When the sequel is better than the original [Archive]

danzibr

2015-08-02, 07:47 PM

When you think of series, how often does this happen? I'm talking movies or books mostly. My dad is a big the-original-is-always-the-best kind of guy.

For me, hmm, to throw a few series out:
Star Wars: Don't shoot me, Episode III is my favorite.
Rocky: Rocky III is my favorite. Dat Rocky-Apollo camaraderie.
Lord of the Rings: Book-wise The Two Towers was my favorite because of the ents.
Sword of Truth: Faith of the Fallen, not the first book.
Wheel of Time: Hard to say... it's been a long time since I read the early ones. I remember liking The Great Hunt a lot (book 2). It had a strong end, excepting Brandon Sanderson's writing style.
The Matrix: Alright, I like the original the most here.

Looking at the above, it seems I don't prefer the original that often. Is the original being the best a common view, or just my old man?

DigoDragon

2015-08-02, 08:01 PM

Terminator 2. Takes the premise of the first movie and says "Why have one robot from the future, when we can have two robots for twice the collateral!" I think it really builds on the mythos of the first.

Sith_Happens

2015-08-02, 08:03 PM

Mad Max: Fury Road.

/thread

Cheesegear

2015-08-02, 08:08 PM

IMO, off the top of my head...

Toy Story 2
Spider-Man 2
How to Train Your Dragon 2
Back to the Future 2
Blade Trinity
Lord of the Rings - The Two Towers (technically not a sequel, but it is the second one)
Terminator 2
X-Men 2
Mad Max 2
Batman Returns
Batman - The Dark Knight
Evil Dead 2
Star Trek 2

Lurkmoar

2015-08-02, 08:11 PM

It depends. As far as the LotR films go, I liked the Two Towers the best. Star Wars, Empire still has a lot of punch for me. I liked Speaker for the Dead more then I did Ender's Game, but Xenocide and Children of the Mind didn't hold my attention nearly as well.

I liked Predator over Predator 2. Liked Leathal Weapon 2 over the first one.

Eh, I could go on and on. It depends.

Kitten Champion

2015-08-02, 08:12 PM

MCerberus

2015-08-02, 08:20 PM

What really makes room for a good sequel is

1. room to explore
2. the inability to explore something due to either needing to needing experience in the universe or not seeing something until after the work was nearing conclusion.

We're talking stuff like KOTOR 2's exploration of morality re: the force and what it would really mean to be in a universe with Jedi.
Road Warrior's "wait, if everything is going to hell, what will happen in a few years"
The entire catalog of Discworld after the initial setup in Colour of Magic

BannedInSchool

2015-08-02, 08:56 PM

Hmm, I'm thinking that the first in a series generally has to be popular enough to spawn sequels, which puts a lower limit on its quality. The sequel doesn't necessarily have that lower limit and can come out total garbage. There are some infamous flops of sequels too. Caddyshack I vs. II is 76% and 4% on Rotten Tomatoes. Highlander is 67% vs 0%.

Cheesegear

2015-08-02, 08:57 PM

I would agree with all those except Blade Trinity. Blade 2 sure, but Trinity?

Ryan Reynolds was just that good. :smallwink:

I'm also fairly certain that at least one of the Underworld, Resident Evil and The Fast and the Furious sequels are better than the originals. I know Furious 7 was hilarious, but I can't be sure if it's the best one yet, and, as yet, I'm not willing to rewatch the entire Underworld or RE series for the sake of this thread. I might do one or the other this coming weekend providing nothing else comes up. But I've also been meaning to watch The Librarian trilogy because I haven't watched it in a while.

Closet_Skeleton

2015-08-03, 05:13 AM

Ryan Reynolds was just that good. :smallwink:

Sadly everything apart from him was so bad I switched channels before I got to him.

Blade II was dull. Too much meaningless action.

Toy Story 2

I'm sure this is a good film but find myself completely unable to watch it due to being unable to comprehend that the original film would need a sequel.

Yora

2015-08-03, 05:26 AM

The Empire Strikes back beats any other Star Wars movie.
The Dark Knight is a great movie. (Batman Begins is not.)
Ghost in the Shell Season 2 exceeds Season 1. (They are two very distinctive storylines.)
Mass Effect 2 is even better than Mass Effect.

Rodin

2015-08-03, 05:45 AM

Ghostbusters 2.

*ducks*

Quild

2015-08-03, 06:44 AM

Back to the future 2 was the first I had in mind. Not sure that it's a sequel though, since the first movie prepares to it.

Expendables 2 is definitely better than the first one.

I do agree with Blade 2.

I'll add Hellboy 2 from the same director.

Dienekes

2015-08-04, 03:12 AM

Sword of Truth: Faith of the Fallen, not the first book.

The insane anti-commy rant that ended because of a damn statue? Heh, that was the book that made me drop the series. I survived the chicken that was not a chicken but couldn't get past that one. It was like Goodkind was trying to be Orwell all of a sudden with no idea why Orwell was actually fun to read.

But then, I do not have that high of an opinion of those books in general.

Anyone, of my own, Terminator 2 is the best, Aliens is as good if not better than Alien.

And, I may get flack for this, but I always thought Godfather Part II was more interesting than The Godfather. Both were so much better than Godfather III though.

For books, Storm of Swords was better than Game of Thrones or Clash of Kings

Quild

2015-08-04, 03:39 AM

The insane anti-commy rant that ended because of a damn statue? Heh, that was the book that made me drop the series.
I found this tome quite fun actually. I sure took distance with the book, but laughed at it.

