Why sequels mostly are inferior movies.

[Erzengel]

I think over the past 20 something years sequels being better than the original is a more common thing.

Before 1992, what are the sequels that are usually seen as better?

Godfather 2, Empire Strikes Back, Aliens, Terminator 2, Wraith of Khan?

Post 1992, I know it's a lot of comic book movies.
Spider-Man 2, X-2, TWS, DOFP, TDK, Hellboy 2 and Blade 2. Non comic book movies, Toy Story 2, personally the Two Towers I feel is better than Fellowship and Bourne Supremacy over Identity.

 

[Hush]

I think Blade 2 was only better in production value, overall it and Trinity were weaker than the first.

 

[chamber-music]

Skyfall is the third instalment of Daniel Craig's run and in some peoples eyes is better than the previous two instalments.

Prisoner of Azkaban is seen as the best of the Harry Potter franchise.

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.

Marty learns to not lose his temper whenever anyone calls him a coward and Doc gets laid. What more do you need to say

 

[writer0327]

Story wise, unless the first film is written to have a sequel, most sequels pale to the original. I think the type of genre has a lot to do with it.

I wouldn't consider films made from books like the LOTR and Harry Potter franchises in this conversion, only because the authors planned out a series and intended to write each subsequent story. The writers and directors of the film aren't really challenged to do anything that the other than follow the already successful book series.

Comedy films especially have a hard time because the sequel is usually just a slightly different take on the same jokes that made the original funny. A sequel should be doing something completely different than the first film, it shouldn't be just more of the same in a slightly different way.

Action films like Die Hard usually throw the same hero in a similar situation that the hero went through in the last film. We don't need to see the same thing done over again. The only reason (non-monetary reason, that is) to have a sequel honestly is to show development and character growth from the original film. That's why comic book movies usually work because the lead character is undergoing some serious life changes from the previous film, which is usually an origin story. Along with a new villain and developing story circumstances, the sequel continues developing the character arc of the superhero and showing the changes he/she is experiencing as he/she settles into his/her new role. You see this in Spidey 2, The Dark Knight, X2.

Horror sequels have historically been like action sequels. The ghost or the killer or whatever has a new batch of victims to dispatch of in the most ludicrous way possible. However, the recent films have sort of changed that idea. Scream told a continuing story. So does Paranormal Activity and Insidious. It doesn't necessarily make a better sequel (I actually like Insidious 2 over the original) but normally it keeps it from sucking out loud.

 

[Hush]

Prisoner of Azkaban is seen as the best of the Harry Potter franchise.

Personally I hate the 3rd as it butchered the book in my opinion.

 

[Rocketman]

I don't really agree with the premise of the OP. In my opinion, it's usually the opposite.

T2: Judgment Day
The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight Rises
Toy Story 2
Toy Story 3
The Empire Strikes Back
The Godfather Part II
Shrek 2
Hellboy II: The Golden Army
Christmas Vacation
Dawn of the Dead
Spider-Man 2
X2: X-Men United
The Bourne Ultimatum
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Evil Dead 2
Aliens

 

[Octoberist]

Personally I hate the 3rd as it butchered the book in my opinion.

And the 5th movie didn't'?

 

[Hush]

And the 5th movie didn't'?

Oh it did too don't get me wrong, I know that. The Potter series is actually one I'd love to rebooted in about 30 years with more book accurate adaptions. Have the original cast involved in some way just I need/want better adaptions.

 

[gwynplaine]

The Road Warrior, Evil Dead 2 etc.

 

[writer0327]

And the 5th movie didn't'?

The 3rd movie, although it played fast and loose with the story and left out a lot of important details, captured the tone and mood of the books better than any of the other movies up to that point or afterwards. The 5th film didn't do either plot or tone any justice. I always felt the OotP was the second darkest of the 7 books and the film really didn't feel that dark.

 

[Octoberist]

God I love the 3rd movie.

 

[writer0327]

Oh it did too don't get me wrong, I know that. The Potter series is actually one I'd love to rebooted in about 30 years with more book accurate adaptions. Have the original cast involved in some way just I need/want better adaptions.

