# Most Successful Sequels? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [November 5, 2017, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-successful-sequels/800766 "2017-11-05T14:00:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2017, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-successful-sequels/800766/21 "2017-11-06T02:09:49Z")
The problem with calling _Die Hard_ a sequel to _The Detective_ is what to call the other four _Die Hard_ movies. The _Die Hard_ movies were cobbled together from spare parts. _The Detective_ was a 1968 film made from a 1966 novel of the same name. By the time the sequel (_Nothing Lasts Forever_) to the novel came out in 1979, Frank Sinatra was too old for the lead. The script made from that novel bounded around Hollywood for years. Finally they decided to change the main character’s name, change some things in the plot, make no reference to the film _The Detective_, and rename the film _Die Hard_. It finally came out in 1988 with Bruce Willis in the lead and was a major hit. Then the filmmakers took another script that had been bouncing around Hollywood for a while which was based on a novel called _58 Minutes_ by a different novelist with no relation to the first film. They changed the main character’s name, changed things in the plot, and made Bruce Willis’s character the lead in the new film, which was called _Die Hard 2_ when it came out in 1990, and it was again a big hit. They then took another script that had been bouncing around Hollywood for a while called _Simon Says_ with no relation to the first two _Die Hard_ films. They again rewrote this in the same way as the first two films into a 1995 film called _Die Hard with a Vengeance_, and it was once more a big hit. They then took another script that had been bouncing around Hollywood called _[WW3.com](http://WW3.com)_ and again rewrote it as a _Die Hard_ film. It came out in 2007 and was called _Live Free or Die Hard_ and was, yes, you guessed it, a hit. They then had someone write an original script. The new film came out in 2013 and was called _A Good Day to Die Hard_. This film, the only one in the series which had a script originally written to be a _Die Hard_ film, is usually considered the poorest one in the series. ---
**Author:** ![Ukulele\_Ike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/df788c/32.png) [@Ukulele\_Ike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ukulele_Ike)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2017, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-successful-sequels/800766/22 "2017-11-06T02:31:52Z")
\*The Bride of Frankenstein \* is clearly better than _Frankenstein_, because Ernest Thesinger. (Toasting [with gin, of course, it is his ONLY weakness]): “To a new world…of GODS and MONSTERS.” ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2017, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-successful-sequels/800766/23 "2017-11-06T02:41:04Z")
Everybody who liked _Superman II_ owes it to themselves to forget about the Dick Lester sequel and watch the Richard Donner director’s cut. A vast improvement. _Rocky II_ was a great sequel and _Rocky III_ was even better. You can forget the rest of the movies after _Rocky IV_. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2017, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-successful-sequels/800766/24 "2017-11-06T03:11:22Z")
Batman: The Dark Knight ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2017, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-successful-sequels/800766/25 "2017-11-06T03:31:20Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > _Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan_ ALL of the Star Trek movies from II on were better than the first one, which was miserable (and didn’t even have an original story, being just _The Changeling_ re-warmed and embellished a bit). (One can arguably make an exception, perhaps, of that stinker where Spock’s half-brother hijacks them to the center of the galaxy to find God.) ---
**Author:** ![gkster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gkster/32/14107_2.png) [@gkster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gkster)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2017, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-successful-sequels/800766/26 "2017-11-06T04:30:41Z")
Three children’s book series come to mind: C.S. Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia start strongly with _The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe_, but I would argue that some of the sequels are just as interesting if not more so. I’m particularly fond of _The Voyage of the Dawn Treader_ and _The Silver Chair_. _Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s/Philosopher’s Stone_ is a good beginning but J.K.Rowling really hits her stride later in the series especially with _Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban_. I have no comment on the film versions of either of these book series since I’ve seen only bits and pieces of the films. Cynthia Voigt’s Tillerman cycle begins with _Homecoming_, which is an outstanding book deserving of more recognition; I’ve read Newbery Medal and Honor books which were nowhere near as good as this book. However, the sequel, _Dicey’s Song_, did win the 1983 Newbery Medal. ---
**Author:** ![DooWahDiddy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e9bcb4/32.png) [@DooWahDiddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DooWahDiddy)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2017, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-successful-sequels/800766/27 "2017-11-06T05:14:26Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > _Spider-Man 2_ was an improvement over the first. Wow do I ever disagree with you there. The one with the octopus guy? The effects were so bad and the stuff with Mary Jane was so cheesy. Loved the original. _Karate Kid II_ is generally considered to be just as good as the first one. Just don’t watch the third one. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2017, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-successful-sequels/800766/28 "2017-11-06T05:21:01Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > ALL of the Star Trek movies from II on were better than the first one I’d argue that none of them from III on were as good as the second. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2017, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-successful-sequels/800766/29 "2017-11-06T05:42:45Z")
I never watched any of the films in the franchise, but the fact that they kept making them suggests that “Rambo” outperformed “First Blood.” Of course, I’m not prepared to comment on the issue of quality. ---