I dropped the series with Naked Empire which was bad AND included the worst deus ex machina I've ever readed.
I readed Chainfire by mistake some time later, but now, I won't touch any of these books again :D

huttj509

2015-08-04, 03:55 AM

Aliens and Jurassic World, depending on who you ask.

Both were trying to be different types of movies than the first one, rather than more of the same, and both managed their intended type very well.

So if you prefer the latter type to the former, it can eke out ahead.

Killer Angel

2015-08-04, 02:45 PM

Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan.

Zmeoaice

2015-08-04, 03:26 PM

Batman Forever

Kung Fu Panda 2

Star Trek Into Darkness

Flickerdart

2015-08-04, 03:37 PM

Games-wise, Street Fighter II is probably the best sequel anything's ever had compared to the original, since Street Fighter I was awful.

LaZodiac

2015-08-04, 03:37 PM

Deep Space Nine, personally.

Vercingex

2015-08-04, 05:04 PM

Rescuers Down Under.

Second Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan.

A good sequel develops the themes and characters of the original. The reason so sequels are bad is that they are often made based on popular movies with complete story and character arcs, meaning the sequels involve retrograde motion, or thinly manufactured drama. Plus, people tend to phone them in.

Legato Endless

2015-08-04, 06:59 PM

Spider-man 2.

From Russia with Love is in many ways the real begenning to Bond.

Pick your favorite Evil Dead movie. Odds are good it isn't the first one.

The Good, the bad, and the Ugly.

Elfstones of Shannara, while not all that good as a fantasy book, does at least manage to stand on it's own as something other than a LOTR copy.

The third book of the Dresden Files blows the first two out of the water.

A Shot in the Dark is actually, you know, kind of funny to some people, versus the original Pink Panther.

Transformers Dark of the Moon is still a bad film, but it at least isn't weighed down by the romantic glurge in the first, nor the hideous racism of the second.

Kind of a weird example, but the Player of Games works better ad an introduction to the Culture series than the original.

Both sequels to Shaune of the Dead are wittier, and have far superior camera work.

Pan's labyrinth.

This one's controversial, but I'll give 28 weeks later a nod, as it's opening sequence is excellent, and while the rest of the film doesn't hold up as well, the opening is enough to place it over the sometimes tedious 2nd act of the first.

Cikomyr

2015-08-04, 08:32 PM

Gamers 2: Dorkness Rising
The Rescuers 2: Down Under
Mad Max 2: Road Warrior

I can also appreciate sequels that do not try to ape the original. Aliens was a worthy sequel to Alien, even if its nowhere the same kind of movie.

GI Joe 2 was waaaaaaaaaay better than GI Joe 1

Aedilred

2015-08-04, 10:11 PM

Interesting to see the range of opinions on display, even if my eyebrows have to raise at some of the entries being mentioned (Blade Trinity; Batman Forever and indeed Transformers 2 - which I consider to have been probably the worst film I've ever seen, certainly accounting for its budget).

In any case there are sufficient exceptions that any rule like "the original is always better" is doomed to failure. Especially since in many cases even if the original is in many respects better the sequel is nevertheless still very good. One could argue forever about which of the first two Godfather films is the better, but both are great films so it doesn't really matter.

I do think however that there is a tendency for sequels not to measure up to the original film. Sequels are tricky things to get right, especially if they're not planned from the outset (if you plan to make more than one film, it's easier to ensure the second one is good, because you haven't used up all your ideas in the first). They need to capture the spirit of and build on the first film without simply reprising it; preferably continuing the story without undoing or invalidating the ending of the first. Too often a sequel comes about because an original film which captured the imagination or was wildly successful (The Matrix; Curse of the Black Pearl) and the finance/creativity balance in the production of a sequel becomes upset.* Often the sequel has a bigger budget too and gets lost in its technical wizardry which can disguise the absence of any real heart in the film. What's more in any critical appreciation everyone - or almost everyone paying attention at least - will be aware that the first film cleared the way for the sequel and thus started in credit. Making a sequel that's worthy of the first is hard; making one that's unambiguously better than the first and recognised as such is even harder.

The obvious exception is Terminator 2 - although its superiority to the original isn't undisputed - which retreads most of the ground of the first film but is just so awesome, even if accounting for awkward early 90s-ness, that it doesn't matter that you've seen most of it before. But not many films can get away with that.

It also depends what your measuring stick is. Of the six Rocky films, for instance, I think five of them are pretty good or at least passable on their own terms - but what those terms are changes over the course of the series. The most entertaining in the series is probably IV, or maybe III, and when I get the urge to watch a Rocky film they're usually the ones I reach for - but as a film purist I can't argue with a straight face that they're actually better films than the first. Mad Max, too, is almost unrecognisable from the series it spawned, to the extent that comparing it to Fury Road or even II is largely a waste of time.

Overall I think probably the only sequels that are pretty much universally accepted as better than their progenitors are Empire Strikes Back and Wrath of Khan but there are certainly others out there that I think qualify, just none that command such consensus of opinion.

*This is also most likely why books tend to be more successful with their sequels than films, on the whole: the balance is tilted in favour of the creative impulse from the outset and without a degree of artistic investment from the author it's hard to get the book produced at all; with films on the other hand it's possible to create a sequel that involves effectively none of those who were involved in making the first one any good.