Reboot it on TV. Can't really tell the entire story in film.

 

[Hush]

Reboot it on TV. Can't really tell the entire story in film.

I wouldn't mind that so long as it was adapted with the seriousness of GOT and a bigger budget.

 

[Marvin]

I think Blade 2 was only better in production value, overall it and Trinity were weaker than the first.

Awesome.

 

[Hush]

Awesome.

Glad you agree. I didn't not enjoy 2 & 3 but they are so much lower in storytelling quality.

 

[writer0327]

I wouldn't mind that so long as it was adapted with the seriousness of GOT and a bigger budget.

I think the BBC could knock it out of the park. The budget would need to be enormous of course.

 

[redhawk23]

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?

Alien aside, all of your examples are adaptations of previously serialized source material. TV shows, comic book series. Telling many chapters is baked into those stories so they work well as movies in the current trend of increasing serialization in film.

 

[redhawk23]

I don't really agree with the premise of the OP. In my opinion, it's usually the opposite.

T2: Judgment Day
The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight Rises
Toy Story 2
Toy Story 3
The Empire Strikes Back
The Godfather Part II
Shrek 2
Hellboy II: The Golden Army
Christmas Vacation
Dawn of the Dead
Spider-Man 2
X2: X-Men United
The Bourne Ultimatum
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Evil Dead 2
Aliens

This is the fairly standard list of great sequels but they are in the minority of sequels overall. Sequels tend much towards rehash of the Ghostbusters 2 variety.

 

[Octoberist]

Alien aside, all of your examples are adaptations of previously serialized source material. TV shows, comic book series. Telling many chapters is baked into those stories so they work well as movies in the current trend of increasing serialization in film.

I would include ESB because you really thought Lucas would image Star Wars would be that big?

 

[writer0327]

Ghostbusters 2
Gremlins 2
The Matrix Revolutions
Karate Kid 2
The Mummy Returns
Rush Hour 2
Anchorman 2
Highlander 2
Die Hard 2
Dumb and Dumberer (I guess it's a prequel, but still...)
XXX 2 (starring Ice Cube)
Mission Impossible 2
Back To the Future 2
Beverly Hills Cop 2

I can honestly say I enjoyed the first installments of these films, but the second time around the creators made far lesser movies.

 

[Octoberist]

Ghostbusters 2
Gremlins 2
The Matrix Revolutions
Karate Kid 2
The Mummy Returns
Rush Hour 2
Anchorman 2
Highlander 2
Die Hard 2
Dumb and Dumberer (I guess it's a prequel, but still...)
XXX 2 (starring Ice Cube)
Mission Impossible 2
Back To the Future 2
Beverly Hills Cop 2

I can honestly say I enjoyed the first installments of these films, but the second time around the creators made far lesser movies.

How dare you put Gremlins 2 or Back to the Future 2 into that list. They rock. And with the likes of Highlander 2 no less? Shame you ya!

 

[jmc]

I think the thing is most films are built to explore the main character in their entirely the first time around. As such there's generally not a lot of new discoveries to be made in terms of character development unless something significant has happened to the character between movies. The best sequels are generally the ones that shift focus onto a different character because it presents the best creative opportunities. It's not that the main character is no longer important, it's just a large portion of who that character is was already explored in the last movie.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

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.

That is often true for third films as well. Nolan ran into that problem with TDKR. This is a true story, but when I walked out of TDK the first time I was a little depressed because I knew the sequel would never be able to match it.

 

[Taarna]

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

How many movies really need sequels? Why do most of them fail to live up to expectations? Its about the $$$$$$

Producers see a quick way to make cash. As such the creative parts which made the original very good at times are often hosed aside.

I also think some of the actors don't give it their best on sequels.

 

[writer0327]

How dare you put Gremlins 2 or Back to the Future 2 into that list. They rock. And with the likes of Highlander 2 no less? Shame you ya!

Haha, yeah maybe for some, but those films were still inferior to the originals, that was my point.