Why are superhero sequels (part 2) so good?

[Kevin Roegele]

It's happened with Superman II (1980), Batman Returns (1992), Blade II (2002), X2 (2003), Spider-Man 2 (2004), Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007) and now seemingly, with The Dark Knight (2008) and Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008). All comicbook movies that are equal to, or superior to, the originals.

Why is it that superhero movies reverse the usual trend of sequels being inferior?

 

[November Rain]

To be fair, a lot of people can argue that the originals of all those films you mentioned are better than them.

What makes them interesting is that they are able to mature their characters without spending a large majority of their time telling origin stories.

to be fair, spiderman 2 and superman 2 deal with a lot of similar themes so that's why they are both liked (although i prefer the original spiderman).

not sure what the rave was about x2 to be fair but it was a pretty well put together package.

the dark knight's got joker, in the same way spiderman 2 had ock and superman 2 had zod and batman returns had catwoman and penguin (arguable together more interesting than nicholson's joker) and fantastic four 2 had the silver surfer.

I would also add, the second time round they get bigger budgets and know what part of their audience to tackle while the actors are still enthusiastic about their franchises. They also generally keep the same sort of direction so there's trust and familiarity building up.


or maybe just after the second films, the audiences aren't sick of the characters yet and this comes with the expected third part.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

To be fair, a lot of people can argue that the originals of all those films you mentioned are better than them.

And I'm sure a lot of people will, so to stop this thread degenerating immedietly, let me rephrase; there is a tendency in the superhero genre for the sequels (i.e the part two's) to be of a higher quality than sequels in other genres.

 

[Swordmaster]

The first film in a series is often an origin (not always, but often), and so the threat has to be smaller-scale so that the main character's origin can be highlighted. In a sequel, introductions for returning cast aren't necessary, so the threat level can be raised.

 

[ProfeZZor X]

To be fair, a lot of people can argue that the originals of all those films you mentioned are better than them.

What makes them interesting is that they are able to mature their characters without spending a large majority of their time telling origin stories.

to be fair, spiderman 2 and superman 2 deal with a lot of similar themes so that's why they are both liked (although i prefer the original spiderman).

not sure what the rave was about x2 to be fair but it was a pretty well put together package.

the dark knight's got joker, in the same way spiderman 2 had ock and superman 2 had zod and batman returns had catwoman and penguin (arguable together more interesting than nicholson's joker) and fantastic four 2 had the silver surfer.

I would also add, the second time round they get bigger budgets and know what part of their audience to tackle while the actors are still enthusiastic about their franchises. They also generally keep the same sort of direction so there's trust and familiarity building up.


or maybe just after the second films, the audiences aren't sick of the characters yet and this comes with the expected third part.

Well said, and I agree.

In addition to that, people like cliffhangers. There aren't many films like that around today, but seeing the hero in peril drives the excitement of moviegoers... If memory serves correctly, The Empire Strikes Back was the last known cliffhanger movie made.

 

[I Am The Knight]

It's happened with Superman II (1980), Batman Returns (1992), Blade II (2002), X2 (2003), Spider-Man 2 (2004), Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007) and now seemingly, with The Dark Knight (2008) and Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008). All comicbook movies that are equal to, or superior to, the originals.

Why is it that superhero movies reverse the usual trend of sequels being inferior?

IMO the bolded one was not much better than the first one...

 

[November Rain]

Well said, and I agree.

In addition to that, people like cliffhangers. There aren't many films like that around today, but seeing the hero in peril drives the excitement of moviegoers... If memory serves correctly, The Empire Strikes Back was the last known cliffhanger movie made.

matrix reloaded ended on a cliffhanger and so did back to the future 2 (i feel the best cliffhanger).

 

[Sun_Down]

Sequels have less dull origin ground to cover and can hit the ground running. Plus, the audience already knows the main characters and their motivations, so you can do more with them.

 

[SonikDeath]

They just are.

 

[Gilpesh]

Sequels have less dull origin ground to cover and can hit the ground running. Plus, the audience already knows the main characters and their motivations, so you can do more with them.

Bingo. Two biggest reasons that the sequel ends up being better.

 

[Crowforge]

They've gotten that pesky origin out of the way and they can focus on story and action.

