Why sequels mostly are inferior movies.

[spider-neil]

I think for a sequel to work you have to have an interesting story to tell otherwise it is a forgettable cash grab. I think the characters are the most important aspect and their journey rather than the plot needing to be new and fresh. T2 is pretty much a beat for beat recreation of Terminator but it didn't matter as the villain was new and fresh and the characters of John, Sarah and the Terminator was so engaging. I don't think there is an excuse for poor sequels. For instance I thought the Wachowski's got the sequels for Matrix BADLY wrong and seemed to forget what made The Matrix so great.

 

[MadVillainy]

Yeah third films are where things get even more dicey. I feel like, even if theyre good movies or at least if I like them, that 3rd installments are the worst. I think the only exception in my book are Return of the King and Revenge of the Sith which I think are the best of their respective trilogies and I guess Before Midnight and Toy Story 3 which I consider on par with the other 2 movies

 

[spider-neil]

Movie 1: Introduction
Movie 2: Escalation
Movie 3: Conclusion

Very difficult to make a satisfying conclusion AND build on the escalation of the 2nd movie. Good third movies are as rare as four leaf clovers.

 

[MadVillainy]

Besides the ones I mentioned above I can only think of a few good final installments of trilogies
Back to the Future III
The Dark Knight Rises
Ocean's Thirteen
Return of the Jedi
Army of Darkness
The Worlds End (if that counts)
Bourne Ultimatum

But those are just my preference.

 

[chamber-music]

I think for a sequel to work you have to have an interesting story to tell otherwise it is a forgettable cash grab. I think the characters are the most important aspect and their journey rather than the plot needing to be new and fresh. T2 is pretty much a beat for beat recreation of Terminator but it didn't matter as the villain was new and fresh and the characters of John, Sarah and the Terminator was so engaging. I don't think there is an excuse for poor sequels. For instance I thought the Wachowski's got the sequels for Matrix BADLY wrong and seemed to forget what made The Matrix so great.

The character development and advancement was key for T2. Sarah Connors had drastically changed since the first film, John Connors was alive and the Terminator had become a surrogate father to him. The plot may of been the same but the characters were not.

 

[Boy Scout]

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

I'm pretty sure most human beings can recall several pivotal moments in their lives. One doesn't necessarily diminish the other, especially if the moments in question have nothing in common.

Therefore, sequels aren't (necessarily) inherently bad or diminishing things.

 

[Snow Queen]

Because only one important event can ever occur in a person's life.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

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.

This is a very good point. There are genres that lend themselves to the serialized nature of sequels and such.

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

And I really hope they do this.

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.

I agree they like to snub such genres, but outside of TDK and potentially Interstellar how many real snubs are there? I adore Snowpiercer and GotG, but they aren't exactly great films imo. TWS would have been the best shout of that group imo.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Because only one important event can ever occur in a person's life.

That isn't the idea. It is the idea that if you tell the pinnacle story of ones life, what is next that isn't a letdown? I completely get this. This is exactly why so many sequels are anticlimaxes that involve a lot of trying to top what came the first time, if the first film was actually really good.

 

[Broseph44]

Besides the ones I mentioned above I can only think of a few good final installments of trilogies
Back to the Future III
The Dark Knight Rises
Ocean's Thirteen
Return of the Jedi
Army of Darkness
The Worlds End (if that counts)
Bourne Ultimatum

But those are just my preference.

Back to the Future III, thank you for saying that. I swear I think that installment gets more flack then it deserves. I love part 3, I actually think I prefer it over part 2. I love the old west setting and how the whole films plays out and wraps up the trilogy. Props to you sir

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The problem with Back to the Future 2 and 3, is they don't have much to say. There is a lot of rehash. If they had taken the ideas the two sequels and made one film, it would have been a lot stronger imo.

 

[Broseph44]

Fair enough, I dunno I still love them and find them fun. Especially 3 over 2.

 

[Snow Queen]

That isn't the idea. It is the idea that if you tell the pinnacle story of ones life, what is next that isn't a letdown? I completely get this. This is exactly why so many sequels are anticlimaxes that involve a lot of trying to top what came the first time, if the first film was actually really good.

The statement he made wasn't about the pinnacle story of someone's life, it was "the story should explore a pivotal moment in the protagonist's life." The key thing here though is a pivotal moment. Not everything needs a sequel (none of their company's works surely), but there are times where there is more to the story or other stories in this person's life to explore. For example, the Before Trilogy. The first explores a pivotal moment in their lives, their first meeting, and the sequels each explore them at different points in their lives and each one is a big moment in their life. Or The Dark Knight Trilogy, where each film puts Bruce Wayne at a different pivotal moment in his life. Telling another story with these characters doesn't diminish the importance of the first (or second, in the case of the third film in each series), nor is the sequel necessarily the second most pivotal moment of their life like Knight says. It's simply another pivotal moment or the next one. Lives often don't come down to one single pivotal moment, often they're built of a number of important decisions or changes in one's life. There are bad sequels of course (Home Alone 2 is a go to example of an unnecessary rehash), but I don't think it's the way he says.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Fair enough, I dunno I still love them and find them fun. Especially 3 over 2.