The Great Wyrm

2015-08-04, 10:49 PM

Team Fortress 2? :smallsmile:

Velaryon

2015-08-04, 11:30 PM

And, I may get flack for this, but I always thought Godfather Part II was more interesting than The Godfather. Both were so much better than Godfather III though.

I've heard this opinion before. I don't agree personally, because Godfather II felt like I was watching two completely separate films spliced together. De Niro's and Pacino's plot lines didn't really intersect, so while they were both individually interesting I thought they both distracted from one another. I would rather have seen Pacino's story expanded into a full-length Godfather II, then De Niro's made into a prequel Godfather III. I've never seen the actual Godfather III so I have no opinion on that one.

Anyway, my contributions to the thread:

I'll fifth or whatever Terminator 2 - it's what I immediately thought of when I read the topic title. The first is a great film, but the second is probably my favorite movie ever.

The Road Warrior blows the original Mad Max away, easily.

Wrath of Khan is far superior to the first Trek film. For that matter, I prefer TNG to the original series, though I do like both.

Army of Darkness is better than Evil Dead 2, which in turn is better than the original.

Revenge of the Sith was better than the other two Star Wars prequels by a wide margin.

I could come up with some video games too, though that's a different animal because of things like new gameplay innovations, advancements in graphics, and so on, all of which can affect the quality of sequels.

Oh what the heck, I'll list a few games:

Mega Man 2 improves upon the original in absolutely every way.

Red Dead Redemption, though more of a spiritual successor than a true sequel, improves upon Red Dead Revolver.

Grand Theft Auto 3 revolutionized not only the series, but the entire video game industry. Vice City and San Andreas further improved upon the previous games.

I've only played the original Assassin's Creed, but I'm told that Assassin's Creed 2 was a marked improvement and that Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood was likewise much better.

Ninja Gaiden II: The Dark Sword of Chaos was the best of the NES Ninja Gaiden games.

Take your pick of favorite Final Fantasy titles (mine is VII followed by VI), but most of them are improvements upon the original.

I could go on for a lot more, but I think that's enough for now.

Cheesegear

2015-08-06, 06:53 AM

I'm sure this is a good film but find myself completely unable to watch it due to being unable to comprehend that the original film would need a sequel.

That's the whole point of this thread, no? To weed out good sequels, to prove the absolute 'all sequels are terrible', wrong.

I'll add Hellboy 2

Kung Fu Panda 2

Both good ones, that completely passed my mind. How did I forget Hellboy 2?

The third book of the Dresden Files blows the first two out of the water.

The Honor Harrington series first novel, perhaps even the second as well, are fairly bland, compared to the third and later books.

But, I hesitate to list a series progression, as sequels. Like, some things are designed to have sequels - especially books. But, there are a lot of movies - Toy Story and The Fast and the Furious are good examples - that aren't designed to have sequels, a movie just crops up at some point after the second. Some are good sequels, some are bad - Neverending Story 2, :smallyuk:.

But, these days, in 20xx, studios are also designing movies with sequels in mind, Bad Boys 3 and 4 are in the works. Bad Boys 2 was quite good compared to the original (add it to the list), but, these days, studios are counting their eggs before they hatch (yeah...Superhero Movies until ~2025...Yeah, right. The market will never bust. Surely...Obviously. Ride that hype train until it derails...)

Pan's labyrinth.

That's a sequel? To what? :smallconfused:

GI Joe 2 was waaaaaaaaaay better than GI Joe 1

You're right, but it's still damning with faint praise. :smallwink:

Cikomyr

2015-08-06, 07:05 AM

You're right, but it's still damning with faint praise. :smallwink:

To be fair, i watched GI Joe 2 with inlaws, and had fun doing so. Twas a funny action flick with good comedy.

After the end, the gf asks if i wanted to watch the first one. Man was i utterly bored.

Killer Angel

2015-08-08, 04:57 AM

Pan's labyrinth.

That's a sequel? To what? :smallconfused:

I guess he refers to The Devil's Backbone. But I wouldn't call it a "sequel".

Legato Endless

2015-08-09, 08:27 PM

I guess he refers to The Devil's Backbone. But I wouldn't call it a "sequel".

The director would beg to differ. Also note that a sequel does not necessarily take place in the same setting. A sequel can be a companion piece or spiritual successor, which continues an examination of themes and ideas.

Closet_Skeleton

2015-08-10, 04:31 AM

A sequel can be a companion piece or spiritual successor,

If spiritual successors were sequels they wouldn't have a separate name and definition. But for this thread I don't see why its too off topic to include things that aren't technically sequels.

Sometimes spiritual successors are grouped into trilogies and series, but in my opinion that's just a case of a trilogy composed of things that aren't sequels (such as the Cornetto trilogy or probably the Man with no Name trilogy.).

Legato Endless

2015-08-10, 08:20 AM

If spiritual successors were sequels they wouldn't have a separate name and definition. But for this thread I don't see why its too off topic to include things that aren't technically sequels.

A sequel is not narrowly defined by existing as a continuation in the same setting. That's merely the most traditional example.

Rodin

2015-08-10, 08:53 AM

A sequel is not narrowly defined by existing as a continuation in the same setting. That's merely the most traditional example.

First time I've ever heard it used that way too. As far as I'm aware, continuation of the narrative in the same setting is intrinsic to the definition. It can follow different characters and otherwise be totally different, but it must exist in the same continuity, and must be set later in time.

