Are Sequels ever as good as the original?

[HBK-aholic]

It seems that companies, once making a good film, get greedy for money and make sequels which are always sub standard to the film we originally loved. Yet, people still buy them on the off chance they will be as good. Which is where the money comes from.

Sequels often just seem to ruin what is a good film. The legacy of films can often be tarnished because a sequel has been made which more often than not is pointless. A couple of films end so that there could be another believably, and the director links it on really well.

One film I'm happy with having sequels is Saw. The story really carried on, and it almost looks like it could just be one film, albeit really long.

What are your opinions on films having sequels? Which have done it well, and which have ruined good films with too much?

 

["THE FIERCE ONE" MIKE W]

I like sequels most of the time.

I just saw Narnia 2 the other day and it was at least twice as good as the first. My favorite movie of all time Terminator 2 is a sequel(obviously) and it was a lot better than the first one. Another good sequel is the chronicles of Riddick, I didn't care for the first one but that one was just great.

On the other hand there have been some bad sequels. I personally did not like Spiderman 3 or x men 3 as much as the previous ones.

Idk it seems to be a matter of taste, not superiority (unless comparing box office numbers)

 

[Ryukuma]

Eh, while sometimes sequels can really make things bad, I can think of a few movies off the top of my head that did fairly well. Ill say Spiderman, Resident Evil, Rocky, Batman (Although I'd say batman is debatable by different standards), And in general I thought most of the friday the 13th did well.

In general I think sequels are very important, because they bring complete closure, or a sense of more adventure. There are a bunch of movies im sure that could have used a sequel because I felt they were open ended, and when the end of a movie comes, I want all to be shown.

But I never blame companies for making sequels, because while they want more money, they usually have plot line that makes sense for them, and I really can't see in the board room the producers saying, how can we make this movie without thinking of new ideas, and still make lots of money.

 

[klunderbunker]

Sequels can be good, but other times can flat out bomb. Usually once a series hits its third movie, it's dead. There are rare exceptions, but for the most part this seems to hold true. A sequel can be good, as long as its not rushed. A well thought out sequel, like Rocky 2 is great. It continues the story, moves the characters forward, and in general fits well with the first. Then take a sequel like The Lion King Two. This is a movie with no need for a sequel at all. The story was totally complete, there was no need for a sequel at all. Overall a sequel can be great as long as it's thought out well enough, but when it's not, it is just bad.

 

[Shocky]

There are plenty of direct sequels that are pretty damn good, if not far superior to the original. However, someone mentioned it before, by the time the third movie rolls around, their is little room for improvment. Only two third movies were superior to the previous two.

Here are some movies I know will be brought up, but still arguable as to whether they were better or not.

Aliens: James Cameron takes us on this helluva ride back to LV426. We get introduced to Colonial Marines and the Alien Queen. Was it better then the original. Ask anyone over the age of 30, and they will tell you know. I'm on the fence about it. I enjoy the action that was this second film, the sheer terror of the first movie and not knowing what the creature was is amazing.

Terminator 2: Again, when people mention sequels that were better, this one comes up almost instantly. Visually, this movie is a delight, and the T-1000 is an amazing creature. James Cameron delivers again in another action packed thrilled movie. However, is it better then the original. Terminator was the first movie to really explore time travel and screwing with time. The love story was pretty damn strong and Michael Beihn played the lead role very well (very unsung actor, even as Hicks in Aliens). Arnie was on as the evil emotionless Terminator, which I think he played much better in this movie then the cuddly kid friendly Terminator in the 2nd film.

Spiderman 2: For some reason, this movie gets a ton of attention,a nd personally, I can't stand it. Doc Ock is about as boring of a bad guy as I've ever seen ont he big screen. Spiderman is just a whiny bitch all throughout this movie. The first movie, while not great, is much better. If you want to talk about an over rated movie series, then look no further then Sam Raimi's adaptations ofthe Webslinger.

Sequels I would say are better.
Scream 2: This movie was a movie about sequels, and pretty much got the forumula done right. The first movie was fun, but flawed. This movie was pretty damn smart, and got it right on concerning third movies, they suck, much like Scream 3 did.

The Two Towers: An amazing movie. Fellowship of the Ring is seen as probably the best of the three, but 45 minutes focusing in the Shire and the Hobbit is much too boring and slow to my taste.

Empire Strikes Back: When it comes to sequels, this is the formula in which all movies should try to make. While Star Wars is a visual treat, it's very forumlaic as far as basic story telling goes. It retells the same story in a different matter, and it worked. How could Empire possibly live up to the hype and hoolah surrounding what was the biggest movie to ever come out?

A change of director's with Irvin Kirschner sealed the deal. Kirsch switched it from a huge special effects movie, to a very personal, and emotional character driven movie. Gone was the large space battles, but more of the personal conflict. This movie is by far the best sequel ever, and probably left us with the best line in cinema history.

Third Movies that are the best:
Return of the King and Revenge of the Sith (If you break the Star wars movies into two trilogy that is.)