Oh, I love them and wouldn't give them up. But as films, they don't hold a candle to the first.

 

[Broseph44]

Also Blackman I see you mentioned army of darkness. Speaking of the evil dead series while 1 is indeed awesome, I'd say Evil Dead 2 is superior.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The statement he made wasn't about the pinnacle story of someone's life, it was "the story should explore a pivotal moment in the protagonist's life." The key thing here though is a pivotal moment. Not everything needs a sequel (none of their company's works surely), but there are times where there is more to the story or other stories in this person's life to explore. For example, the Before Trilogy. The first explores a pivotal moment in their lives, their first meeting, and the sequels each explore them at different points in their lives and each one is a big moment in their life. Or The Dark Knight Trilogy, where each film puts Bruce Wayne at a different pivotal moment in his life. Telling another story with these characters doesn't diminish the importance of the first (or second, in the case of the third film in each series), nor is the sequel necessarily the second most pivotal moment of their life like Knight says. It's simply another pivotal moment or the next one. Lives often don't come down to one single pivotal moment, often they're built of a number of important decisions or changes in one's life. There are bad sequels of course (Home Alone 2 is a go to example of an unnecessary rehash), but I don't think it's the way he says.

I think it was though. Hence the point on diminishing returns on the second most pivotal of someones life. This is why sequels involve so much escalation. Trying to top what came before.

Sequel bating is one of the reason we don't always get full stories anymore.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Not superhero sequels. They tend to be better. Because the director is usually free from the shackles of the DOF*, has more confidence vested by the studio and himself, bigger budget, and stuff.

* = Dreaded Origin Formula or Debilitating Origin Formula

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Not superhero sequels. They tend to be better. Because the director is usually free from the shackles of the DOF*, has more confidence vested by the studio and himself, bigger budget, and stuff.

* = Dreaded Origin Formula or Debilitating Origin Formula

How many superhero sequels are better? MCU has 1 so far. DC had TDK and arguably Superman 2. Spider-Man 2 was better, Spider-Man 3 was horrible. X-Men has a few, but then again the first films in X-Men and Origins weren't exactly all that good.

 

[terry78]

A common trope for sequels is to have a former antagonist join forces with the protagonist for a common goal. They do it over and over yet think they're being edgy with it. It's like some kinda dun-dun-dunnnnnn reveal.

 

[Broseph44]

I dunno why but I guess was just thinking because of this topic, son of the mask. One of the worst and completely unecessary sequels ever hahaha.

 

[Snow Queen]

I think it was though. Hence the point on diminishing returns on the second most pivotal of someones life. This is why sequels involve so much escalation. Trying to top what came before.

Sequel bating is one of the reason we don't always get full stories anymore.

Again, I don't feel everything comes down to one pivotal moment. Lives can have a number of these. Some stories should be left alone, however others I don't think there are any issues showing characters at other big moments in their lives. As I brought up before, The Before Trilogy, The Dark Knight Trilogy and, to add a third, the Toy Story Trilogy all do a great job at this.

Oh, definitely. I've kind of exhausted my complaints about that at this point though.

 

[Snow Queen]

How many superhero sequels are better? MCU has 1 so far. DC had TDK and arguably Superman 2. Spider-Man 2 was better, Spider-Man 3 was horrible. X-Men has a few, but then again the first films in X-Men and Origins weren't exactly all that good.

I'd say MCU has two myself and that DC has two as well. Iron Man 3 and Winter Soldier for MCU and TDK and TDKR for DC.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

How many superhero sequels are better? MCU has 1 so far. DC had TDK and arguably Superman 2. Spider-Man 2 was better, Spider-Man 3 was horrible. X-Men has a few, but then again the first films in X-Men and Origins weren't exactly all that good.

I was talking about first sequels.

Some others: X2, Teh Wolverine, Batman Returns (to me, at least), DOFP (If we consider First CLass saga as another trilogy)

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Movie 1: Introduction
Movie 2: Escalation
Movie 3: Conclusion

Very difficult to make a satisfying conclusion AND build on the escalation of the 2nd movie. Good third movies are as rare as four leaf clovers.

Basically in the typical Three Act Story, all the interesting stuff happens in the Second Act. That is where the real development and crucial choices are made. The Third Act is the results of those actions. Spread over a trilogy, this often results in a third film in which not a lot actually happens.

Nearly all of the best third films are either from series with a more episodic format (ex. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, Goldfinger, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade) or part of a larger series where the actual conclusion happens in a later film (ex. Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban).

There are other things like the cast and crew starting to get worn out by that point, but the biggest problem is that is hard to write a satisfactory conclusion to a story and most often the story is concluded in the third film.

 

[Broseph44]

I was talking about first sequels.

Some others: X2, Teh Wolverine, Batman Returns (to me, at least), DOFP (If we consider First CLass saga as another trilogy)

I also prefer BR to Barman 89. Big time.