# Movie sequels that were better than the original / first? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [July 20, 2018, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-sequels-that-were-better-than-the-original-first/818281 "2018-07-20T17:17:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![dorvann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df705f/32.png) [@dorvann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dorvann)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2018, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-sequels-that-were-better-than-the-original-first/818281/41 "2018-07-21T02:09:47Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Uh, okay. But what’s confusing about this _specific_ point? > > **Mahaloth** said: “Logan can’t technically be a sequel to the other X-men movies. It says in the opening that no new mutants have come along in 20-25 years and we just say the end of Days of Future Past happening no more than 10 years prior to it.” > > My reply is, if the mutants at the end of that movie are 11+, then near as I can tell there’s no problem if we’re told — 10 years later — that no new mutants have come along in 20 years; because, near as I can tell, it’d be entirely possible that no new mutants have come along in 20 years. According to the TV tropes article on _Logan_, the film’s director, James Mangold, said _Logan_ occurs in the same timeline as the film _X-Men: Days of the Future Past._ So if there is discrepancy in the timelines this is the fault of makers of _Logan_ not mine. That’s why I said there are continuity issues with the other X-men films. ---
**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:** [July 21, 2018, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-sequels-that-were-better-than-the-original-first/818281/42 "2018-07-21T02:28:18Z")
> [@dorvann](#): > > According to the TV tropes article on _Logan_, the film’s director, James Mangold, said _Logan_ occurs in the same timeline as the film _X-Men: Days of the Future Past._ So if there is discrepancy in the timelines this is the fault of makers of _Logan_ not mine. That’s why I said there are continuity issues with the other X-men films. But I’m saying _I don’t see a discrepancy,_ given what **Mahaloth** said: you’re rushing in to respond that any discrepancy is their fault and not yours; but you’re saying that in response to me saying that, given what **Mahaloth** had said, _I see no fault_ — because, again, I don’t yet see any discrepancy. ---
**Author:** ![LVBoPeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/858c86/32.png) [@LVBoPeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LVBoPeep)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2018, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-sequels-that-were-better-than-the-original-first/818281/43 "2018-07-21T02:30:44Z")
> [@Biffster](#): > > I don’t know if it’s necessarily better than the original, but Trainspotting 2 was as good as and in some ways better than the original, in my opinion. The characters’ stories have grown and the actors are all 20 years older as while, adding believability. It makes sense to come to terms with being addicted—just be addicted to something else. _Trainspotting_ is my favorite movie- it’s safe to say I was obsessed with it when it came out and I know it almost by heart. I wore out both soundtracks (the original film had 2). I did like the sequel (lots of people do not) but it’s no where near the first. The actors’ performances (especially Robert Carlyle) and the dialogue are flawless in the first and the original film doesn’t flinch away from the ugliness of addiction. The second felt more like a high school reunion. I liked spending time with them again in the sequel but the most telling part was how flat the new “updated” Choose Life speech that Renton made in the sequel. I literally cringed and couldn’t wait for that scene to be over. I wish they had stayed truer to the book _Porno_ that parts of it were based on- I think that would have had a more authentic feel to it. The sequel was fine and I’m grateful it was made but I still feel compelled to watch the first several times a year but can’t say I’ll do the same with the second. ---
**Author:** ![dorvann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df705f/32.png) [@dorvann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dorvann)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2018, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-sequels-that-were-better-than-the-original-first/818281/44 "2018-07-21T02:36:43Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > But I’m saying _I don’t see a discrepancy,_ given what **Mahaloth** said: you’re rushing in to respond that any discrepancy is their fault and not yours; but you’re saying that in response to me saying that, given what **Mahaloth** had said, _I see no fault_ — because, again, I don’t yet see any discrepancy. You’re right; I apologize for my mistake. My reply should have been directed at **Mahaloth** not you. ---
**Author:** ![dorvann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df705f/32.png) [@dorvann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dorvann)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2018, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-sequels-that-were-better-than-the-original-first/818281/45 "2018-07-21T02:45:29Z")
Regarding Star T\*rek films, I agree _Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn_ is better than _Star Trek: The Motion Picture_. In fact, I think the only Star Trek film based on The Original Series that is worse than the first one is _Star Trek V: The Final Frontier_. As the Next Generation Star Trek films, I think _Star Trek: First Contact_ is better than _Star Trek: Generations_. _Star Trek: Generations_ is probably the worst of the Next Generation films. ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2018, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-sequels-that-were-better-than-the-original-first/818281/46 "2018-07-21T03:08:08Z")