There were plenty of sequels that ruined the legacy of a film series.
Look no further then the Matrix Sequels, which turned the Matrix (which was touted as one of the best and most original movies of the 90's) and effectively turned it into a running joke. Batman was killed by Forever and Robin.

I could go on for ever though.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

I am amazed that the first (and hitherto the only prior to "Return of the King") sequel ever to win the Academy Award for Best Picture, The Godfather II, wasn't mentioned.

The film was masterful, a parallel of two different stories, two different times. The original Godfather told the story of how Michael Corleone became like his father. The sequel shows you just how different the two would end up being, and how the backdrop of the changes in American culture affected each man. On the one hand, we see Michael digging himself deeper and deeper, losing his friends and eventually his family, becoming a self-obsessed madman. Claiming he was always just "being strong for his family," he ended up alienating his wife and kids and killing his own brother. On the parallel, we see his father's rise to power in the tough NYC streets after immigration. Truly a masterpeice, as good as the original.

Let's also look at the Evil Dead Series. Evil Dead II was far better than the original, more fun, better direction, etc. Army of Darkness was such a guilty classic. So much fun to watch, and I imagine a blast to make.

National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation was the best of the series by far. After a funny film in the original Vacation and the flop of donkey dung that was European Vacation, this holiday rendition was golden.

I will also remind all of you that Silence of the Lambs was technically a sequel to Manhunter / Red Dragon. Even though SOTL was released before Red Dragon, Manhunter was technically released in the 70's or 80's. We just block it out because of no Anthony Hopkins.

I end my list with Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors. Slasher films tend to have a higher body count the later on you go, but this movie maintained the psychological edge that the original had, only with more answers and better acting overall.

 

[RVDgurl]

National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation was the best of the series by far. After a funny film in the original Vacation and the flop of donkey dung that was European Vacation, this holiday rendition was golden.

Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors. Slasher films tend to have a higher body count the later on you go, but this movie maintained the psychological edge that the original had, only with more answers and better acting overall.

These are 2 phenomenal picks. I agree that they are the best of their respective series. I will also add:

Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers - The original Halloween movie is one of the greatest horror flicks ever, but I have to say that part 4 holds it own- even without Jamie Lee Curtis. The story is great and the acting is good, too. I don't know if part 4 is better than the original, but in my opinion, it's just as good.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade - By far my favorite in the series. The most action, the funniest, and the most exciting quest.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers - The original Halloween movie is one of the greatest horror flicks ever, but I have to say that part 4 holds it own- even without Jamie Lee Curtis. The story is great and the acting is good, too. I don't know if part 4 is better than the original, but in my opinion, it's just as good.

You are my new favorite person! Halloween 4 and 5 were both excellent slasher films. In fact, I was watching Part 6 in Monsters HD the other night, starring Paul Rudd, and loving every minute of it. In the case of those films, though, the fools at the franchise made H2O and Resurrection under the premise that parts 4-6 never occured, and left multiple loose ends. Such a shame.

Slasher films start to blend together after a while, so even as the body counts rise and the special effects increase, it's rare to be as good as the "original" film. Nightmare 3, Halloween 4, Evil Dead 2, and few others rate.

 

[tarp]

Most sequels are crap. There have only been three good sequels in my eyes. Spiderman 2, Godfather 2, and the greatest one ever Rocky 2. I loved how Rocky didn't win the first time but came out on top the 2nd time. As one said just continued the story. As strange as it may seem my favorite movie is ET. I thank God Spielberg has the good sense not to try and do a sequel.

 

[RVDgurl]

You are my new favorite person! Halloween 4 and 5 were both excellent slasher films. In fact, I was watching Part 6 in Monsters HD the other night, starring Paul Rudd, and loving every minute of it. In the case of those films, though, the fools at the franchise made H2O and Resurrection under the premise that parts 4-6 never occured, and left multiple loose ends. Such a shame.

You are so right. H20 and Rsurrection were good. As was Rob Zombie's Halloween, but they obviously were not made to flow with the rest of the films. It sucks because, unlike most slasher series, Halloween kept all the characters intertwined. The characters were related somehow- it wasn't just "dead guy returns again to kill more random strangers". There was always a story behind Michael Myers and all the sequels were built upon the one before it. I think all the Halloween flicks (obviously with exception of Part 3) were great.

 

["THE FIERCE ONE" MIKE W]

You are so right. H20 and Rsurrection were good. As was Rob Zombie's Halloween, but they obviously were not made to flow with the rest of the films. It sucks because, unlike most slasher series, Halloween kept all the characters intertwined. The characters were related somehow- it wasn't just "dead guy returns again to kill more random strangers". There was always a story behind Michael Myers and all the sequels were built upon the one before it. I think all the Halloween flicks (obviously with exception of Part 3) were great.

What was the point of part 3? It had nothing to do with Myers or any of the other characters. Why wasn't it just a separate movie? It still confuses me to this day.

Idk maybe it was just called a sequel to Halloween to sell more tickets. Either way i think it put a blemish on the whole franchise.

 

[Shocky]

[QUOTE="THE FIERCE ONE" MIKE W;456727]What was the point of part 3? It had nothing to do with Myers or any of the other characters. Why wasn't it just a separate movie? It still confuses me to this day.