That said, it still doesn't rule out Devil's Backbone/Pan's Labyrinth as a paired set of movies. Pan's Labyrinth is set later in the Civil War than Devil's Backbone, and they could conceivably inhabit the same world - I can't judge if they're same universe, as I haven't seen Devil's Backbone.

I do take issue with a spiritual successor being called a sequel, because definitionally that is definitely out of the realm of sequelhood because of what spiritual successor means. If it was set in the same continuity, then it wouldn't be a spiritual successor - it would just be a successor.

Chromascope3D

2015-08-10, 09:09 AM

Bojack Horseman: Season 2 is miles and away better than Season 1

Also, I'm surprised I haven't seen Captain America: The Winter Soldier anywhere in here...

BWR

2015-08-10, 09:21 AM

Also, I'm surprised I haven't seen Captain America: The Winter Soldier anywhere in here...

Because it wasn't better, maybe? Good, but not as good as CA:TFA.

Telonius

2015-08-10, 09:27 AM

Musical sequels are probably the rarest kind of sequels, but Metallica's Unforgiven II would probably make the cut. :smallcool:

Lurkmoar

2015-08-10, 09:33 AM

Oh, forgot to mention that Mortal Kombat II was a better game then Mortal Kombat.

Pity the sequel MK movie sucked.

Cheesegear

2015-08-10, 09:42 AM

A sequel is not narrowly defined by existing as a continuation in the same setting. That's merely the most traditional example.

The dictionary has two examples for 'sequel'
1. A work that continues the story and/or narrative of a previous work.
2. Something that takes place after and/or as a result of an earlier event.

Going by the second version, anything, and everything, that anyone, anywhere does, is a sequel to something that they've done before, provided that the first thing that they did prompted follow up works (i.e; Make enough money off the first thing to make a second thing). You can go real far down the rabbit hole with that definition. While it's not wrong (it's in the dictionary), it's certainly...Not on the same page as everyone else.

That's why the phrase 'spiritual successors' and 'inspired by', and 'like [X]' get thrown around, because not all sequels of the second definition are sequels of the first definition.

Is The Thing a sequel to Escape from New York? Same director. Same lead actor. In fact, John Carpenter and Kurt Russell do a lot more than that. The World's End is not a sequel to Hot Fuzz is not a sequel to Shaun of the Dead. Unless you think that they are ('Cornetto Trilogy' means what it says on the tin, right?), in which case the thread title needs to be changed to 'Directors/Authors/Artists/Series that improved over time', because that thread title at least points out the rabbit hole that people can go down.

Legato Endless

2015-08-10, 03:54 PM

First time I've ever heard it used that way too. As far as I'm aware, continuation of the narrative in the same setting is intrinsic to the definition. It can follow different characters and otherwise be totally different, but it must exist in the same continuity, and must be set later in time.

Spiritual successor was something of a malapropism on my part, as I was thinking of thematic sequels. However, that doesn't change the original contention.

No, shared continuity is a later focus beyond what the original idea holds. Scott McCloud's Reinventing Comics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinventing_Comics) is considered a (thematic) sequel to Understanding Comics, despite not sharing any continuity as they are simply the author sharing his thoughts about an industry. (as well as non-fiction)

Legends II is a sequel to Legends (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legends_(book)), but they can not share continuity, because they anthologies by a group of authors working in separate worlds. Even considering the pieces which do share continuity, such as G.R.R. Martin's Dunk and Egg novellas, this still remains impossible to follow your definition, as there are authors who only contributed to only the former or the latter of the works in question.

Furthermore, your statement of being set at a later time is also inaccurate, because a prequel is a subtype of sequel, being a neologism formed partially from the first. Joe Haldeman's The Forever War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forever_War) has two sequels, a direct sequel in Forever Free, and a thematic sequel in Forever Peace, the latter of which takes place before the previous installments. There are also complications depending on narrative focus, The Godfather Part II is frequently described as both a prequel and a sequel.

The dictionary has two examples for 'sequel'
1. A work that continues the story and/or narrative of a previous work.
2. Something that takes place after and/or as a result of an earlier event.

I'm not arguing for a usage of the second, I'm using a fuller definition of the first, as supported by the Oxford English Dictionary (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/sequel):

A published, broadcast, or recorded work that continues the story or develops the theme of an earlier one.

Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_and_Sensibility_and_Sea_Monsters) is a sequel in the former sense to Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, despite sharing nothing but the publisher, but they are part of the same series parodying Jane Austen.

To go with another series John Carpenter was involved in, Children of the Damned is considered a sequel to Village of the Damned, not merely two separate works considering psionic children.

When Edmond Volpe in A Reader's Guide to William Faulkner states, "Requiem for a Nun is both a narrative and thematic sequel to Sanctuary...", he is making a comparison of two subtypes of the same thing, not a broader usage of your second definition. A similar statement is made by Henry Claridge in William Faulkner: Critical Assessments.

So no, a formal sequel to a preceding work is not contingent on shared narrative.

Closet_Skeleton

2015-08-10, 04:27 PM

Using technically correct but uncommon and unhelpful definitions of words that other people don't agree with isn't generally conductive to discussion.

('Cornetto Trilogy' means what it says on the tin, right?),

Yes, but trilogy doesn't mean "a work and its two sequels" it means "a group of three works". Though the only real way to make a trilogy where none of the works are sequels under any definition would be to release all three works at the same time but if the works are only thematically linked and not in a real sequence calling any work a 'sequel' is misleading even if correct by publication order.