> [@dorvann](#): > > Regarding Star T\*rek films, I agree _Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn_ is better than _Star Trek: The Motion Picture_. In fact, I think the only Star Trek film based on The Original Series that is worse than the first one is _Star Trek V: The Final Frontier_. > > As the Next Generation Star Trek films, I think _Star Trek: First Contact_ is better than _Star Trek: Generations_. _Star Trek: Generations_ is probably the worst of the Next Generation films. With the first set of Star Trek movies, it seems to me that all the even-numbered ones were good, while all the odd-numbered ones were like filler. Not sure how that works for the Next Generation and reboot movies. ---
**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:** [July 21, 2018, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-sequels-that-were-better-than-the-original-first/818281/47 "2018-07-21T04:34:12Z")
> [@dorvann](#): > > To add my two cent to the _Alien_ vs _Aliens_ debate, I think _Aliens_ is the better film. That being said, to me this debate is like debating between an A and A+ because they are both great films. I give _Alien_ an A and _Aliens_ an A+ Out of curiosity, did you see them in the theater as first-run films, or later? ---
**Author:** ![dorvann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df705f/32.png) [@dorvann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dorvann)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2018, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-sequels-that-were-better-than-the-original-first/818281/48 "2018-07-21T04:56:16Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > Out of curiosity, did you see them in the theater as first-run films, or later? I was only four when _Alien_ was first released so no. I only saw them years later on video. To be honest, I liked the first two films so much I’m not sure that one is better than other. They are both great films especially compared to the sequels that followed them. ---
**Author:** ![Dale\_Sams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/779978/32.png) [@Dale\_Sams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dale_Sams)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2018, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-sequels-that-were-better-than-the-original-first/818281/49 "2018-07-21T05:03:10Z")
> [@gdave](#): > > For those mentioned so far, I liked Aliens much more than Alien and Terminator 2 much more than Terminator - but I like action movies and don’t like horror movies, and for both of those franchises, the first movie was a horror movie with some action elements, and the sequel was an action movie with some horror elements. > > Star Trek II was, imho, easily the best of the whole franchise. I also liked Last Crusade more than Raiders of the Lost Ark, but thought they were both excellent movies. > > My contribution: > > There was a now-obscure direct-to-video, low budget fantasy series in the 80s, “Deathstalker”. The first “Deathstalker”, as well as “Deathstalker III” and “Deathstalker IV” were grim, humorless, and frankly boring movies - not even “so good it’s bad”. They had terrible acting, terrible scripts, terrible directing, terrible editing - just bad. > > “Deathstalker II” however… > > Per the DVD commentary, the star (John Terlesky) and the director Jim Wynorski took a look at the crappy script they had been handed and immediately threw it away. They were filming in Spain with next to no budget; they would film scenes during the day, then retire to their cheap hotel at night, get mildly drunk on cheap Spanish wine, and write the shooting script for the next day’s scenes. The result was a masterpiece - for some values of masterpiece. It was a fun romp that poked fun at itself and its predecessor. It’s a bad, super low budget movie that knows its a bad super low budget movie and decides to have some fun with that. > > It’s currently streaming on Amazon Prime for anyone who wants to check it out. Fair warning - you really have to have an appreciation for crappy, low budget 80s fantasy movies to get the full effect. If you grew up on them, like I did, Deathstalker II is fantastic. If Deathstalker II is your first exposure to the genre, I suspect it will just come across as a bad movie. Deathstalker II is fun and sexy and the bloopers at the end are hilarious. ---
**Author:** ![Dale\_Sams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/779978/32.png) [@Dale\_Sams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dale_Sams)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2018, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-sequels-that-were-better-than-the-original-first/818281/50 "2018-07-21T05:12:09Z")
> [@dorvann](#): > > Regarding Star T\*rek films, I agree _Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn_ is better than _Star Trek: The Motion Picture_. In fact, I think the only Star Trek film based on The Original Series that is worse than the first one is _Star Trek V: The Final Frontier_. > > As the Next Generation Star Trek films, I think _Star Trek: First Contact_ is better than _Star Trek: Generations_. _Star Trek: Generations_ is probably the worst of the Next Generation films. I’m one of the few who like Generations. I like the opening. I like Stewarts acting. I love the soundtrack. Shatner is very good. Thats enough for me. FC is fantastic. And I think Insurrection is worse than its reputation and Nemesis is better than its reputation.\* \*That said…clones?? Mentally diminished Evil twins? Cmon guys. I don’t even know how to fix it except to remove the Data subplot and let the main plot run as is. The Borg have been done…Q doesn’t work for a movie…what other running villains did they have?? ---
