Are sequels better than originals?

[_____V_____]

Well it has always been common to make a sequel once the original has a fair amount of commerical or critical success. But thinking back, there have been plenty which have proven to be actually better than the original.

In my opinion, Spiderman 2 was better than 1.

Same goes for X-Men 2.

Everyone knows about Aliens.

Empire Strikes Back is regarded as the best one in the Star Wars franchise.

Superman II was way better than 1.

Toy Story 2 was another which vastly improved over part 1.

Blade 2 was actually more neat than 1.

I would regard Chronicles of Riddick on par with Pitch Black though.

Evil Dead 2 is regarded as a better movie than ED1.

Jason was actually liked a lot more in pts 6, 9 and Jason X than pt.1 or 2.

Terminator 2 is a vast improvement over the original Terminator of the 80s...


These are some which come to mind (I know I am missing more).
Is it because a sequel is made after examining the flaws of the original, and refined and made better with more cash and using better technology?
Or is it because it tends to tie up the loose ends left by the original?
Maybe better marketing?
Maybe some other reason...

Whats your say on this?

[The Flayed One]

I'll break down my opinions of yours, then offer some of my own.

In my opinion, Spiderman 2 was better than 1.

I slightly disagree, but just barely.

Same goes for X-Men 2.

I can jump on that bandwagon. X-2, IMHO, was definately superior to the first.

Everyone knows about Aliens.

This is one I never understood. Alien is a horror movie. Aliens is an action movie. Alien is the superior of the two.

Empire Strikes Back is regarded as the best one in the Star Wars franchise.

I agree. I've also seemed to notice that this differs with age. People too young to see the original in the theater tend to think Empire is superior. Most people I know who were old enough to enjoy A New Hope when it came out think it's the superior of the two.

Superman II was way better than 1.

Eh...they're about the same to me.

Toy Story 2 was another which vastly improved over part 1.

Another one I whole-heartedly agree on. I actually didn't enjoy the first one when it came out. After watching 2, I went back and re-watched the first one and enjoyed it.

Blade 2 was actually more neat than 1.

This is obviously because del Toro is a god amongst men.

I would regard Chronicles of Riddick on par with Pitch Black though.

I enjoyed Pitch Black more. It was one of, if not the coolest alien movie to come out since Alien. I really dug CoR, though.

Evil Dead 2 is regarded as a better movie than ED1.

I don't think very many people will argue with this. I, however, think ED 2 just barely eeks it out, where as most people I know think there is no comparison.

Jason was actually liked a lot more in pts 6, 9 and Jason X than pt.1 or 2.

A lot of people who didn't watch the first Friday 1st hate the movie. I like it, but it definately doesn't seem to fit into the franchise it became. I can't really state which I like more.

Terminator 2 is a vast improvement over the original Terminator of the 80s...

Effects & action-wise, there's not even a shadow of a doubt.

Here are some that I suggest to be added to the list:

I think Shrek 2 is better than Shrek, for the same reasons stated in the Toy Story response.

I think Exorcist III is superior to Exorcist. Again, though, they're almost completely different movies. As far as I'm concerned, they never made an Exorcist II.

There is a school of thought that Dawn of the Dead is superior to NotLD. I happen to belong to this school.

I consider Chamber of Secrets to be the best of the Harry Potter series so far.

Batman Returns is better than Batman. Batman Begins is the best Batman movie so far, but it's not really a sequal.

[phantomstranger]

Don't forget the classic "Bride Of Frankenstein" a superior film even to the original film classic

[PR3SSUR3]

But sequels cannot exist without the first film which sets the foundations, so while they might expand the storyline and introduce new characters they are always feeding off the original.

[alkytrio666]

Originally posted by phantomstranger
Don't forget the classic "Bride Of Frankenstein" a superior film even to the original film classic

Absolutely.

The Matrix Reloaded was more fun than The Matrix to me, but that's an opinion not many other people share with me.

If you consider The Devil's Rejects a sequel to House of 1,000 Corpses, it wa far superior.

I thought Alien was better than Aliens, though, in regard to the first post.

These are all IMO, though, of course.

[Elvis_Christ]

I prefer the original Terminator over T-2. It had a lot more heart.

[_____V_____]

The thing is, the basic idea of the plot still comes from the original. The cast and the production crew may change or stay the same, but a sequel is basically a continuation of the original story. Yet they are preferred over the original. Why?

What about sequels which were actually paler in comparison than the originals...

TCM 2 over TCM?
Jaws 2 over Jaws?
E.T. 2 over E.T.?
Hidden II over Hidden?
Child's Play 2 over Child's Play?

There must be more in that bracket too...

[Posher778]

When the fuck was there an ET 2?

[AUSTIN316426808]

Originally posted by Posher778
When the fuck was there an ET 2?