Rogar Demonblud

2015-08-10, 05:19 PM

I've seen "Spiritual Successor" referred to as sidequels, indicating there is a relationship, but not a direct one. Most prominent example I can think of is Soldier and Blade Runner, which share technology and other background elements, but otherwise don't touch on each other.

Chromascope3D

2015-08-10, 06:37 PM

Because it wasn't better, maybe? Good, but not as good as CA:TFA.

Yeah, I'm gonna disagree with that, thus highlighting the point of why it's hard to have a thread in which people jsut say that one piece of media is better than another piece of media, because it really all boils down to opinion.

HunterOfJello

2015-08-10, 06:39 PM

This thread needs a follow-up thread:

When the fanfiction is better than the original

(I know 2 examples, but that's about it)

Dienekes

2015-08-10, 07:14 PM

Bojack Horseman: Season 2 is miles and away better than Season 1

Also, I'm surprised I haven't seen Captain America: The Winter Soldier anywhere in here...

Kitten Soldier listed Winter Soldier first page. And I agree with it.

Because it wasn't better, maybe? Good, but not as good as CA:TFA.

Eh, CA wasted too much time on the romance I didn't care about, and spent too much of it's run-time on action montages. With only the Captain America Song one being any good. I get why they had to do it that way, set up boot camp, and go through an entire war while making it believable that Cap became as important as he was, but I think that hurts the movie.

CA2 was, in my opinion, one of the best movies Marvel has made. Definitely more interesting than anything in Phase 2, with only Guardians being comparable because it was so damn funny.

Rodin

2015-08-10, 07:28 PM

Kitten Soldier listed Winter Soldier first page. And I agree with it.

Eh, CA wasted too much time on the romance I didn't care about, and spent too much of it's run-time on action montages. With only the Captain America Song one being any good. I get why they had to do it that way, set up boot camp, and go through an entire war while making it believable that Cap became as important as he was, but I think that hurts the movie.

CA2 was, in my opinion, one of the best movies Marvel has made. Definitely more interesting than anything in Phase 2, with only Guardians being comparable because it was so damn funny.

This is the general opinion that I've heard, which makes me upset because I skipped CA2 based on how terrible I thought the first one was.

Dienekes

2015-08-10, 07:32 PM

This is the general opinion that I've heard, which makes me upset because I skipped CA2 based on how terrible I thought the first one was.

You see I still liked it. Honestly, while quality does vary, the only ones I can say I thoroughly disliked were the two Thor movies. Because the normal humans are all just so annoying. And the second one took the only likeable human character and turned him into a bumbling buffoon. And for some ungodly reason gave the one character that was completely and totally useless more screen time.

Kitten Champion

2015-08-10, 07:35 PM

I liked The First Avenger, it was a fun summer popcorn film. It has two things which kind of muddle it. It's a superhero origin film for a superhero who's kind of flat on his own - he's a paragon, while I do appreciate that when it's presented well he's more interesting for how he confronts things which challenge this moral centre as a character which punching Hitler or his near-approximation doesn't do so much - and it rushed to the third act pretty sharply.

Though I would argue TFA was the best Captain America origin story film that I could imagine anyone making, it took the character at face value and tried to do justice to war propaganda comics rather than being dismissive or ironic about it.

Cheesegear

2015-08-10, 07:57 PM

Captain America was a fun, pulp-era war movie. A lot like The Rocketeer. That's a good thing.
Winter Soldier was a medium-grey toned spy/thriller movie with fight scenes in it. That's also a good thing.

Some people prefer spy/thriller movies to beat-'em-up movies. I know I do.

Posted from phone.

Lethologica

2015-08-10, 08:02 PM

I do think however that there is a tendency for sequels not to measure up to the original film. Sequels are tricky things to get right, especially if they're not planned from the outset (if you plan to make more than one film, it's easier to ensure the second one is good, because you haven't used up all your ideas in the first). They need to capture the spirit of and build on the first film without simply reprising it; preferably continuing the story without undoing or invalidating the ending of the first. Too often a sequel comes about because an original film which captured the imagination or was wildly successful (The Matrix; Curse of the Black Pearl) and the finance/creativity balance in the production of a sequel becomes upset.* Often the sequel has a bigger budget too and gets lost in its technical wizardry which can disguise the absence of any real heart in the film. What's more in any critical appreciation everyone - or almost everyone paying attention at least - will be aware that the first film cleared the way for the sequel and thus started in credit. Making a sequel that's worthy of the first is hard; making one that's unambiguously better than the first and recognised as such is even harder.
In addition to this, movies that get a sequel may be better than average. Maybe I'll pull something from RottenTomatoes when I get home to see if this is correct.

Anyway, the data bear out the claim that most sequels are worse than their predecessors. (http://boxofficequant.com/sequel-map/) But check out the movies above the line for some thread-relevant exceptions.

danzibr

2015-08-11, 07:41 AM

This thread needs a follow-up thread:

When the fanfiction is better than the original

(I know 2 examples, but that's about it)
That'd be interesting.

I got to thinking of sequels which are way worse. Don't want to derail the thread, but lots of Disney films have abysmal sequels.

Lurkmoar

2015-08-11, 08:52 PM

That'd be interesting.

I got to thinking of sequels which are way worse. Don't want to derail the thread, but lots of Disney films have abysmal sequels.

