Why Are Sequels Never Rated As Good As The First Movie?

2»

Comments

  • idlewildeidlewilde Posts: 8,698
    Forum Member
    Dude, I like the film but I can't really see the relevance of the question.

    The makers deliberately chose uniforms, weapons and other technology that seemed outdated. Honestly, the helmets might as well be WWII vintage, for example. Everyone has ballistic weapons that use cartridge ammunition and rifle grenades. Surely that's the whole point? If the soldiers had Star Trek style ray-guns that simply vaporised enemies, where's the dramatic tension?

    Exactly, that's the point. The "near future tech" is Cameron all over, and along with his other movie, The Terminator, that kind of low tech combat hardware in a sci-fi film was pretty seminal from him. Takae seemed to suggest I had made quite a claim by suggesting Aliens was the daddy of all those other similar looking films in the genre that have come since, but I think it was, and remains the best example. That is why it remains popular, because Aliens gets it spot on.
  • GortGort Posts: 7,460
    Forum Member
    idlewilde wrote: »
    Exactly, that's the point. The "near future tech" is Cameron all over, and along with his other movie, The Terminator, that kind of low tech combat hardware in a sci-fi film was pretty seminal from him. Takae seemed to suggest I had made quite a claim by suggesting Aliens was the daddy of all those other similar looking films in the genre that have come since, but I think it was, and remains the best example. That is why it remains popular, because Aliens gets it spot on.

    The "near future tech" was more or less set up in the original Alien film. Flame throwers aren't exactly future technology. Considering the grim and gritty setting of the original, that didn't look too far away from today bar deep space travel and androids, It would have been incongruous to that original if there were laser weapons, teleports and other way advanced technology. So, it can be argued that Cameron's vision was constrained by the setting of the original.
  • Muttley76Muttley76 Posts: 97,888
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    There are plenty of examples of where sequels have been rated more highly or as well as the original, may of them already highlighted here.

    However, it's perhaps fair to say that it's more commonly the case that the original film is held to be the best, and thats likely because very often sequels can be formulaic, and are dependent on rehashing the same plot points/concepts that made the original good, but as it's no longer new it often times feels less innovative or interesting.

    Lot of debate up thread about Alien and Aliens - both excellent films in my book. A strong case for both can be made as to which is the better film. And the reason for that is that they both take the concept in very different directions, while still feeling connected. Thats a successful way of developing a sequel, imho.

    On the other hand, while Back to the Future 2 is still an entertaining film, it is far too concerned with mimicking the themes and concept of the first film, while with the third film, they actually take the concept and do something a bit different with it, again, while still making it feel connected, which I think is why the third film was generally better received than the second.
  • Ancient IDTVAncient IDTV Posts: 10,128
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Gort wrote: »
    The "near future tech" was more or less set up in the original Alien film. Flame throwers aren't exactly future technology. Considering the grim and gritty setting of the original, that didn't look too far away from today bar deep space travel and androids, It would have been incongruous to that original if there were laser weapons, teleports and other way advanced technology. So, it can be argued that Cameron's vision was constrained by the setting of the original.

    Aliens is set 57 years after Alien, which might have provided Cameron with an excuse for introducing much more advanced weaponry/technologies if he so desired. Personally, I'm just happy that Jones the cat made it into the sequel (and there's no sign of any android moggies).
  • idlewildeidlewilde Posts: 8,698
    Forum Member
    Muttley76 wrote: »
    Lot of debate up thread about Alien and Aliens - both excellent films in my book. A strong case for both can be made as to which is the better film. And the reason for that is that they both take the concept in very different directions, while still feeling connected. Thats a successful way of developing a sequel, imho.

    On the other hand, while Back to the Future 2 is still an entertaining film, it is far too concerned with mimicking the themes and concept of the first film, while with the third film, they actually take the concept and do something a bit different with it, again, while still making it feel connected, which I think is why the third film was generally better received than the second.

    Agree completely about Aliens.

    With regards to Back to the Future Part 2, I don't see those films as an original with sequels" as such, but rather one complete story. Part 2 in particular was a rather daring movie to put out after the success of the original. Because it was filmed as a two parter, it obviously didn't have a resolution as it was a bridging movie (sort of like The Empire Strikes Back)

    I do like the time looping in Back to the Future 2, which wraps the new stuff into the original events in 1955.
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 23,681
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    idlewilde wrote: »
    Agree completely about Aliens.

    With regards to Back to the Future Part 2, I don't see those films as an original with sequels" as such, but rather one complete story. Part 2 in particular was a rather daring movie to put out after the success of the original. Because it was filmed as a two parter, it obviously didn't have a resolution as it was a bridging movie (sort of like The Empire Strikes Back)

    I do like the time looping in Back to the Future 2, which wraps the new stuff into the original events in 1955.

    I know part 3 was better received than part 2 at the time but I think the latter is now better remembered due to the hoverboards and the fact 2015 is now almost the present.
  • GortGort Posts: 7,460
    Forum Member
    Aliens is set 57 years after Alien, which might have provided Cameron with an excuse for introducing much more advanced weaponry/technologies if he so desired.