Idk maybe it was just called a sequel to Halloween to sell more tickets. Either way i think it put a blemish on the whole franchise.[/QUOTE]

I think you just answered your own question. Two minds of thought come up when thinking about this.

1. They tried to capitalize on the franchise of Halloween and use the name to make a subpar movie get some asses into the seats.

2. Maybe, the makers of the franchise were going to a Tales from the Crypt or Creepshow type of idea. Make a new movie but use the generic title of Halloween to sell the movie.

 

[Father:_Polley]

Sometimes I think films are starting to leave themselves very open ended so they can see how the first one fars before committing themselves to the option of a second movie.

However, the one thing that really bugs me about movies, is films (or TV series for that matter) which are clearly only made to last one series, but are kept on because they earn money - Heroes (Sylar stabbed in the end but didn't die), The Matrix (clearly a one off which wanted to earn more money) and (more to my shame), Desperate Housewives (The death of the narrator being the whole story).

some films aren't meant to have sequels - Daredevil should not have had elektra, Matrix should have stopped while they had an amazing film. Same with television (Joey anyone???). If it's over, it is better to leave the public wanting more and remembering what you gave them, than ruining the memories by a desperate grab for money with sequels unless there is an obvious reason to them (LOTR, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Bourne Trilogy etc)

 

[Slim Pickns]

I think you just answered your own question. Two minds of thought come up when thinking about this.

1. They tried to capitalize on the franchise of Halloween and use the name to make a subpar movie get some asses into the seats.

2. Maybe, the makers of the franchise were going to a Tales from the Crypt or Creepshow type of idea. Make a new movie but use the generic title of Halloween to sell the movie.

This was actually the original idea for the franchise. One and two were going to be the only ones to feature Michael Myers. After three tanked, and fans screamed to have Micheal return they kept him for all of them. Check out all the info on the making of the orignal Halloween, there were some interesting stories on what the people went through due to the low budget. The man who played Michael is rumored to have made less than $100 dollars.

As far as other sequels go, I believe according to the AFI's Top 100 movies of all time, the Godfather Part II is the only sequal rated higher than the original. I also would have to say from what I"ve heard, its the only sequel that is genrally regarded as better. Some live up to sequel expectations, but are rarely better.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

It's hard to gauge if a sequal is better than the original in most cases. A lot of the time you're dealing with average films. Saw is entertaining. But it's not some revolutionary film in the horror genre.

Whereas films like the Alien, Godfather, Terminator etc are all down to personal preference. Both the original & sequals are great. There is no wrong answer.

Something like the Two Towers isn't a sequel. It's a section of a really long ass film. It's something to do with the fact that most people can't sit for more than a couple of hours. Yet the majority of people are lazy and do nothing other than look at walls all day anyway. Or something like that.

 

[Straight_Edge_Mystic]

It is hard to get a sequel right. If you do get it right, stop there and do not make a third unless you know it will be good like Indiana Jones, Star Wars (original trilogy), and LOTR. I personally thought X-Men 2 and Spider-Man 2 were the best of those franchises and then X-Men 3 and Spider-Man 3 hit and pretty much sucked. From comicbookmovie.com, Jon Favreau said this, "It's very difficult to keep these franchises from running out of gas after two [movies]," he says. "The high point seems to be the second one, judging by history: If you just look at the consensus in the reviews, you see that X-Men 2 and Spider-Man 2 are sort of seen by the fans as the sort of high point of both franchises." Note that I'm a comic book nerd and so I know the stories and those were not them. Temple of Doom, while it was fun, lacked the realisticness that Raiders and Last Crusade had. I think it really depends on story, cast, director, and direction you want to go. And I think that sequels should always have a connection with the previous film. Take X-Men 3, pretty much had no connection to the 1 or 2 except for characters. You just need to be careful when making a sequel. You have to make sure all the pieces are in the correct position when making a sequel or else it will suck.

 

[WinstonDeckard]

Being a film nut I've discussed this quite a bit with friends and colleagues. Ultimately it's all rather hit and miss. Most sequels seem to be cash grabs iniated not by the original filmmakers but by film executives. Other times they are intricately planned and thought out and are occasionally made into treatment forms (basically a detailed plot summary that can span many pages) sometimes long before the first film has been released (as was the case of the new Batman story arc and the new Iron Man story arc). With that said even the best laid plans can turn into cinematic disaster just as often any film regardless of sequels or not.

Personally my favourites would have include The Godfather II, Empire Strikes Back, Terminator 2, The Devils Rejects, X-Men 2, Silence of the Lambs, Before Sunset, Desperado, The Bourne Ultimatum (which may go down as the best sequel sequel ever), Revenge of the Sith, Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior, Dawn of the Dead (Romero version), Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls, American Pie 2, Blade 2 (the only good movie of series thanks to del torro), The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly (technically a prequel I know), and there are a few I've missed for sure but all of these films either matched bettered or came close to rekindling the magic of the previous films. In fact some were sequels to horrendous films but somehow turned out to be well... good (Blade 2, Revenge of the Sith anyone).