Why sequels mostly are inferior movies.

[:eek:]

This comment really hits the nail on the head on why I personally am unimpressed by most sequels:

We spoke to Travis Knight, who runs the animation company Laika, about sequels in general. His company has never made one, and he specifically said that "when you look at a story, ideally, the story should explore a pivotal moment in the protagonists' life. If we're doing a sequel, by virtue of what it is, it's going to be a diminishment. The second most pivotal moment of his life?"

 

[Lord]

That kind of discussion would be interesting some 10 to 15 years ago, but now, it seems like most major budgeted films are set-ups for sequels.

 

[spider-neil]

Look at it from the studios point of view. A movie is going to cost a LOT of money, tens of millions. So you want to make the return as 'safe' as possible. Therefore you are going to build on something that is already a success or already established. If movies cost 10 million to produce you would see a lot more original movies.

Sequels are here to stay unless the cost of movies come down.

But with that said;
T2
Aliens
Toy Story 3
Godfather 2

Some of the best movies ever made, so there is no excuse for not delivering a satisfying sequel.

 

[Spider-Fan83]

I don't find this to be the case with comic book movies, tho

look at X2, Spider-man 2, TDK, for example, it's usually in the 3rd sequel where things go down hill

but, ironically, most of these example don't really work as stand alone films, they may be the better film, but they don't work without the first movie, as a set up of the characters and setting

the first film is usually the origin story, so, it tends to be kinda slow pace, at the beginning, before you really get into any action... where the sequel can get right into the action from the beginning without all the back story

don't get me wrong origins are important to get right, and can make for a good story

oddly enough I think Iron man kinda broke the mold of this formula, with a strong first movie, a weak 2nd squeal, then pulling off a decent 3rd sequel

very few franchise have managed to make the trifecta for 3 solid movie in a row... trilogies an epics (that are meant to be a 3 {or more} part story) not included

it's hard to judge the MCU films as a whole, as even if some of them are hit or miss, each movie is a piece of a bigger picture, so there not really seen as individual movies... depanding on how you look at it, if they are all squeals to each other, or if you break it down to each solo characters run as it's own thing, or for that matter the Avengers movies as separate, from the solo's, or did it count as a sequel to each of the characters solo films

 

[titansupes]

This is a very outdated complaint. As others have said, ESB, TDK, WoK, GFpII, Spidey 2, Aliens, CA: TWS, T2, TS3 etc.

Why does there only have to be one totally pivotal moment in a characters life and everything else falls second, third etc?

 

[mclay18]

I view the 'one pivotal moment' as a weak excuse as for why Laitka avoids sequels. The thing is with Laitka is that none of their films have done so well that the studio and consumers want a follow-up to their niche films.

Sequels are a necessary evil this day and age. But if there's a good story and a proper director behind them, it can be more than just a cash-in.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I get the general idea, but lets be fair. The vast majority of good sequels are good, potentially better then the first film. But how many are actually great films? How many series have Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back? The Godfather andThe Godfather Part 2? Terminator and Judgment Day? The Toy Story series? Is there more then a handful where even one of the movies is truly great?

People like to big up X2 and SM2, but come on. They are a lot of fun, but they weren't exactly Best Picture level. Even TDK doesn't reach that level. The one great superhero flick is still waiting for a sequel.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I view the 'one pivotal moment' as a weak excuse as for why Laitka avoids sequels. The thing is with Laitka is that none of their films have done so well that the studio and consumers want a follow-up to their niche films.

Sequels are a necessary evil this day and age. But if there's a good story and a proper director behind them, it can be more than just a cash-in.

Is that the standard? Not being a cash in? That is why I agree with the sentiment somewhat. Are there exceptions? Of course. But the sentiment is correct. Heck, the MCU only has one better sequel, and it was 4th attempt.

 

[Lord]

I get the general idea, but lets be fair. The vast majority of good sequels are good, potentially better then the first film. But how many are actually great films? How many series have Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back? The Godfather andThe Godfather Part 2? Terminator and Judgment Day? The Toy Story series? Is there more then a handful where even one of the movies is truly great?

People like to big up X2 and SM2, but come on. They are a lot of fun, but they weren't exactly Best Picture level. Even TDK doesn't reach that level. The one great superhero flick is still waiting for a sequel.

What movie is though? The Godfather Part II is the only one that realy comes to mind, Fellowship of the Rings is usualy considered the best of the trilogy, and Empire Strikes Back wasn't exactly Best Picture material either.

 

[Quasimod0]

Why can a protagonist only have one pivotal moment in his life? Do we not have many such moments in our own lives? We get married, have a child, get a new job. Each of those things could provide the story for a film. I don't see any reason why a character's journey should always stop after one film.

 

[Octoberist]

It's about context here, so I really don't think it's worth choosing sides because there is no right or wrong.

If a superhero property, pulp crimes stories, or episodic stories with characters like Bond or Indiana Jones, then that breaks Travis Knight's perspective on the matter.

But it's a coming of age story (More American Graffitti) it's best to leave it as a definite one shot. If ITS specifically about one thing about a character's life. That's why I think the American Pie sequels were crap; its no longer about coming of age but just 'hanging out with the characters a bit more' and you lose a lot due to that.

 

[Octoberist]

I view the 'one pivotal moment' as a weak excuse as for why Laitka avoids sequels. The thing is with Laitka is that none of their films have done so well that the studio and consumers want a follow-up to their niche films.

Sequels are a necessary evil this day and age. But if there's a good story and a proper director behind them, it can be more than just a cash-in.

You make it sound like it's a bad thing for Laika. And for their sake, it's A GOOD thing they're not doing sequels. Makes them stand out from the pack, along with their animation style.

