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 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.
*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.”
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.
Batman: The Dark Knight
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.)
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.
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.
I’d argue that none of them from III on were as good as the second.
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.
Just like in the Mary MacGregor song, I’m torn between the low budget iconic The Evil Dead and its sometimes campier sequel.
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.)
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.
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).
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.
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.
Reasons To Be Cheerful, Part 3.
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.
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.
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.
Winner.