    Well, I believe that the original was meant to be set about 150 years in the future (well, its future), so I'm not sure how much difference 57 years would have provided. My point is that Cameron's supposed vision for using "near future tech" weaponry wasn't really due to artistic merit as such, it was more due to the setting of the original. It was Scott's Alien itself that set up the gritty, industrialised look of its world, which Cameron had to follow.
  • idlewildeidlewilde Posts: 8,698
    Forum Member
    Gort wrote: »
    Well, I believe that the original was meant to be set about 150 years in the future (well, its future), so I'm not sure how much difference 57 years would have provided. My point is that Cameron's supposed vision for using "near future tech" weaponry wasn't really due to artistic merit as such, it was more due to the setting of the original. It was Scott's Alien itself that set up the gritty, industrialised look of its world, which Cameron had to follow.

    But whereas "Alien" was based on a commercial / industrial group and their ship, Cameron's direction was military / combat, and as such, his "grunts in space" movie has been copied many times since.
  • dearmrmandearmrman Posts: 21,435
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    idlewilde wrote: »
    But whereas "Alien" was based on a commercial / industrial group and their ship, Cameron's direction was military / combat, and as such, his "grunts in space" movie has been copied many times since.


    And his major influence for that came from the novel "Starship Troopers", including such terms as "the drop" & "bug hunt"....not forgetting of course the Vietnam war as another major influence.
  • Jim_McIntoshJim_McIntosh Posts: 5,866
    Forum Member
    They tend to break less new ground as they are obviously a continuation of a (usually fairly recent) idea or franchise (that lovely word), so I think the sequel will hold less appeal as a story. Ticket sales might disagree but I don't think popularity is always the best evidence of how good something is.

    I'm sure there are exceptions. Just talking generally.
  • GortGort Posts: 7,460
    Forum Member
    idlewilde wrote: »
    But whereas "Alien" was based on a commercial / industrial group and their ship, Cameron's direction was military / combat, and as such, his "grunts in space" movie has been copied many times since.

    My point was that Cameron's use of "near future tech" was set by the world that was in the original Alien. Anything "near future tech" that Cameron used was set up due to the original directed by Scott. I just feel that the use of "near future tech" shouldn't be attributed to Cameron's vision, for that was set up for him by the previous film.
  • TakaeTakae Posts: 13,555
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    idlewilde wrote: »
    But whereas "Alien" was based on a commercial / industrial group and their ship, Cameron's direction was military / combat, and as such, his "grunts in space" movie has been copied many times since.

    The gritty & gung-ho military/combat aspect was a popular trend at the time, though. Platoon, Predator, The Boys in Company C, Rambo/First Blood and too many Chuck Norris films.
  • gemma-the-huskygemma-the-husky Posts: 18,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Generally, sequels just cover the same ground as the original, and although technically competent dont add a lot.

    Often good in their own right though, and unjustly maligned.
  • idlewildeidlewilde Posts: 8,698
    Forum Member
    Takae wrote: »
    The gritty & gung-ho military/combat aspect was a popular trend at the time, though. Platoon, Predator, The Boys in Company C, Rambo/First Blood and too many Chuck Norris films.

    The point is that all "space marines" type movies in that genre since seem like inferior derivatives of Aliens.
  • idlewildeidlewilde Posts: 8,698
    Forum Member
    Gort wrote: »
    My point was that Cameron's use of "near future tech" was set by the world that was in the original Alien. Anything "near future tech" that Cameron used was set up due to the original directed by Scott. I just feel that the use of "near future tech" shouldn't be attributed to Cameron's vision, for that was set up for him by the previous film.

    Okay. Well I know what I mean even if I'm not getting it across very well :D
  • Naa_KwaKaiNaa_KwaKai Posts: 1,883
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Once upon a time the OP would have had a point but today sequels are nearly almost better than the first and that's because there are no stand alone movies any more. Everything is part of franchise. Today films are made with a sequel *in mind*, so a lot of the good stuff is saved for later and paced out. Whereas in the past, sequels were mere cash grabs.
  • Tal'shiarTal'shiar Posts: 2,290
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    dearmrman wrote: »
    Far to much praise for Aliens, which to me doesn't feel like a sequel, more just a stand alone movie set in the same universe...yes it's a fun movie, but at the end of the day it is a big dumb action movie from the 80's nothing more nothing less. Alien 3 feels more of a sequel to the original film.

    Completely agree, always thought Aliens was just a very good action film, but compared to the masterwork of the first it was a cheap cash in.

    I think 3 gets a lot of stick when its actually a decent enough movie, its more true to its roots as a smaller scale horror story. 4 was a hideous failure though haha.
  • brangdonbrangdon Posts: 14,092
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Sometimes its because people like novelty. If you saw the sequel first, you might prefer it to the original, but because the original came out first, most people see it first, and that's why they prefer it.

    I often prefer sequels. Usually the original talent is still around and interested in the project. They have ideas they wanted to use in the first film but couldn't fit in, or which they thought of too late. They have more money, too, which often helps. They don't have to spend so much time on setting up the situation. The franchise isn't yet established so they can be creative or take it in whatever direction they want.

    The third film is the one that is often dire. By then, the original creative talent have got bored and moved on. The franchise is pretty much defined by whatever elements are common to the first and second films. Even more money is available, and that means more constraints and less risk-taking. So it becomes a formulaic money-grab made by second-raters with no artistic inspiration.

    I'm mostly talking of idea-based films. Films about character tend to have a single story to tell, which is played out in the first film, and then there's nothing more to say.
Sign In or Register to comment.