**Author:** ![Guest-starring\_Id](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guest-starring_id/32/21736_2.png) [@Guest-starring\_Id](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guest-starring_Id)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2017, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-successful-sequels/800766/30 "2017-11-06T07:19:23Z")
Just like in the Mary MacGregor song, I’m torn between the low budget iconic _The Evil Dead_ and its sometimes campier sequel. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2017, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-successful-sequels/800766/31 "2017-11-06T10:32:46Z")
> [@DooWahDiddy](#): > > Wow do I ever disagree with you there. The one with the octopus guy? The effects were so bad and the stuff with Mary Jane was so cheesy. Loved the original. Well, the second seems to have better reviews from the critics, and the first has one too many spots where I get where Willem Dafoe is going for but it’s just not working on the screen. (And, yes, I know it’s presumptuous to say that an Oscar-caliber actor is taking it seriously but dragging down a comic-book movie – but, as far as I can tell, it’s _true_; even _he_ can’t pull it off; it comes across as goofy at not-trying-to-be-goofy moments.) ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2017, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-successful-sequels/800766/32 "2017-11-06T10:54:41Z")
The studio system churned out franchise movies like nobody’s business, and quite often the second one was best, because the actors had really found the characters, the same way the first first season, or at least the first half of the first season of a TV show isn’t that good, and the actors really hit their stride in the second season, then it peters out as writers start to run out of ideas. Anyway, lots of franchises from the 30s & 40s where the original wasn’t bad (or it wouldn’t have become a franchise), but often the second or third was the best are Bulldog Drummond, Dr. Kildare, Tarzan, The Thin Man, and Sherlock Holmes (in this case, I’m referring the the franchise with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce). In face, the fact the the first Philo Vance movie was so much better than the others makes it sort of the odd one out. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2017, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-successful-sequels/800766/33 "2017-11-06T11:00:39Z")
_Nunca segundas partes fueron buenas_… (never was a sequel better than the first book) _menos el Quijote_ (except for Don Quijote, whose second book includes that first line). ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2017, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-successful-sequels/800766/34 "2017-11-06T11:15:27Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > The studio system churned out franchise movies like nobody’s business, and quite often the second one was best, because the actors had really found the characters, the same way the first first season, or at least the first half of the first season of a TV show isn’t that good, and the actors really hit their stride in the second season, then it peters out as writers start to run out of ideas. > > Anyway, lots of franchises from the 30s & 40s where the original wasn’t bad (or it wouldn’t have become a franchise), but often the second or third was the best are Bulldog Drummond, Dr. Kildare, Tarzan, The Thin Man, and Sherlock Holmes (in this case, I’m referring the the franchise with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce). In face, the fact the the first Philo Vance movie was so much better than the others makes it sort of the odd one out. It wasn’t a sequel but Casablanca was just a franchise movie that nobody, including the actors themselves, expected to do well. It was quickly pumped out among many other mass produced movies of that era. Sometimes you can just take a blind swing and hit a home run if you are lucky enough. ---
**Author:** ![epbrown01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ba0ec/32.png) [@epbrown01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/epbrown01)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2017, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-successful-sequels/800766/35 "2017-11-06T11:30:22Z")
> [@Wendell\_Wagner](#): > > They then had someone write an original script. The new film came out in 2013 and was called _A Good Day to Die Hard_. This film, the only one in the series which had a script originally written to be a _Die Hard_ film, is usually considered the poorest one in the series. For me, Die Hard 2 is the worst - I haven’t seen it since I saw it in theaters all those years ago, whereas I’ve re-watched all the others at least once. Watchmojo did a list and included Evil Dead 2. I remember friends raving about it, but I watched just the original and ED3. ---
**Author:** ![jaycat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jaycat/32/3015_2.png) [@jaycat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jaycat)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2017, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-successful-sequels/800766/36 "2017-11-06T13:26:22Z")
Reasons To Be Cheerful, Part 3. ---
**Author:** ![mcgato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac8455/32.png) [@mcgato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mcgato)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2017, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-successful-sequels/800766/37 "2017-11-06T14:12:44Z")
I think that the third Jason Bourne movie, The Bourne Ultimatum, is the best of the first three. I think the second is the weakest, but still not bad. ---
**Author:** ![Mavic\_Chen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e56c9b/32.png) [@Mavic\_Chen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mavic_Chen)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2017, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-successful-sequels/800766/38 "2017-11-06T17:03:06Z")
Fistful of Dollars was good, although inferior to Yojimbo which inspired it. Luckily the sequel For a Few Dollars More was much better. Then came an even better sequel (and a candidate for one of the best movies ever made) The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2017, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-successful-sequels/800766/39 "2017-11-06T19:49:56Z")
If we consider the 1990s Batman movies to be all part of a series, then Batman Forever was far better than Batman or Batman Returns. ---
**Author:** ![SykoSkotty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c0e974/32.png) [@SykoSkotty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SykoSkotty)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2017, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-successful-sequels/800766/40 "2017-11-06T19:51:46Z")
> [@Chefguy](#): > > Batman: The Dark Knight Winner. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-successful-sequels/800766.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-successful-sequels/800766.md?page=3)