Why sequels mostly are inferior movies.

[Loki882]

I feel like the problem with third movies is that, well they're third. A lot of the time it feels like the filmmakers have used up all of their best ideas in the first two films. So even if the third isn't really BAD per se (The Dark Knight Rises, The Godfather Part III, Return of the Jedi, etc aren't really bad films imo), they do tend to come across as the weakest of the three.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

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.

For every good sequels, there are half a dozen that don't measure up though. Hence the concept of the pivotal point in ones life, and diminishing returns. Considering the best sequels, most are a continuation of a big, overall story like Star Wars, Toy Story, the Godfather, LotR, and The Before films this holds water.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I feel like the problem with third movies is that, well they're third. A lot of the time it feels like the filmmakers have used up all of their best ideas in the first two films. So even if the third isn't really BAD per se (The Dark Knight Rises, The Godfather Part III, Return of the Jedi, etc aren't really bad films imo), they do tend to come across as the weakest of the three. And it's also REALLY hard to wrap things up in a way that will satisfy everyone.

The only third films that compare to the first two, at least that I can think of offhand, are:

-Toy Story 3.
-Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (which I actually think is better than Temple of Doom).
-LOTR: Return of the King.

I am a big Indy fan, but the Last Crusade is a lesser Raiders. Temple of Doom is its own thing, and fantastic imo. RotK is the worst of the LotR by quite the margin imo. FotR was never topped, though TTT was a great follow up.

 

[Snow Queen]

For every good sequels, there are half a dozen that don't measure up though. Hence the concept of the pivotal point in ones life, and diminishing returns. Considering the best sequels, most are a continuation of a big, overall story like Star Wars, Toy Story, the Godfather and The Before films.

Fair enough. I just still don't feel it's quite as broad as his statement.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

What about Iron Man 3? It's certainly better than 2. I feel like I've just opened the floodgates.

 

[Snow Queen]

What about Iron Man 3? It's certainly better than 2. I feel like I've just opened the floodgates.

Oh, no. Opening up the floodgates would be saying it's better than the first, like I am.

 

[Loki882]

I am a big Indy fan, but the Last Crusade is a lesser Raiders. Temple of Doom is its own thing, and fantastic imo. RotK is the worst of the LotR by quite the margin imo. FotR was never topped, though TTT was a great follow up.

Disagree. Temple of Doom sticks out from the other three, but NOT in a good way. It just doesn't work for me, "different" doesn't automatically equal "better." Even Spielberg has admitted that. And TT is the weakest LOTR films for me. Not bad, but the weakest.

 

[Loki882]

Oh, no. Opening up the floodgates would be saying it's better than the first, like I am.

I don't think so. It's the weakest of the three imo.

 

[DA_Champion]

They typically make sequels to good and great movies, that's why.

 

[Broseph44]

What about Iron Man 3? It's certainly better than 2. I feel like I've just opened the floodgates.

I actually Love 3, and I do really enjoy 2 as well. I dunno people hate on them big time but hey I'm with you I do agree on 3.

 

[Broseph44]

Am I the only person the really loves some of the third films? For example Godfather part 3. Listen I know it's certainly not part 2 and not part 1. But I honestly do think it is really good. It has some amazing moments, when Michael is screaming after his daughter has been shot on the steps of the opera. Man that moment is so sad, and how the cut the audio at the beginning of his scream and it's silent, just wow. I dunno that's just me.

 

[MadVillainy]

Am I the only person the really loves some of the third films? For example Godfather part 3. Listen I know it's certainly not part 2 and not part 1. But I honestly do think it is really good. It has some amazing moments, when Michael is screaming after his daughter has been shot on the steps of the opera. Man that moment is so sad, and how the cut the audio at the beginning of his scream and it's silent, just wow. I dunno that's just me.

I think Godfather 3 is good. As you said not classic on the level of the first 2 parts. But it's not the terrible disaster people make it out to be

 

[DarthSkywalker]

What about Iron Man 3? It's certainly better than 2. I feel like I've just opened the floodgates.