Dreamwork's does tons of sequels, but they're struggling to make a profit.

 

[Loki882]

Well there have been quite a few good/great sequels. Especially in comic book films I've noticed, the second films often end up being the best. As for why other sequels are underwhelming, there are several factors imo:

-They're often rushed out.
-The creators told a story that they wanted to tell in the first movie, but have a hard come coming up with new/interesting ideas for a sequel.
-They often try to rehash the first, but it's usually inferior.

 

[Loki882]

Look at it from the studios point of view. A movie is going to cost a LOT of money, tens of millions. So you want to make the return as 'safe' as possible. Therefore you are going to build on something that is already a success or already established. If movies cost 10 million to produce you would see a lot more original movies.

Sequels are here to stay unless the cost of movies come down.

But with that said;
T2
Aliens
Toy Story 3
Godfather 2

Some of the best movies ever made, so there is no excuse for not delivering a satisfying sequel.

Heck I'd throw Toy Story 2 on the list of "excellent sequels" as well. Kung Fu Panda 2 and How to Train Your Dragon 2 were also really damn good.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

What movie is though? The Godfather Part II is the only one that realy comes to mind, Fellowship of the Rings is usualy considered the best of the trilogy, and Empire Strikes Back wasn't exactly Best Picture material either.

If Star Wars was best picture material, and it was nominated, The Empire Strikes Back most certainly was as well.

 

[DA_Champion]

Back in the 1970s and 1980s and through 2000 it was all right for blockbusters to be nominated for best picture.

Star Wars, Rocky, Gladiator, Braveheart, Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, ET The Extraterrestrial, all got nominations, it was more common then.

In recent years there's been a few. After the Dark Knight snub, they extended the nominations to 10 and thus nominations were given to Avatar, District 9, Inception. Gravity also got a nomination and would have had it even in the old system.

However, we saw earlier this year that not a single one of Snowpiercer, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Interstellar got no BP nominations, we're back to the previous equilibrium.

 

[Octoberist]

If Star Wars was best picture material, and it was nominated, The Empire Strikes Back most certainly was as well.

Yeah people forgot that Star Wars itself was nominated for tons of Oscar noms:

(Star Wars) garnered numerous accolades after its release. Star Wars won six competitive Academy Awards at the 50th Academy Awards: Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing, Best Original Score, Best Sound and Best Visual Effects. A Special Achievement for Sound Effects Editing went to sound designer Ben Burtt.[139] Additional nominations included Alec Guinness for Best Actor in a Supporting Role, George Lucas for Best Original Screenplay, Best Director, and Best Picture, which were instead awarded to Woody Allen's Annie Hall.

People have forgotten too that Beverly Hills Cop had an Oscar Nom for best original screenplay. I mean, it's a classic comedy but I didn't know it was that highly regarded.

 

[Octoberist]

Back in the 1970s and 1980s and through 2000 it was all right for blockbusters to be nominated for best picture.

Star Wars, Rocky, Gladiator, Braveheart, Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, ET The Extraterrestrial, all got nominations, it was more common then.

In recent years there's been a few. After the Dark Knight snub, they extended the nominations to 10 and thus nominations were given to Avatar, District 9, Inception. Gravity also got a nomination and would have had it even in the old system.

However, we saw earlier this year that not a single one of Snowpiercer, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Interstellar got no BP nominations, we're back to the previous equilibrium.

You're right, and that's why they just go back to the 6-slotted system.

 

[The Batman]

The best sequels always tell a different kind of story from the first. Instead of rehashing a pivotal moment in a character's life (Hangover 2), tell a different one.

For example, each film in The Dark Knight Trilogy represents a phase in Bruce Wayne's life (In "Batman Begins", there's several), and have a pivotal moment for that phase.

 

[MadVillainy]

Well there have been quite a few good/great sequels. Especially in comic book films I've noticed, the second films often end up being the best. As for why other sequels are underwhelming, there are several factors imo:

-They're often rushed out.
-The creators told a story that they wanted to tell in the first movie, but have a hard come coming up with new/interesting ideas for a sequel.
-They often try to rehash the first, but it's usually inferior.

This is what I think. Especially the 2nd. You look at most of the great sequels, there was enough story left after the first one to continue on

But when you force it that's when it sucks.

 

[Octoberist]

Besides 22 Jump Street, Hollywood keeps on making sequels to comedies. The track record is the worst in that genre.

Unless..they TREAT it as another episode of a TV Show. I think 22 Jump Street worked because the writing was as funny if not funnier than the original film, and Lord/Miller came from TV so that helps.

 

[MadVillainy]

I also think that 22 worked because they played it as a joke/all the meta humor.

Can you imagine 22 working as well if they didn't reference or acknowledge that theyre doing the same thing as the first one just in a more expensive way?
Im not even that big of a fan of meta humor, but I think it helped 22 a whole lot

 

[chamber-music]

Well there have been quite a few good/great sequels. Especially in comic book films I've noticed, the second films often end up being the best. As for why other sequels are underwhelming, there are several factors imo:

-They're often rushed out.
-The creators told a story that they wanted to tell in the first movie, but have a hard come coming up with new/interesting ideas for a sequel.
-They often try to rehash the first, but it's usually inferior.

I hate this one in particular.

If your making a sequel atleast try and have some character/story progression.

 

[Octoberist]

I think that self-awareness was beneficial to 22.

 

[Hush]

I usually see the third film as the weakest film. Jedi, SM3, IM3 being examples of that. Then what there are examples of awesome #3's too. I don't think Sequels diminish the first or second film, many times I feel they are just continuing or adding too a story and informing us more about the character. Sequels are a great idea that are squandered by studio greed.