Are you thinking about the direct to video ones? The Land Before Time isnt Disney, but it sure suffered from sucky sequels...

danzibr

2015-08-12, 06:56 AM

Are you thinking about the direct to video ones? The Land Before Time isnt Disney, but it sure suffered from sucky sequels...
Yup. Aladdin 2, Pocohontas 2, Little Mermaid 2...

Rodin

2015-08-12, 06:48 PM

I don't think we can count those for much of anything. They were all clearly "kids will watch anything" cash-grabs made on a tiny budget to sucker in parents who wanted something to stick the kiddies in front of. I can't say that I've ever seen a single one of them, even the ones that were released when I was the right age to watch them.

danzibr

2015-08-12, 10:24 PM

Kitten Champion

2015-08-12, 10:48 PM

On the contrary, I believe they count rather strongly in the whole sequels-are-inferior business.

Yeah, because no one would've bothered to make those as individual films Which is true of most terrible sequels, and the same logic behind mockbusters and the like.

Legato Endless

2015-08-13, 12:23 AM

A better contest might be remakes that are better than originals. Or perhaps when the adaption unambiguously trumps the source material.

Mostly because I'm not quite sure how the first pans out, as I suspect that while remakes still get the poorer reception, they probably do better than sequels on average simply due to being rarer, as well as having fresh motivated talent thanks to a separation of significantly more years.

Sith_Happens

2015-08-13, 10:58 AM

Aladdin 2

Aladdin 3 on the other hand is 120% great and if anyone says otherwise I will poke them in the eyeball with the Hand of Midas.

Mystic Muse

2015-08-13, 11:12 AM

Lethologica

2015-08-13, 11:20 AM

Ditto the Bourne movies. And there's that Cracked article floating around about adaptations the creators thought were better than their own work.

Dienekes

2015-08-13, 12:24 PM

I can think of a few movies I liked better than the book. Godfather movie is better. Forrest Gump movie is better. Secret Garden is better than Secret Window, Secret Garden. Actually a lot of King books, Misery, The Shining (and other Kubrick works as well like Full Metal Jacket), Shawshank Redemption, and The Green Mile. But I could be biased on that as I find a lot of King's works interesting but his execution odd and sloppy (did you really need the pre-teen gangbang in It Mr King? I don't think you did). On the subject of horror John Caroenter's The Thing is better than the old black and white movie. I haven't read the book though. Fight Club is pretty equal but the movie has a better ending.

I could probably come up with a few more.

Raimun

2015-08-17, 12:37 AM

There's plenty.

The Avengers. It is a sequel to five movies (from Phase 1) and the story it tells is canon in all the individual MCU superhero movies that followed in Phase 2. I would say it's the superior movie to Iron Man, Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger.

Star Wars Episode III. It's better than episodes I and II combined, even if all the movies in Original Trilogy are better than even III.

The Lord of the Rings. It's a sequel to The Hobbit. There's more material, it's darker and edgier (though The Hobbit has its own charm), the world is explored more and the stakes are higher. It is the lynchpin of the Tolkien Legendarium.

Mad Max 2. Haven't seen the first one but this one must be better. The first one isn't even post-apocalyptic, which is the very essence of Mad Max.

Mad Max: Fury Road. Way better than the third one. Why? Third one didn't really feature cars (what the hell?) and Fury Road... ? It definitely featured cars. I'd even go as far as argue that they played a rather prominent role in the film.

Expendables 2. Yeah. And they actually got Schwarzenegger and Willis to shoot things.

Dark Forces II: Jedi Knight. The first game was widely regarded as "Doom+Star Wars". This game gave you a lightsaber and jedi powers. It changed the series by being something else than a dime in dozen-FPS.

Metal Gear Solid-series. The series improves all the time (apart from MGS4, which is the worst game in the series). Yes, the first one is a classic but even MGS2 improved the series in a lot of ways (gameplay, graphics, game engine, production values, sound track, setting, even story). MGS3 has stood the test of time the best and is overall a better game than the first MGS (and MGS2) and it did begun the adventures of Big Boss, who I prefer to Solid Snake as the protagonist. Peace Walker managed to be way better than MGS4, despite having less budget, older graphics and being made originally for PSP, the handheld console. MGSV is not out yet but I can already tell you it will improve the series even further.

Zrak

2015-08-17, 12:47 AM

Yes, the first one is a classic but even MGS2 improved the series in a lot of ways (gameplay, graphics, game engine, production values, sound track, setting, even story).

Found the La-li-lu-le-lo plant.

Aedilred

2015-08-17, 05:17 AM

Mad Max 2. Haven't seen the first one but it must be better. The first one isn't even post-apocalyptic, which is the very essence of Mad Max.

:smallconfused:

Surely this is to look at it completely backwards? If Mad Max isn't post-apocalyptic, how can a post-apocalypse setting be its essence? I'm also a little perplexed as to how you can profess the superiority of a sequel without having seen the original.

It's like saying Aliens must be better than Alien because the Colonial Marines are the essence of the Aliens series and they're not in the first one. And also I haven't seen the first one.

I'm not actually saying I disagree. But that the second diverges from the first and went on to spawn a good sequel of its own (Fury Road, not III) doesn't make it better than the first on the terms of the first film, and to judge the first film by the establishing terms of the second is to miss the point rather, surely.