 

[jaymes_e06]

I think the more important question is why do sequels turn out better than the end of the trillogy? I think THAT is because they are more but less. They don't get a huge budget to overuse and can also develop story as well as action and special effects. Case in point Spiderman 2 had a great story (although I prefer the first) and had good action and special effects to add to the story Spidey 3 seemed to have a lot of unnecessary action and special effects that didn't add to the story (and there was no reason for there to be two villains in that movie).

 

[Mutagen]

I think the more important question is why do sequels turn out better than the end of the trillogy? I think THAT is because they are more but less. They don't get a huge budget to overuse and can also develop story as well as action and special effects. Case in point Spiderman 2 had a great story (although I prefer the first) and had good action and special effects to add to the story Spidey 3 seemed to have a lot of unnecessary action and special effects that didn't add to the story (and there was no reason for there to be two villains in that movie).

The story of a hero as we watch him / her evolve and grow is a following of a growing story. Much like a regular story, it has elements that follow certain rules.

The first film is the beginning, introduction, and ends in the rising action.

In the middle of the rising action we begin the second film, were we finish in the climax. Since many films follow this code the climax of the movie also flows with the climax of the series.

The third, less exciting, but nonetheless important, role of slowing the action and ending the story belongs to the conclusion. Some don't follow this rule, and it might leave a bitter taste for a supposed ending of a story.

Not all movie series and even stories go along with these rules, but many do, and I think it has a strong connection to why the second in the series are really well done.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

I think the more important question is why do sequels turn out better than the end of the trillogy? I think THAT is because they are more but less. They don't get a huge budget to overuse and can also develop story as well as action and special effects. Case in point Spiderman 2 had a great story (although I prefer the first) and had good action and special effects to add to the story Spidey 3 seemed to have a lot of unnecessary action and special effects that didn't add to the story (and there was no reason for there to be two villains in that movie).

The problem with the third movie in these series is the director and stars usually aren't interested in doing a fourth, so they try to cram all the unused ideas from the first two films into this last hurrah and often times these ideas don't fit/weren't used for a good reason in the first place. The second movies are better because the origin has been taken care of and the pressure to add too much isn't there yet.

 

[Spider-Fan]

It's happened with Superman II (1980), Batman Returns (1992), Blade II (2002), X2 (2003), Spider-Man 2 (2004), Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007) and now seemingly, with The Dark Knight (2008) and Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008). All comicbook movies that are equal to, or superior to, the originals.

Why is it that superhero movies reverse the usual trend of sequels being inferior?

Can't speak for TDK or Hellboy II yet, but I can't agree with you on Superman II or Blade II. Blade is a better movie than Blade II to me (though not by much), and Superman: The Movie is my 2nd favorite comic movie and the Lester version of Superman II upon rewatching it I feel to be about a 6/10. It is very inconsistant with Superman II and has many annoyances about it. It just fails to be great (while Donner's unfinished Superman II is quite good...if only he could have finished it, then Superman II may have applied).

Anyways, origin movies are formulaic and safe plays by the stuido in order to build the base for the franchise, while the sequel breaks the formula and takes a lot more risks. I think that is really what it boils down to.

Now the 3rd movie problem is normally a creative team change occurs (X3), people are recasted (BF), the producers try to make it bigger and end up overloading the movie (SM3), or the staff is just tired (hard to keep enthusiasm/passion for three movies).

 

[<borkis>]

Sequels have less dull origin ground to cover and can hit the ground running. Plus, the audience already knows the main characters and their motivations, so you can do more with them.

I think you're treading on a common myth here...

Every reviewer seems to harp on them, but I have never found an origin story to be boring (though Ang Lee's Hulk made some odd choices in the first half of the movie) and often it's watching the hero discover their new powers that's most of the fun of the movie. I'd say that origin stories are actually very interesting and exciting to watch.

The second moves seem to do well since it's the first chance they have to tell a complete story based on established characters... for whatever reason, in the Superhero movie world, these have been done very well. Perhaps, in a sense, these are equivalent to the first movie in other franchises and it's not until the 3rd one where they start to become derivative, which leads me to...

It's the third part that seems to drop the wheels off the bus, and these movies seem to suffer from the idea of "one-up-manship". It's gotta be like number 2 but bigger with more "wow factor". If the storytellers just focused on delivering the best story possible without trying to outdo themselves, the audience would generally end up happy. Sure you have to offer something new, but there's nothing wrong with being just as good as the last one. Look at James Bond, it's essentially the same formula over and over again and the audience just keeps on coming.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Spider-Man > Spider-Man 2
Superman > Superman 2