Open Forum Friday: Why Are Sequels Always Worse Than the Original?

Posted by on May 25th, 2012   Filed under: Open Forum Friday

With all the outrage over Hollywood remakes over the past few years, it’s easy to forget that it wasn’t that long ago that we were hearing the same “lack of originality” argument being made about sequels. Back in the ’80s, Hollywood had started to realize the value of branding and name recognition and they went to town creating sequels to anything that was even remotely successful. Back then, it was almost a given that the sequel would automatically be terrible, but over time, some examples were able to prove that assumption wrong. That being said, it still seems to be a general rule that the sequel is never as good as the original. But why?

I guess the obvious explanation is that most sequels don’t have a good reason to exist outside of commercial interests and the continued storyline is usually just tacked on after the fact, if not a complete rehash. (Sequels that are a part of a trilogy or a larger series of films can sometimes be exempt from sucking.) Still, you’d think that when it comes to sequels, actors would have a stronger grasp of their characters and the filmmakers might have a bigger budget and opportunities to do all the things they couldn’t do with the original. What do you think? Is it true that most sequels never live up to the original? When are sequels usually the most successful? Does the original creative team need to be involved or can new faces sometimes keep things fresh? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.



  • Derek McFarland

    Some sequels are better than the originals. Aliens, The Empire Strikes Back, Terminator 2, The Godfather 2….

  • antho42

    “Aliens” and “Terminator”
    Controversial nominations, Derek McFarland.

  • Mike H

    For the most part, sequels do suck large moose cock, and I think the reason why is that because the writers of the “originals” blow their load the first go around, they dont have enough in them for another climax!!!!!

  • Rick V

    The Dark Knight, Evil Dead 2, Spiderman 2, X2

  • As I said in the write-up (and as Kevin Smith once argued), trilogies don’t necessarily count. The ones that don’t suck are usually part of a multi-film story arc.

  • Kasper

    But a lot of these trilogies were never envisioned as such. Sure Spider-Man 2 or The Dark Knight might not count, but Star Wars was never meant to have a sequel and so is the case with a lot of other great second entries in trilogies.

  • alechs

    Gremlins 2? Crank 2? I think a case can be made for sequels where the director is allowed to just go crazy.

    This is a stretch but depending on your preference of chambera films, Kurosawa’s Sanjuro could seem more charming than Yojimbo.

    Can anyone vouch for Before Sunset?

  • alechs

    Oh, I forgot 28 Weeks Later—that is a sequel I can stand behind.

  • Some good sequels tend to bend or change genres. The Dark Knight was a crime epic over Batman Begins hero origin story. Terminator 2 was a action thriller while the first was a horror film (see Alien Aliens as well). Some films simply run into the trouble of trying to replicate the predecessors style and are unable to reproduce the originality. Take Terminator 3: it tried to repeat the showcase action from T2, failed because Mastow aint Cameron.

  • cap

    Star Wars was never meant to have a sequel? I seem to remember Lucas saying in making of documentary that he wrote a story that outgrew just one movie so he took the first part of it and made Star Wars with intentions of making episodes V and VI later if the first one was successful. So… what’s that all about?

  • curtis talls

    Evil Dead 2
    Empire Strikes Back
    Toy Story 3
    Star Trek II
    Spider Man II
    Dark Knight
    X Men 2

    And lets not forget

    Leprechaun 5 in the Hood

  • Anthony

    Rescuers Down Under.

  • Markus Krenn

    Mad Mission II (Aces go Places II)
    Nightmare on Elm Street III
    Dawn of the Dead (original)
    Batman Returns
    Shock Threatment
    Missing in Action II
    Bloodsport III
    Rocky III

    and of course some of the above mentioned ones

  • Gerry

    Bad sequels are generally bad because they’re cash ins.

    This is especially true when they have to alter the premise / world / set of rules they’re based in / on to accommodate a second film that was never envisaged but becomes necessary after the financial success of the first.

    There can be great sequels, as mentioned above.

    I’ve little interest in Gremlins but love Gremlins 2.

  • Grant Skene

    I would add to some of the titles already mentioned:

    Bride of Frankenstein (1935) which is a much more polished upgrade to Frankenstein probably as Hollywood had now learned how to make sound movies by that time. I find the original a little stilted.

    A Very Brady Sequel. I personally prefer the movies to the camp tv show, and loved the way Jan was revealed to be a bit of a psycho. (Going on memory here, only watched the movie once, and not saying it is a classic by any means, just better than the first one.)

    Clearly, most sequels are just made to cash-in on success and make the mistake of just duplicating the original. The ones that work are where the original director and/or writer gets to explore the characters more fully. The rare time a third or later movie works (pre-planned trilogies excepted) is when a new creative team comes in to blast away the sacred cows of the original but with some respect for the inspiration.