Eldan

2015-08-17, 09:34 AM

Because the Mad Max series is a rather strange case. The second and third parts invented or at least codified much of what people think of when they hear post-apocalypse, these days. Roving bands of vaguely punk-styled raiders with cobbled together weapons, small pockets of tribal civilizations, grand and empty desert environments and lots and lots of crazy cars. These movies made the aesthetic that everyone copied. no Mad Max, no Fallout, The Road, Borderlands, Fist of the North Star, etc. etc.

And yet, the first film doesn't feature an apocalypse. It's a crumbling, but pre-apocalyptic society.

Edit: I prefer Alien over Aliens. The first is brutally atmospheric, which I think the second didn't quite achieve. Also, when I tried rewatchign it recently, I noticed how endlessly it drags in the first half.

Cheesegear

2015-08-17, 09:50 AM

Edit: I prefer Alien over Aliens. The first is brutally atmospheric, which I think the second didn't quite achieve. Also, when I tried rewatchign it recently, I noticed how endlessly it drags in the first half.

It's another case of Captain America and Winter Solider, where the sequel isn't even the same genre as the original.

Alien is a Horror movie by Ridley Scott.
Aliens is an Action movie by James Cameron.

I find it difficult to judge two movies of different genres the same way, even if they are supposedly related.

Raimun

2015-08-17, 10:49 AM

:smallconfused:

Surely this is to look at it completely backwards? If Mad Max isn't post-apocalyptic, how can a post-apocalypse setting be its essence? I'm also a little perplexed as to how you can profess the superiority of a sequel without having seen the original.

Ask anyone who has seen Mad Max-movies what it is all about and about 99% of the people (including me) will tell you it's about post apocalyptic car wars. So, that the essence of Mad Max.

Also, when I was a kid, there were just Mad Maxes 2 and 3. The first one wasn't to be found, no matter where you looked, TV, video rental, some guy's video collection, you name it. I always assumed there was a good reason for this.

It's like saying Aliens must be better than Alien because the Colonial Marines are the essence of the Aliens series and they're not in the first one. And also I haven't seen the first one.

That's a good point. Art and entertainment are subjective experiences. And Colonial Marines are pretty awesome. However, in this case, I think Alien and Aliens are equally good films but they achieve their excellence in different ways. If you ask me, Aliens isn't better or worse than Alien. And because I feel the rest of the Alien-franchise isn't as solid as the first two, the series doesn't make it to this list, if you ask me.

I'm not actually saying I disagree. But that the second diverges from the first and went on to spawn a good sequel of its own (Fury Road, not III) doesn't make it better than the first on the terms of the first film, and to judge the first film by the establishing terms of the second is to miss the point rather, surely.

Depends who you ask. I'm pretty sure most people (including me) prefer Mad Max 2 and Mad Max: Fury Road to the first and the third Mad Maxes. Of course, there must some people who feel Mad Max 2 totally ruined their high speed cop movie and some people who feel ditching all the cars made the third one the best one of the series.

Anyway, you are right. I should watch the first Mad Max before passing judgement. I just have no idea where to look for it.

Rogar Demonblud

2015-08-17, 11:40 AM

Well, first off it's important to know if you have a Netflix or similar account. If so, you search for films starring Mel Gibson.

Also, remember that the films have different names in different markets for various legal reasons. So you're looking for the one released in 1979.

Legato Endless

2015-08-17, 11:42 AM

However, in this case, I think Alien and Aliens are equally good films but they achieve their excellence in different ways. If you ask me, Aliens isn't better or worse than Alien. And because I feel the rest of the Alien-franchise isn't as solid as the first two, the series doesn't make it to this list, if you ask me.

Which is the whole reason comparisons between the two are so popular. The rest of the franchise is better forgotten. Also, frankly, because the two are so dissimilar that they're only connected by copy right. If you changed the design of the Xenomorph in either film, and altered Ripley's name, you'd never connect them as being the same film. It's just two movies where Weaver fights things in space. The Xenomorph acts dramatically different, with Aliens codifying them as highly intelligent colony animals, whereas the second passenger in Alien is a hermaphroditic serial killing rapist whose ambiguous intelligence arguably at least equals the crew. Ripley's characterization is markedly different, considering she just woke up after the events of the first film.

For what it's worth, while both are iconic classics, and Aliens was certainly more influential to various genres, the first film is definitely better crafted in a lot of ways. Seeing them both in the theater last Friday, the first holds up much better effects wise thanks to it's minimalism, whereas the flashier effects of the sequel look rather painfully on the big screen now. (Not to say the first is flawless. The computer monitors are indelibly tied to the 70s, the death of Dallas is slightly humorous with the Xenomorph's jazz hands, and the android head transition when he's reactivated is glaringly obvious.)

H.R. Geiger was only heavily involved in the first film, and it shows. The Nostromo is cramped, atmospheric, and much more memorably designed than the rather generic space Colony. The second film only reuses the Xeno concept, and alters it to some degree. Whereas the vaginal corridors in Space Jockey's ship, and other set pieces combine much more fluidly into a greater thematic whole. It has too, when you're dealing with a film this minimalist.

Ridley's camerawork is easily much better than Cameron's, who isn't bad, and not to downplay his other accomplishments like T2, but there isn't the patience and restraint that makes even the innocuous beginning drip with menace. This is instrumental with pacing.Alien is a slow burn, where the build up never feels too presumptuous. Aliens has great action sequences, but actually getting to the story proper feels like work. While it starts off quite well with Ripley's inquisition by the Megacorp, the colony scenes before the marines start dying is a bit tedious.

