I also thought it was really fun and for what it cost to make, they accomplished quite a bit. Was it good enough to warrant sequels? No, but then again hardly any movies ever made don't either. So long as they keep making them on the cheap, you might as well keep spinning that bottle until you get the hot chick rather than the dude sitting next to you, though. Why not?

For what they spent to make Saw, there is a lot of potential for success, but you've still got to do it right. And even then, eventually the costs are going to go up. Feast cost more than Saw did, but Saw II ended up in the five million range for budget. Of course, Saw and Saw II made about $40m combined, so I guess it's all relative.

There is no doubt that John Gulager worked extremely hard on Feast and I think he got a raw deal being stuck with such a brainless script. Again, remember I actually liked the movie, but I have no illusions about what it is. Any sequel that wants to do more than be a punchline needs a better cast, though not necessarily a well known and expensive group, somewhere between five and ten million for a budget, and a writer with a better nose for story and less interest in making a parody of horror with horror elements than actually making a horror film with comedic elements.

That said, Slashfilm has info on two possible sequels for Feast based on info coming out of Comic-Con.