**Author:** ![Kamino\_Neko](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kamino_neko/32/34_2.png) [@Kamino\_Neko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kamino_Neko)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2018, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-sequels-that-were-better-than-the-original-first/818281/51 "2018-07-21T06:58:06Z")
I recently watched (partially rewatched) the Re-Animator trilogy (got it into my head to watch all Jeffrey Combs’ Lovecraft movies, though I still haven’t got around to Necronomicon or Dunwich Horror)…Bride and Beyond are both far more entertaining than the original, which could have been cut down by half and tacked onto Bride as a prologue, and been much improved. Not that any of them are great films, but… And, having also recently watched the entire Nightmare on Elm Street series, 2-4 and New Nightmare are all superior to the original (which is superior to 5 and 6), although 2 was sort of a strange installment, which goes places the rest of the series doesn’t - or actively avoids. (Bringing Freddy into the real world is a common way to attempt to dispose of him in later movies, not something he tries to do himself.) (The reboot is also an improvement on the original, though not without its issues.) ---
**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:** [July 21, 2018, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-sequels-that-were-better-than-the-original-first/818281/52 "2018-07-21T08:50:08Z")
I get that some folks will see it less as ‘interesting’ and more as ‘weird’ — and it _is_ pretty danged weird — but I’d argue, and ROTTEN TOMATOES seems to agree, that Michael Keaton’s second outing as Batman has more going for it than the original: he’s as terrific as ever, and if Christopher Walken and Danny DeVito exaggerating their signature schticks ain’t _quite_ enough to equal what Jack Nicholson brought, Michelle Pfeiffer just knocks it out of the damn park. (Also, and I can’t stress this enough: it’s fever-dream weird. Like, you can watch the first one without 100% catching on that Tim Burton’s mind goes to strange places; but this is a bit less “rich guy in a bulletproof costume hospitalizes crooks” because it’s a bit more “what mushrooms, exactly, did this storyteller take?”) ---
**Author:** ![mbh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@mbh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mbh)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2018, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-sequels-that-were-better-than-the-original-first/818281/53 "2018-07-21T16:58:01Z")
_Wings of Desire_ is a pretentious, highbrow, artsy-fartsy Work Of Cinematic Art. (Don’t get me wrong. I loved it. But you have to be in the mood for and art film.) _Faraway, So Close!_ is less artistic, but more entertaining. It has more of a plot, a bit of suspense, and a great performance by Willem Dafoe as a character who might be an angel, or might be a devil. ---
**Author:** ![Channing\_Idaho\_Banks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/channing_idaho_banks/32/250_2.png) [@Channing\_Idaho\_Banks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Channing_Idaho_Banks)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2018, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-sequels-that-were-better-than-the-original-first/818281/54 "2018-07-21T18:44:06Z")
Halloween I and Halloween II are pretty good but I also like HIII Season of the Witch. that’s a sequel that tries to send the series in a whole new Direction. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2018, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-sequels-that-were-better-than-the-original-first/818281/55 "2018-07-21T21:37:56Z")
> [@dorvann](#): > > To add my two cent to the _Alien_ vs _Aliens_ debate, I think _Aliens_ is the better film. That being said, to me this debate is like debating between an A and A+ because they are both great films. I give _Alien_ an A and _Aliens_ an A+ I don’t like to “better than” with the Alien franchise, simply because Alien and Aliens are two distinctly different types of movies, set in the same universe. Both stand up very well for what they are, respectively; personally, I like Aliens slightly better than Alien. Aliens came out while I was stationed in Bamberg, Germany, and the entire theater groaned in sympathy at Hudson’s line, “Oh, man… and I was getting short. Four more weeks and out.” ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2018, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-sequels-that-were-better-than-the-original-first/818281/56 "2018-07-23T00:34:23Z")
For many of the examples given, it might be more accurate to say that they’re of the same caliber with about half of people coming on one side and half coming on the other depending on individual preferences for genre, actors etc. Jumanji 2 surprised me in that I think most people would prefer the second, especially if their appreciation for the first isn’t based in childhood nostalgia. What might be even rarer is a bad first movie which is followed by a decent sequel. ---
