the explanation was. Similar to the matrix, where the other movies filled in backstory that was probably better left up to the imagination.

While the prequels didn't really change my enjoyment of the original Star Wars trilogy, I'm sure there are fans who now can't help but notice all of the stupid plotholes that Lucas introduced...

They modified that backstory for the "Renegade" version of the film, which I believe is now considered the "canon" version of that film.

For me it's the same way. I usually can't "pretend the sequel never happened". In some cases it's not an issue. For instance, Jaws 4 has no real effect on the original Jaws. But with things that attempt to further storylines, it's hard to mentally erase the ideas of "what comes next" when I rewatch the original.

hollywood must be really dead on some good stories

Not really, it's just that when a film becomes a financial and critical success, the execs think the best way to repeat that success is to, well, repeat the film. With an original screenplay, there's a larger perceived risk.