Options
Why Are Sequels Never Rated As Good As The First Movie?
FusionFury
Posts: 14,121 Forum Member
✭✭
Just wondered?
0
FusionFury
Posts: 14,121 FusionFury
Posts: 14,121 FusionFury
Posts: 14,121 FusionFury
Posts: 14,121
Comments
Aliens
Toy Story 3
Sure there are many more
The dark knight
Empire strikes back
Superman 2
Star trek: wrath of khan
Aliens (just as good)
All just as good, if not better...
Dawn of the Dead
Evil Dead 2
Toy Story 2
Terminator 2
Aliens is an example of how to do the perfect sequel. Take the premise, the characters and the established universe from the first movie, and then whilst staying true to it and referential, take it off in a new direction. Explore it, expand it, bring something new to the story that complements the first movie as well.
Batman returns
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.
Agreed. I think it's great (actually bought it on Blu-ray), but I don't even like the other two films.
I like Alien and Aliens about the same. Alien 3 is rubbish.
Much prefer the first Godfather and Terminator films.
Last Crusade if my favourite Indy film. Back to the Future 3 is my favourite from that trilogy.
Most do want sequels to succeed, but it's usually a hastily-written and badly-done script, missing chemistry in the cast or absence of some key cast members, different director and/or a simple mix causes a sequel to fail. In a way, a sequel is like getting back with an ex. Occasionally, it works, but in most cases, the magic is no longer there.
I disagree that Aliens is a big, dumb action movie. It has many action movie clichés for certain, but the plot is tense and the characters are great. The look and feel of it is very seminal as well. Lots of movies have copied it, but never come close.
I am actually a huge fan of Alien3, but to me, that is the chapter in the franchise that seems to be more of a stand-alone film. Fincher's vision really deviates from the established universe and characters, but that said, I do like it for what it is. It is far more gothic nightmare than sci-fi, but the film itself is worthy of far more discussion than for this thread. (I bet it's been done to death here, right?
Mad Max 2 is a strange sequel, in that it becomes the definitive vision of the Mad Max universe as most know it. Say "Mad Max", and I bet that nobody conjures up the image of young Mel Gibson in his shiny leathers, with Goose and the yellow interceptor cars from the first movie, but instead the battered, torn sleeved, shotgun toting Max with the dusty, black Interceptor from Mad Max 2.
I didn't like "The Last Crusade" as much as I did Temple of Doom because of the way that again, TOD takes the character and instead of a rehash of the first movie, we get a complete change of direction. TLC seemed to revisit the premise of the first movie but with a more light-hearted tone. I do realise however, that the reasons why I like TOD are why many people hate it.
Has the thread changed your mind?
Quite a claim.
Temple of Doom. The only one of the four I wouldn't consider re-watching. Starts off okay, but the rest of it is just awful. A lot of it is cringeworthy. Then again, I really like Crystal Skull. I think it's better paced than two of the other Indy films. I know a lot of folk don't like that one, but............
A major element of any story is surprise, and the mistake that film makers often make is in repeating the first film. So there is very little surprise.
The sequels that succeed do it by taking the audiences by surprise, but still being true to the original film in spirit.
Name one film which uses "marines in space" with the design and production quality of the uniforms, weapons and other hardware etc as seen in Aliens? There's a good reason why it appears time and time again from fans of the genre when asked of their favourite movies, as it hasn't yet been bettered. It looks the business, still.
Temple of Doom is a prequel
I know. I was working on the idea that a movie released after another using the same character / universe etc is effectively a sequel for the purposes of discussion about its quality compared with the first.
The opposite is true for me. I really can't say why I dislike KOTCS but there is something not quite right about it. I think it is the over-abundance of CGI which makes the environments feel very fake. The (let's face it, amazing) sets and locations of TOD gave it a better feel.
When you put it that way, I can't.
The concept of 'marines in space' has been around since the 1930s and the gritty look and the hard military SF element were created during the 1970s, especially in Japanese SF films and cartoons, but I can't recall any that combined those elements so I'll give you that one.
Nah, totally wrong.
It's a very well made action flick that taps into, celebrates and subverts, action film clichés. The script is hugely quotable and it's just a great film in its own right. It's a completely different film to Alien, of course and that's why any comparison is absurd.
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?