Given the general rule of thumbs that sequels [almost] never live up to the original films, I thought I’d ask what people want to see in a sequel:
[list=1]
[li]Everything that made the first film great, only bigger and better[/li]
[li]Things taken in a completely different direction so that the sequel is not just a rehash of the original film[/li]
[li]There’s no such thing as a “good” sequel[/li]
[li]Other (please explain)[/li][/list=1]
Regards,
Barry
Something permanent happens, i.e. a character dies or a new (and hopefully non-obnoxious) character joins. Sequels that end with the status quo preserved are pointless.
Since The Godfather Part II is about the only better sequel in my awareness, and since there’s been talk about GF4 doing with GF3 what GF2 did to GF1, and since Coppola has said, in effect, “over my dead body,” I’d hope their choice of director had at least as much class as FFC. Who that might be is hard to figure.
A purpose beyond “the cast and crew want some more money.”
There has to be a reason for the sequel, more story to tell, another point to make, something that the characters need fleshed out. I like serial storytelling. For example, I love television, and often prefer it to movies. But there’s a point where you’ve nothing more to say - and then, you should stop. Not do another sequel (or another episode) just for the bank balance.
I’d have to cite Star Trek II, Superman II, The Road Warrior, Aliens and Terminator II as improvements on their originals, due largely to increased budgets and better writing.
I want a mix of 1 & 2. It should be bigger and better, but not a carbon copy of the original. On other points, I agree wholeheartedly with amarinth. Most of all, there should be a reason for the sequel – a continuing plot, not just an excuse to squeeze every last penny out of a popular movie. Ex.:
Star Wars: good sequels (the prequels we won’t go into)
Jurassic Park: bad sequels (though the third one was marginally tolerable)
LOTR: good sequels
Batman is a special case – I hated the first movie, loved #2, could stand #3, and detested #4 with every fiber of my being. The Terminator movies, I think, should never have had a third installment, just because the first two were really good and tied up the whole storyline. There was no reason to revisit these characters; their story is finished.
X2 improved on the original X-Men movie in every way possible, and should be held up as an example of how to create an outstanding sequel. It’s ten times better than the first and that’s saying something, as the first was a pretty darn good little film.
.:Nichol:.
I have to agree with more of everything AND things taken in a different direction.
It seems like there should be subtypes of sequels.
The chapter type (where it really isn’t a sequel, but another part of the same story)
LOTR, The Godfather- I want good acting, good direction, just a good quality film that flows well with the first and makes you want the next.
Does the matrix fit in this category? Was it initially written as one whole story?
The blockbuster type (where the first one was good, so make another one, and blow more shit up)
Die hard franchise, rocky franchise, Lethal weapon franchise, jason, freddy, American pie, etc.
In those, we just need bigger, better, more shit getting blown up, stabbed, or glued to the private parts of the protagonists.
The best, IMO: Indiana Jones franchise
It seems like Star Wars and Star Trek, and the like belong in another “oportunistic chapter” category
Like there’s more chapters to the story developed because there’s a market for them.
I think those have to be a really good balance of staying true to your audience, creating surprises, utilizing new technology, etc. A really hard thing to do, as evidenced by star wars.
Maybe the Matirix fits here, I don’t know enough about the process of that one.
Technically not sequels.
Another vote here for the “reason beyond the actors/studio wanting more money.” The sequel does not have to be bigger than the original. The most important element is that there has to be another story to tell that actually matters. The characters need to have grown.
And no revolving third wheel characters!
<off-topic> What bothers me more are the movie-to-tv and vice versa adaptations. With the exception of Buffy, the tv serial versions of a movie are usually really weak. </off-topic>
X-Men 2 is an interesting case, here, since there really wasn’t a compelling need for a sequel. Had they stopped after the first one, the story wouldn’t have been in any way “incomplete”. But it did work, as a good sequel.
Ultimately, I think that the things which make a sequel good are the same things that make any movie good. Sure, the sequel can have the same strengths as the original. That’s fine. But it’s also possible for a sequel to be good in ways completely different from the original. Take Alien and Aliens as an example. The first one was basically a horror movie, while the second was basically an action movie. Very different styles. But Alien was a good horror movie, and Aliens was a good action movie, so it doesn’t matter that they were so different.
We just finished wacthing the Krzysztof Kieslowski trilogy Three Colors: Red, White & Blue, with each color applying to a separate movie. The DVD’s commentaries are a must for the level of understanding and enjoyment that we got from them. Without the commentary, they’re excellent films, but so much of what’s there might whoosh an inattentive viewer.
While not sequels, it makes sense to watch then in order.
Check this IMDB page on the director for the right titles and their order, or read Ebert’s review(s).
Topnotch moviemaking.
Don’t forget Toy Story 2 and The Empire Strikes Back.
And in regards to the OP, I’ll take a #1.
Good sequel: Aliens
Bad sequel: Psycho II
Good sequel: Terminator II
Bad sequel: Airplane II
Too many movie sequels rest on their laurels and seem to think that trotting out the same cast (Star Trek movies come to mind) is sufficient to justify their existence.
I think keeping the cast is a step in the right direction, but it’s not everything, no. It does show unity from one movie to another, helps create a flow that doesn’t exist if the entire cast disappears. Ex.: Halloween I and II. The first is about Laurie Strode fleeing Michael Myers, the second just borrows the title and goes off in another direction completely. The makers eventually returned to the Myers/Strode concept for latter sequels, of which only H:20 is worth anything.
X-Men and Spider-Man, for that matter, could’ve ended with the first movie (less so for SM, as the end scene practically scream sequel) but both had characters that cried out for more story, more screentime. Sequels were justified because there was more to be done with them, whereas some characters just need to retire to Florida and call it a day.
.:Nichol:.
Don’t try to explain stuff from the previous picture. The most current example is Star Wars. The force was mystical, magical and anyone could become a Jedi.
Don’t just throw something together just to cash in. Have a good story and interesting cast development.
I totally agree with Chronos who stated:
Excellent point. This is how most sequels should be attempted nowadays. For whatever reason, you don’t seem to get the “Godfather II” type of sequels to work anymore. Maybe there’s not as much writing talent in Hollywood anymore, who knows? I think it was truly a once in a lifetime sequel. Better than the first…or at least, really close.
For my money, “Terminator 2” was really disappointing. I understand Arnold’s character was “reprogrammed” and therefore he was a “good” character…but they completely hammed him up. “Hasta La Vista, Baby”? Please! I about threw up when his character finally was lowered into the melting vat and as he was being destroyed, he gives his buddy, John Conner the “thumbs up”. How hokey is that? He’s a machine, not an Eagle Scout!!!
Robert Patrick’s T1000 character was great though. Completely chilling in his portrayal. I’ll give T2 this…the effects were great and you could see all the money on the screen, but that doesn’t excuse some of Cameron’s direction with playing to the masses with some of the hokiness that was prevelant. He didn’t seem to do that in “Aliens” did he?
I don’t even want to see “Terminator 3”.
More stuff go BOOOM!
That is all I ask.