It is better then 2. I don't think it comes close to the first, but I definitely like it.

 

[Quasimod0]

I like IM3 almost as much as the first one. The first film is only better by a little bit, imo.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

The Iron Man franchise peaked with the first film, unfortunately. Same with the new Star Trek films. Brilliant first installments. Hard to sequelize.

 

[MadVillainy]

They arent hard to sequelize. That's the thing that bums me out about STID and the other 2 IM movies.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

They arent hard to sequelize.

They are for the filmmakers.

 

[MadVillainy]

apparently so

 

[The Chris]

What about Iron Man 3? It's certainly better than 2. I feel like I've just opened the floodgates.

I adore Iron Man 3. The first one may be the best but the third one is the one I watch the most. The Shane Black fan in me I guess. Plus I thought the Mandarin twist was genius (and the fact that Mandarin actually exists in the MCU made me love the twist more) and loved Tony having PTSD from the events of The Avengers. Made sense to me since he just fought regular guys in metal suits in his first two films before teaming up with a 95 year old super soldier, a green monster and a god of thunder to take on an army of extraterrestrials.

 

[weezerspider]

I think you can exclude superhero films from this discussion mainly for two reasons:

1. By their nature, they are easily episodical. Most of these characters have over 60 years of material to take from and tons of different antagonists to bring in and what not.
2. Multiple films can fall in the "most crucial moment of the protagonist's life" section. Bruce Wayne can't be Batman forever. We aren't focusing on Bruce as a retired grandpa or as a happy child. Everything from his parent's death to the last time he suits up as Batman could easily be considered the most crucial period in his life. This goes for all superheros.

Now, aside from superhero films, most good sequels are a continuation for the story. For example The Lord Of The Rings trilogy is basically three separate parts of one story, not really episodic. Same could be said for Star Wars. If it's not that, it's most likely something that is easily episodic, for example Indiana Jones. The Godfather II is one of the few sequels that doesn't really fall into that category. And as it's been said, for every good sequel, there is twenty bad ones. It doesn't seem that way right now because almost everything is comic book related right now, which as I said, works well with the episodic format, so I'm not sure sequels have gotten better as a whole, but more so the most popular genre right now is very adaptable to the sequel format.

 

[mclay18]

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.

They overdid it, and people are wising up to it -- one of the key reasons why DWA downsized their too-ambitious slate down to 2 movies a year, rather than 3.

 

[spiderman2]

I know a lot of people say that sequels are inferior but I couldn't disagree more. I think most franchise the 2nd movie is the best and the 3erd movie ends up being a dissapotment. But any way yes a lot of franchise I think have a sequel that is better then the first movie.

Sm 2, toy story 2, terminator 2, ice age 2, shrek 2, asm2, rush hour 2 I think where all the best of the franchise. Then also dawn of the apes was a lot better then rise of the apes and star wars 5, 6 where both better then 4. Finaly dark knight rises was better then both dark night and batman begins.

 

[CGHulk]

They overdid it, and people are wising up to it -- one of the key reasons why DWA downsized their too-ambitious slate down to 2 movies a year, rather than 3.

Dreamworks Animation closed down their studio Pacific Data Images (PDI) and laid off their 500 employees, and more recent they are leasing their Glendale studio from the bank. They are going to outsource Captain Underpants to a Canadian studio and they will still make films at their India and China Studio. The Penguins of Magagascar movie was all animated at their India studio, and Kung Fu Panda 3 is all being done at their China studio.

 

[spider-neil]

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 don't think DoFP is better than X:FC at all but it is a decent movie so doesn't suffer from being a poor rehash.

 

[spider-neil]

They arent hard to sequelize. That's the thing that bums me out about STID and the other 2 IM movies.

I think it's extremely difficult to make a sequel for a BRILLIANT first movie. If the first movie is brilliant there is almost no where for sequel to go. It can be done but it's rare.