**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:** [July 23, 2018, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-sequels-that-were-better-than-the-original-first/818281/57 "2018-07-23T01:00:22Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > What might be even rarer is a bad first movie which is followed by a decent sequel. Well, if the first one didn’t make any money, there won’t be a sequel. It’s the pretty rare bad movie that is a hit anyway, and rarer yet that someone takes a chance on lightning striking twice. I didn’t think of it earlier, but I liked _Despicable Me 2_ better than the first movie. I don’t know if that’s the prevailing opinion, though. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2018, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-sequels-that-were-better-than-the-original-first/818281/58 "2018-07-23T13:02:54Z")
I think that the next two movies in the 1950s British \*Quatermass \* series were much better than the first. The Quatermass films started as BBC 6-part serials, all films and serials written by Nigel Kneale\*. The first serial and movie were both titled _The Quatermass Xperiment_. The movie version was released as _The Creeping Unknown_\*\*. It ran all the time on WPIX’s _Chiller Theater_ in New York, which is where I first saw it. The film is well-done and atmospheric. The premise is that the First Men Into Space encounter a weird Alien Thing that sort of melts their bodies and takes them over – the 1950s British SF movies frequently featured aliens “taking over” people, a la _Invasion of the Body Snatchers_, but usually featured pretty goopy and slimy aliens\*\*\* . Quatermass Xperiment ended up with one of these in spades – a disgusting pulpating fungal mass climbing around on the scaffolding inside Westminster Abbey. In the film, they hook the scaffolding up to a high tension line and electrocuting the thing before it has a chance to reproduce, just like James Bond did in Oddjob in _Goldfinger_. Not all of the serial exists anymore, but the script does. Penguin published it when the serial aired. In the serial, Professor Quatermass appeals to the “souls” of the three astronauts still embedded in the fungal horror, and they essentially “will” it to death. _Quatermass2_, released in the US as _Enemy from Space_, again starred Brian Donlevy as Professor Quatermass\*\*\*\*, this time stumbling across something that looks like his projected moon base sitting out in the British countryside. It turns out to be the base for Invading Aliens, who are using it to acclimatize themselves to Earth’s atmosphere. The aliens “take over” humans by dropping meteorite-like hollow “bombs” that contain parasitic organisms that control people and force them to build the base. The aliens turn our=t to be even goopier than the one in The Quatermass Xperiment. But it’s a better and more satisfying film. _Quatermass and the Pit_ (released in the US with the confusing title _Five Million Years to Earth_ was arguably the best. The serial is good, but the film, starring a very British Andrew Keir as the professor (and also a young Julian Glover – later to play General Veers in the Star Wars films and Maester Pycell in Game of Thrones) is also good, and filmed in color, finally. The film was released the same year as _2001: A Space Odyssey_, and, like that film, revolved around an alien civilization interfering with human ancestors and remaking them into what became us, and leaving behind artificats that are still active. A great little film. Both the sequels are, I think, better than the first. But the less said about subsequent Quatermass films and entries, the better. _The Quatermass Conclusion_ is highly forgettable. - who pretty famously hated SF fans. \*\* not to be confused with the abysmal film _The Crawling Unknown_, which MST3K made fun of. \*\*\* and, surprisingly often, Forrest Tucker in the cast. I think he was their idea of the Big Tough American Hero type. He wasn’t in any of the Quatermass movies or serials, though. \*\*\*\* He wasn’t in the serials. I never understood why they used him in the movies. He looks and sounds more like an American gangster than a British Rocket Scientist. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2018, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-sequels-that-were-better-than-the-original-first/818281/59 "2018-07-23T13:34:23Z")
\*Gremlins 2 \*is much, much better than the first one, although it’s a weird movie to watch in the Trump age. > [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > Jumanji 2 surprised me in that I think most people would prefer the second, especially if their appreciation for the first isn’t based in childhood nostalgia. I saw \*Jumanji \*again last month and it’s… not good. It’s not a matter of aging special effects; it’s just a screeching, chaotic, unpleasant little movie. The new one is better. In fact, I’d say that the half-forgotten semi-sequel \*Zathura \*is also much better than the first film. ---
**Author:** ![ZonexandScout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zonexandscout/32/544_2.png) [@ZonexandScout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZonexandScout)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2018, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-sequels-that-were-better-than-the-original-first/818281/60 "2018-07-23T15:29:50Z")
Since someone already mentioned Jim Wynorski… I have to say that _ **Hard to Die** _ is one of the most enjoyable sequels I’ve ever seen, and much better than either _ **Sorority House Massacre** _ or _ **Sorority House Massacre II** _. One might argue that it is not technically a sequel, but it IS the next in the series and it shares a lot of the same characters (even if they were killed once or twice already in the series). But it is definitely a crazily goofy movie that is hard to turn off. Besides, you get a cameo by Forrest J Ackerman. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-sequels-that-were-better-than-the-original-first/818281.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-sequels-that-were-better-than-the-original-first/818281.md?page=4)