sequels better than the original

I can’t think of any examples of the sequel being better than the original. Can you? Godfather II is good but nowhere near GD I. Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park,Mummy… all went south. I don’t understand the problem. You already have developed a set of characters so why can’t you find a better story. It seems the only point is to make money from the success of the original. I guess if the original stunk then there wouldn’t be any interest in making a sequel.

Bride of Frankenstein

in most peoples opinion, NOT MINE: Toy Story 2

Revenge of the Nerds part 2… just kidding

Terminator 2

I’m sure there’s a lot more

I know it’s a matter of opinion, and I know there’ll be plenty of Dopers who disagree, but I think “Aliens” was superior to “Alien.” (But they’re both darn good movies!)

I just watched Les Visiteurs, and Les Visiteurs II back to back. I’d have to say that I found the sequel more entertaining. We’re not talking about highbrow films, here. Just amusing movies which require little-or-no thought.

However, avoid the American re-make, Just Visiting, like the plague. Way to ruin a flick, guys!

I agree entirely.
But… didn’t we just do this thread a couple of weeks ago?

It looks like we did. I missed it.

yes I missed the previous post also. that is a good post but covers too much. I am sticking here to the idea that a sequel is bad. and the reasons that it is bad. I know there are exceptions. but would you agree that 90% are bad. If so then why and how did the exceptions get around the rule?

imho, most sequels are bad because the filmmakers are scared of trying very much new, if it made two hundred milion the first time, then change as little as possible and put out another one. Hence the second Die Hard movie even has the lead character comment on the similarity of plots. Hence Tommy Lee Jones chases another wrongly accused fugitive in U. S. Marshals.

Aliens is a good example of a good sequel, but I will quibble and say that this film was designed as the second in a series (a la the Trek and Bond films) and is not a true sequel.
Sir Rhosis

good point Sir R,
what is the difference between a series and a sequel. I know it when I see it but I cant define it.

I’d say that a series is more like what was described earlier – same characters or world, different story. In this way, movies in a series can be very widely in quality. A sequel, on the other hand, generally picks up where the previous movie left off, and is more closely tied to it – or, to not leave out some of what is associated with sequels, it might merely include the characters doing the same thing they were doing in the previous film (no development). In that sense, it’s more of a truncated series.

So among your series would be Star Trek, Sherlock Holmes (the Rathbone variations), or James Bond. Actually, I hesitate a bit at James Bond, because it is generally the same movie every time – yet each is enjoyable for its unique elements. I think this must be the ‘Scooby-Doo effect’ or ‘Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer syndrome’, where repetition somehow becomes likable. Maybe because the Bond films are intended to stand on something other than plot.

A good example of a sequel that picks up after the previous one (I mean ‘good’ not necessarily in any other sense) would be 2010:the Year we Make a Sequel, which follows up 2001:A Space Odyssey. The Star Wars saga is more sequel-like, even if each movie is complete in itself. You could also say that each episode is merely part of one grand story (like the Lord of the Rings). Toy Story 2 is more of a sequel in the ‘re-use characters’, which often has flawed results ([sub]Austin Powers[/sub]), but in this case came out tolerably well.

Within a series you can have direct sequels. The Search For Spock is an extremely tied into sequel to The Wrath of Khan, and The Voyage Home tops off the “Genesis Trilogy” within the Trek Series of Films.

I’m too lazy to look, but if someone wanted to tell me…

How in the hell did they do a sequel to Weekend At Bernies? Did they use the same corpse; go to the grave or crypt and bring it out or something? Or did another guy named Bernie kick the bucket? That’s just creepy to contemplate, but I’m sure there’s a “logical” reason why it was done. Oh, yeah, I remember the reason. . . there was just too much story to pack into the first Weekend!

Sir Rhosis

That’s the problem. The original developed the set of characters. Usually, there’s nothing all that new to say about them in the sequel. Since the characters are developed, it’s very difficult to make them interesting.

Red Balloon 2: Revenge of the Balloon

Voodoo. No joke. No humor, either. Very, very bad movie.

I just rented the original The Terminator last night and watched through it. Except for a pretty darn good performance by the guy who played Reese, and of course Arnie, and some cool animatronics in the factory at the end, that was one B movie! T2, which is by no means the best film ever commited to celluliod, is so much better it’s staggering.

I hadn’t seen T1 since I was about 8 or 9, so it’s not surprising that going back and seeing it now that I’m 26 was a very different experience. Now I need to rent T2 again and see if it’s as good as I remember it being.

I always thought that would have been a far more entertaining film if he was once again chasing Dr. Kimble. He’d have remarried since the first film, you see, and then gone to jail again when his second wife was murdered. I would have suggested either a one-legged man, or (to really punch up the sequel–so to speak), a no-armed man.

For best effect, Tommy Lee would only start to become suspicious at events in Fugitive III.

I always preferred The Terminator to T2. The presence of Edward Furlong detracts significantly from my enjoyment of any film. Don’t get me wrong, I like both movies, but I must have seen the first one a hundred times on HBO before the second one came out. Heady fare for an adolescent boy, I tell you.

I think the general consensus among Star Wars fans is that the Empire Strikes Back is better than A New Hope. YMMV.

Films buffs and Star Wars fans all agree.


I hate how movie people make sequels just for the sake of sequels nowadays… It makes Baby Jesus cry.

No matter how wrapped up the last story was, no matter how final the ending was with no possibility for a continuation without making a completely new story while slapping in trademarked characters, they just keep doing it…

I gotta admit, Star Wars IV fell close to this… But you did see Darth Vader survive and that meant the empire was still alive, so that justified Empire Strikes Back, which of course went on to be the best.

And I always thought Indy III was the best of the three, with Temple of Doom being the worst.

Hmm, what else… How about Rush Hour 2? I liked that one better than the first, but whatever.


A Better Tomorrow II. 'cause it just ain’t cinema unless Chow Yun-Fat is throwing produce at a mental patient.