By immediate sequel I mean it has to be within a reasonable time for a sequel (within 5-6 years at most), be a direct sequel (no in-name only, reboot or side movie) and the original has to be extremely good which makes the sequel so much more disappointing.
I legitimately think Pacific Rim Uprising is the worst quality drop in a sequel movie I’ve ever seen. Within 5 years and yet it looks WORSE than the original despite having the same budget. Not to mention killing off beloved characters from the original for no real reason except forced drama. Plus all the hype for the Pacific Rim potential franchise evaporated with that one movie, remember when Pacific Rim was supposed to crossover with Legendary’s Godzilla?!
A lot of great movies in the '70s had really crappy sequels that are little remembered today. Off the top of my head there’s The Sting II, More American Grafitti, The Exorcist II and Staying Alive (sequel to Saturday Night Fever).
Calling Pacific Rim ‘extremely good’ might just be a bridge too far for me . Pacific Rim is sorta entertaining in a trashy robots fight giant monsters sorta way, but that’s about as much credit as I can muster for it.
But…pivoting from that to another sorta entertaining film that crashed with the sequel like a jumbo jet into the side of a mountain, there is always THE immortal classic. Highlander (1986) to Highlander II (1991). Never has a franchise crashed so hard or burnt so bright.
Oooh…so right about this. Not sure if Robocop 2 is worse than Highlander 2. Close call. Both are awful.
ETA: Although, I would say for purposes of the OP that Robocop is a far better film than Highlander was. Make no mistake, I liked Highlander a lot. But Robocop is more better. (<-- intentional)
Your comment immediately sparked a thought. The Poseidon Adventure (1972) was - to me, 12 years old - a major epic. A lot of excellent actors, weighted down by five Oscars, strutted the decks and it won two of its own Oscars from 8 nominations, as well as a bunch of other stuff.
The sequel, Beyond the Poseidon Adventure, sucked very badly. It was released in 1979, outside the date range, but work on it began by the original team in 1973. This included asking the author of the story, Paul Gallico, to write a sequel treatment. He died during the process.
You can argue whether being a 70s disaster movie caps just how far the original can rise, but it doesn’t limit the depths to which its sequel can plummet.
Speed 2 is not a bad movie. As a standalone action picture with a different title, and assuming you know nothing about the original, it’s not a bad thriller. Problem is, that the producers assumed you knew about the original, they brought back Sandra Bullock (who did a fine job in spite of the mess she was handed), and basically rehashed the original. Yawn.
My offering: Airport. The original (1970) was a fine tense thriller with a number of interesting and intriguing subplots; and the scary thing is that it was entirely plausible given the conditions of the time (e.g. no security checkpoints). Then came Airport '75, a typical 1970s star-studded disaster movie with an improbable plot, then Airport '77, which had an even more improbable plot. I’ve never seen the Airport movie involving the Concorde; it cannot be any better than the previous two, and I see no need to waste my time on it.
I know this fails the OP criteria because it came about 15 years after, but I have to mention it just because it was so terrible, one of the worst films I’ve ever seen terrible, and that is Bad Santa 2. Just horrible.
Well, it’s also unintentionally (I presume) hilarious. Because the virtually slow-motion disaster of the lengthy finale is the opposite of the film title in every way. Instead of Speed II: Cruise Control (which I admit is kinda on point), it should have just been Speed II: A Lot Slower, which could have been finished off with Speed III: Dead Stop.
Can I slip in a sequel 7 years after?
Arthur is my favorite movie. Arthur 2 On the Rocks wasn’t that good.
And it was written by Andy Breckman who was the creator of Monk which is my favorite TV show.
Is it O.K. to bring up ones we haven’t seen due to poor reviews or preconceived biases?
I loved Dumb and Dumber. But I didn’t watch the 2014 sequel due to its poor ratings, nor the (even worse rated) prequel.
I’ve also not seen the sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey. I just can’t imagine it being in the same ballpark as the original. But the reviews are not super bad, so perhaps I should give it a watch.
One that isn’t the worst but hasn’t been mentioned. Charlie’s Angels (2000) was surprisingly good. Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle (2003) did not live up to the expectations that had been set by the first movie.
. Pacific Rim is sorta entertaining in a trashy robots fight giant monsters sorta way, but that’s about as much credit as I can muster for it.