Mac and Me tried to be.

[_____V_____]

yeah...Mac and Me...they touted it as E.T. II damn em...:D

(thanks Austin)

[urgeok]

Originally posted by _____V_____
yeah...Mac and Me...they touted it as E.T. II damn em...:D

(thanks Austin)

it was basically a vehicle for macdonalds 'restaurants'

[urgeok]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
But sequels cannot exist without the first film which sets the foundations, ...

in the case of some films - comic book super hero adaptations in particular - that usually holds the origional back ... they spend a lot of time establishing the origions (which most fans already know) then rush through the last 3rd of the film trying to introduce and resolve the conflict with one or sometimes two villians.

Spiderman was an exception where the origion was handled very effectively. (you could tell that was one of the few comic book adaptations made by a real comic book fan)

i find in a lot of series - especially if they run at least 3 installments .. that as a rule (not always) the series tanks at No. 3.

1 breaks the ground, 2 grows the story, but often by #3 the director is different, the legs are growing weaker ..

one note about star wars ..

i think the very 1st one ever made is and always will be the best.
it was fresh - no one knew what to expect..

the next one was stronger than everything after .. but i still thought the 1st movie stood on its own as one of the finest adventure films ever made..

[newb]

It is very rare for a sequel to better its predecessor. But its also a matter of opinion.Case in point....Flayed pointed out the difference in Alien and Aliens....the first being more horror and the second being more action. If i was more of an action fan i would pick Aliens.
The only movie I can think of where the sequel might be a tad bit better and both movies fall into the same genre, would be The Godfather movies.

[_____V_____]

Originally posted by urgeok
in the case of some films - comic book super hero adaptations in particular - that usually holds the origional back ... they spend a lot of time establishing the origions (which most fans already know) then rush through the last 3rd of the film trying to introduce and resolve the conflict with one or sometimes two villians.

Spiderman was an exception where the origion was handled very effectively. (you could tell that was one of the few comic book adaptations made by a real comic book fan)

i find in a lot of series - especially if they run at least 3 installments .. that as a rule (not always) the series tanks at No. 3.

1 breaks the ground, 2 grows the story, but often by #3 the director is different, the legs are growing weaker ..

one note about star wars ..

i think the very 1st one ever made is and always will be the best.
it was fresh - no one knew what to expect..

the next one was stronger than everything after .. but i still thought the 1st movie stood on its own as one of the finest adventure films ever made..


Most of the comic book adaptations usually run that way. For that matter, most successful movies do too. If we take TCM, Halloween, F13, Nightmare on Elm Street, Alien, for example, its usually the very first movie which is regarded as the best one. People enjoy watching the sequels but IMHO, its rare in a franchise that any of the sequels is regarded as better than the original, except some I have pointed out in the first post. I would still gun for the originals though, because without them there wont be any sequels. Period.

I will give one point in favor of the sequels though. Without successful sequels, there wont be franchises or icons established. Ellen Ripley, Jason Voorhees, Michael Myers, Freddy Krueger, etc. are glaring examples.

[The Flayed One]

I'm a little disappointed that not more people have contributed to this thread. I think it's one of the better ones to be started in the last month.

I think Empire is the one I've heard the most support for as being superior to it's predecessor. I didn't hear near as many people spouting the Alien/Aliens debate before the Scream films. Now, I've talked to my younger sisters friends who say they're into horror. They spout this shit, and I look at them and wonder, 'Have you even seen Alien when it wasn't on network television?'

Moving on. I agree urge about comic book flicks. Spiderman was handled superbly. The first Xmen gave me what I thought I wanted: seeing all my favorite characters of 20-some odd years of reading comics on the big screen. Larger than life. X-2 gave me what I really wanted; seeing them do what I've seen them doing in 2-d for the last 20-some odd years. I understand that people who have never read an X-Men comic in their lives need to know what's going on. To those of us who know the whole mythos by heart; I think most of us want to get to where the action is.

[alkytrio666]

Saw II was better than Saw.

In my opinion.

[phantomstranger]

If you look outside of the horror genre, you'll find several films that are sequels that are just as good if not better then the originals:

"For A Few Dollars More" and "The Good The Bad and The Ugly" are better then the original "Fist ful Of Dollars"

"Godfather II" is considered better then "The Godfather"

"Empire Strikes Back" over "Star Wars"

"Spider-Man 2" is at least as good as -if not better then-"Spider-Man"

"Star TrekII: The Wrath Of Khan" is far better then "Star Trek: The Motion Picture"

and if you want to go waaaay back to the "30's "Tarzan Finds A Mate"is far better the the original "Tarzan, The Ape Man"



Sequels have always been a bit tricky, studios don't want to upset fans by straying too far from the original concept, but at the same time fans don't want a carbon copy either