Are sequels better than originals?

[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