  • laurequillo

    I think we should not count all the superhero movies, because normally the first one is an origin story, and the second one is the one they can use to really make a more interesting movie, without all the origin crap part (Spiderman 2, The Dark Knight, X-men 2…)

  • #6— I think Kasper is right. In most cases, whether the idea was to continue or not, there wouldn’t have been a sequel or series if the first one hadn’t been successful, and the filmmakers knew it. For instance, The Matrix was pretty self-contained. It could have ended after one installment and been perfectly fine. It only became a trilogy after the first film was successful, and even then only after WB commited to back-to-back sequels later on.

    Speaking of which, what would consider to be a TRUE trilogy or series? I would look at Lord of the Rings, because they committed to three films from the beginning, or the Harry Potter series, because even if the first hadn’t been successful, it was based on a series of books that was (almost) in the can. Once the first one was a hit, it was full speed ahead, even if the first film could have just on it’s own. Someone mentioned the current Batman films as being a trilogy, but remember, Batman Begins was the first Batman film after Batman and Robin. It was FAR from a sure thing, no one knew what to expect, and I’d bet money that no one would have imagined that Bane would be playing a hand in the endgame after what Schumacher had done with him in his film.

    #13— To be fair, Missing in Action 2 was a prequel :p Also, I don’t think it was re-hashing the first Missing in Action so much as it was knocking off the previous year’s Rambo: First Blood Part 2.

    #16— I agree about the superhero movies. The first films are often as unoriginal as it gets. Sure, the origins might be updated or changed a bit for the films, but it’s still usually a case of taking a little bit from column A and mixing it with a tad of column B. I’m not saying that they’re bad, as a very entertaining story can still come of it, but if you already know the characters, there isn’t much in the way of anything new for you besides getting to see it brought to life. Batman Begins and Iron Man DID flip the formula a little though. However, now we just have to put up with more movies that want to be like THAT…

  • Owozifa

    @5 Sean:

    I think you could argue that rather than say sequels suck unless they are in trilogies or multi-film story arcs, that when sequels suck they don’t get turned into trilogies or multi-film story arcs because they didn’t do well enough to warrant it.

  • Derek McFarland

    @antho42 All most sequels that do better than the original, are considered controversial nominations.

    B.T.W. Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior was way better than the first.

  • Derek McFarland

    Correction….. Almost all sequels that do better than the original are considered controversial nominations.

  • Markus Krenn

    @PlanBFromOuterSpace It’s still a sequel to me.
    And if we go by your rule then Evil Dead 2 wouldnt count also because its a remake.

  • Ryan Marlow

    “Some good sequels tend to bend or change genres.”

    ^This. As long as the bones from the original plot are under the sequel’s meat then I think this may be a winning formula.

  • Maopheus

    The successful sequels tend to be those for movies that were small budget, or less successful, or otherwise gained a cult following, or success on video. The clearest example was for Terminator 2. Cameron bided his time, made other movies, and waited for the popularity of the original to build. In essence, though, the plot of T2 mimics the original. A cyborg assassin from the future comes back to kill someone who will be a threat to the future, while opposition forces send back a protector for that person. Of course, the twist is that both assassin and protector are Terminators. A sequel can be good, even if it retells the original’s plot, but in a new and fresh way. Of course, you can only do it so many times before it becomes stale. I think the reason why most sequels fail is that they simply attempt to regurgitate the original with little creativity.
    The Road Warrior was another great example of a sequel not only equaling it’s original but surpassing it. But, the beauty of the Road Warrior was that you really did not need to see the original, or even know that there was a sequel.
    However I don’t see that situation happening anymore, where an original can kind of just sneak in, and then a few years later, the sequel comes out and is huge. Almost every movie is exposed very well, usually overexposed to a microscopic level. Its existence is followed from concept to script to pre-production to production. Sequels to movies are greenlit before the original even comes out, or barely just after. It seems that a MIB3 is the very rare exception nowadays where it’s predecessor came out more than 3-4 years ago.

  • Jim

    @Kasper, Star Wars was never meant to have a sequel? What are you smoking? Star Wars was always meant to be a trilogy.

    I’d say that the sequels are better than the original a lot of the time. Just a few examples:
    Terminator 2
    Empire Strikes back
    Toy Story 2
    Dark Knight
    Back To The Future 2
    Aliens
    X-Men 2
    Short Circuit 2
    The Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers
    Spider-Man 2
    Star Trek: First Contact

    One movie that I can easily think of that was better than the sequel was The Matrix.

    @Markus Krenn: Batman Returns was NOT better than the original. Both of them sucked but at least the first one had one redeeming quality: Jack Nicholson was excellent as The Joker. Batman Returns had NO redeeming qualities except maybe Michelle Pfeiffer in tight leather which is not enough to save a movie.