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

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 22:21:03 +0000

@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.

By: Maopheus

Maopheus — Tue, 29 May 2012 21:01:41 +0000

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.

By: Ryan Marlow

Ryan Marlow — Mon, 28 May 2012 00:24:31 +0000

“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.

By: Markus Krenn

Markus Krenn — Sun, 27 May 2012 21:20:24 +0000

@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.

By: Derek McFarland

Derek McFarland — Sun, 27 May 2012 19:36:03 +0000

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

By: Derek McFarland

Derek McFarland — Sun, 27 May 2012 19:34:06 +0000

@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.

By: Owozifa

Owozifa — Sun, 27 May 2012 05:30:48 +0000

@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.

By: PlanBFromOuterSpace

PlanBFromOuterSpace — Sat, 26 May 2012 23:47:07 +0000

#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…

By: laurequillo

laurequillo — Sat, 26 May 2012 18:25:08 +0000

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…)

By: Grant Skene

Grant Skene — Sat, 26 May 2012 17:49:33 +0000

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.

By: Gerry

Gerry — Sat, 26 May 2012 17:09:43 +0000

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.

By: Markus Krenn

Markus Krenn — Sat, 26 May 2012 14:20:48 +0000

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