To be fair, part of this is a preference for uniqueness. Space marines in faux horror settings has been done to death, and the hammy performance from Bill Paxton is eminently quotable, but also over the top, as it our classic well executed evil corporate executive. Compared to our much more downplayed android, whose inclusion and manipulations in the crew make a rather more symbolic point about the inhumanity of vast profiteers. I also prefer the more sincere downplayed acting, (such as the infamous examples of actors being manipulated to give greater performances) it feels more real, but admittedly is less memorable. All that said though, Aliens is still definitely a powerful influence on action science fiction for a reason, and much of my previous criticism isn't to say it's anything less than a very good film. But pound for pound, I do think the first pulls ahead.

Aedilred

2015-08-18, 12:36 PM

Ask anyone who has seen Mad Max-movies what it is all about and about 99% of the people (including me) will tell you it's about post apocalyptic car wars. So, that the essence of Mad Max.

Also, when I was a kid, there were just Mad Maxes 2 and 3. The first one wasn't to be found, no matter where you looked, TV, video rental, some guy's video collection, you name it. I always assumed there was a good reason for this.

That's just an American thing, I think. The first film was considered a bit too "foreign" and got only a very limited release in the US, with redubbed American dialogue; it got buried by red tape, essentially. In fact, the first film was wildly more profitable than the second even accounting for its snub in North America: it was made on a tenth of the budget and grossed about twice as much. This is also why the second film was released in the US as The Road Warrior rather than Mad Max 2.

The irony is that the first film is basically about post-apocalyptic car wars; it's just that the apocalypse is only in its early stages and some vestiges of society are clinging on. People driving cars into each other at high speed in a world that doesn't care is a key element of the film. But to look at it another way, if one makes the argument that the first film isn't that, and the third one isn't either (since there aren't any cars), then before this year only one film in the series would have upheld "the essence of Mad Max". Which would suggest that in fact it's the second film that's out of place and that the 99% of people who believe that to be the essence of the series are wrong.

Depends who you ask. I'm pretty sure most people (including me) prefer Mad Max 2 and Mad Max: Fury Road to the first and the third Mad Maxes. Of course, there must some people who feel Mad Max 2 totally ruined their high speed cop movie and some people who feel ditching all the cars made the third one the best one of the series.

Anyway, you are right. I should watch the first Mad Max before passing judgement. I just have no idea where to look for it.

As it happens, I do think the second film is superior to the first, but I don't think that superiority is inarguable. The Max of the first film is also rather more humanised than in the later ones: it is essentially his origin story, after all. It's easy to make an argument that plotwise the first film is rather better, with the second making Max a much more generic character - something which continues throughout the series thereafter.

And while the first film is less well known to modern audiences (and certainly American audiences) than the second, it is still worth watching in its own right: it has a formidable RottenTomatoes score, for whatever that counts for. It's a shame to see it written off because of, essentially, misleading word of mouth.

Raimun

2015-08-19, 03:53 PM

That's just an American thing, I think. The first film was considered a bit too "foreign" and got only a very limited release in the US, with redubbed American dialogue; it got buried by red tape, essentially. In fact, the first film was wildly more profitable than the second even accounting for its snub in North America: it was made on a tenth of the budget and grossed about twice as much. This is also why the second film was released in the US as The Road Warrior rather than Mad Max 2.

The irony is that the first film is basically about post-apocalyptic car wars; it's just that the apocalypse is only in its early stages and some vestiges of society are clinging on. People driving cars into each other at high speed in a world that doesn't care is a key element of the film. But to look at it another way, if one makes the argument that the first film isn't that, and the third one isn't either (since there aren't any cars), then before this year only one film in the series would have upheld "the essence of Mad Max". Which would suggest that in fact it's the second film that's out of place and that the 99% of people who believe that to be the essence of the series are wrong.

As it happens, I do think the second film is superior to the first, but I don't think that superiority is inarguable. The Max of the first film is also rather more humanised than in the later ones: it is essentially his origin story, after all. It's easy to make an argument that plotwise the first film is rather better, with the second making Max a much more generic character - something which continues throughout the series thereafter.

And while the first film is less well known to modern audiences (and certainly American audiences) than the second, it is still worth watching in its own right: it has a formidable RottenTomatoes score, for whatever that counts for. It's a shame to see it written off because of, essentially, misleading word of mouth.

Yeah, I'm not saying Mad Max 2 is objectively better than the first Mad Max. I'm saying it's subjectively better.

Now, this is anecdotal but whenever I've discussed Mad Max-series with people, there have been two kinds of opinions about the first film:

1) "No, I've not seen. And you say Max is a cop in it? And it's not a post-apocalyptic setting? That's just weird, man."

2) "Yes, I've seen it. You should watch it too if you can find it, even though Max is a cop in it and it's not a post-apocalyptic world. It might be a bit weird but it's not a bad movie, man."

Mad Max 2 is the most iconic movie of the whole series. I'm talking about (more or less) Rambo-, Terminator- or Die Hard-level iconic. Set after the end of our civilization where leather clad road warriors drive their cars on the abandoned highways so they can fight for the last gallons of gasoline. That is a striking imagery. Can the first Mad Max say the same about itself?

Now, like I said above some people might prefer the first Mad Max to its direct sequel but I don't remember meeting any of them. I've always got the impression that Mad Max 2 is the better movie, especially when the first one has been semi-forgotten for many, many years.

So, to recap, it's totally okay to prefer the first Mad Max to the second one. It's just that most people have it the other way around and I agree with them.