A couple years ago, I watched the Lord of the Rings. By a couple I mean like four or five. For some reason we only have the first and second movie. So that's all I knew of the Lord of the Rings for some time.
From my years of movie critiquing (not), I found the first movie boring. Nothing really happened that excited me.
Sorry, Gandalf yelling, "you shall not pass!" is not that terribly exciting.
There was nothing wrong with it because it felt just like... plot. Then I watch the next one, and it's okay. A good bit of excitement and build-up, and then it ends with an awesome battle sequence. So a sort of mix between plot and action.
I forget when I even watched the third Lord of the Rings. Way after all the buzz about it being the greatest movie of all time though. And when I finally did, it was pretty good too. Less plot, and more action. And it was about that time I had a revelation.
Why do most sequels suck?
Is it because the big corporations sees the success of their first movie and decide they don't give a crap anymore and just release movie after movie to milk the most out of the series?
Well sometimes.
But for people like Steven Spielberg, they have enough money that they don't really care about money that much. There really comes a point in your career where the money doesn't even matter anymore. You just want to make good movies.
So it's not that the corporation gets greedy.
Let's see. So then it must be that movies in the future are just shittier than movies in the past. That makes sense. Wait. No it doesn't. Surely if you learn more, as you're apt to do when you grow, you can produce better quality movies. But that doesn't seem the case anymore. Does it?
So here I am done the Lord of the Rings, and suddenly it strikes me. What on Earth happens if I watch the Lord of the Rings trilogy backwards?
Of course, the plot makes no sense. The ring comes back from the dead and Frodo's finger regenerates. But that's besides the point.
You'd be very disappointed in the second and third movie because they simply can't live up to the first one.
However, the main point I'd like to make is that the Lord of the Rings really looks like it was done intentionally. Maybe because it was a close-ish adaptation of a book. But the first movie is decent, but nothing spectacular. The second movie introduces some new things and has a more epic feeling, but still pretty non-spectacular. And then the third movie comes in and blows you away.
Why? Because you were so used to being disappointed. You went into the second movie expecting it to be better than the first, and because the first was so mediocre, the little step up in the second movie makes it that much better. And then you watch the third movie, and you are absolutely shocked and how great it was, because you had the previous two to look back on.
A little while ago, I said that this was done on purpose. Yes, from the book, but also consider that the movies were released simultaneously, spread one year apart. Surely, you judge the first movie and then decide the make sequels depending on how successful it is. But because the first movie was only a part of the book, and because Peter Jackson is rich anyways, they seemed prepared to make an okay first movie and save all the good stuff for later.
With all of that in mind, let's move on to Jurassic Park. Good, yes? And the second and third were complete bombs. Why? Because after the first movie, you think immediately that the next movie is going to be great as well. But you're already used to the idea of dinosaurs in a park and in the city. Now, you tell me, what else can they do?
Jurassic Park 2. Dinosaurs in a jungle, people get stuck and have to escape. Jurassic Park 3. Dinosaurs in a jungle, people get stuck and have to escape. It's exactly the same as Jurassic Park because there is nothing else you can possibly add to the movie. Sure, maybe the collective minds of several million fans have come up with an okay fan fiction, but there's really nothing you can add to make it even more amazing.
The trouble is simply, they put so much effort in the first movie to make it successful, that in the sequels to come, there are really no more ideas that you can come up with. Completely opposite to what happened with the Lord of the Rings.
In the Pirates of the Caribbean, I think the second movie is slightly better than the first simply because it introduces a lot more plot and action. The first was excellent still, but then the third suffered because the formula had already gone stale. No one cared about Davy Jones anymore, which made the third movie a real disappointment. And the action sequences felt exactly like the second movie.
I haven't really heard anyone talk about Saw degrading in quality, since there's really not much to degrade, but Final Destination is a good example as well. There is nothing you can change for the second movie unless this time, you kill off the main character instead of letting two of them survive. Yay. The same thing happens, just in different ways.
Toy Story didn't suffer from this. I don't really have an explanation beyond nostalgia.
The first movie is usually amazing because the concept is new, but watch the same formula again and it's boring. Thus the phenomenon that the sequels are worse.
, you're just so bored of the idea. Which makes me think that there may be a day where we've exhausted every single idea that ever exists. But that'd be a long way away.
As a project, I'd like you to look at any series that you think suffered from bad sequels, like the Terminator, and ask yourself, if they renamed the third movie as the first, and the first movie as the third, and then made the plots fit, would you still say the real first movie was better?
Arnold would argue that you can't really definitively say yes to that.
Because this is more of an opinion blog, it's my thought into why movie sequels usually suck. I'll be happy to debate, but don't try to kill me. Also, I don't have the experience as some of you older people, or the memory, so there are probably examples that I didn't mention that may or may not contradict my thoughts. I'd certainly like to hear them, and even any of your opinions on the matter. Thanks!.
WHY ARE MY PICTURES SO LARGE. T.T Wanted them smaller. Sorry this isn't smaller, but it was a good way to break brainrot.
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat terminator 2: JUDGEMENT DAY is wayyyyyyyyyyyy better than terminator. The action scenes are all exceptional and original. The sound and special effects are still amazing to this day.
I don't think anyone intends to make a crap movie, in particular I doubt Jackson intended to make a crap Fellowship, and Two Towers. It is quite simply the final movie draws so many plot lines together, hence there is more happening. You can't just rearrange them as the whole movie makes no sense.
There are some movies that should have stayed as one offs, but there sequels which greatly improve on the original. I for one enjoyed Shrek 2 over the first. The old naked Gun movies got better and better and for something more recent the Hangover movies were both entertaining.
You are right in that sequels are normally worse but this is mainly due to lazy writing and reliance on the appeal of the first movie.
Terminator 1 and 2 are both great movies in their own right and stand equal in my eyes. I thought Aliens was better than the original Alien. What about The Empire Strikes Back?
Two honorable mentions are Indiana Jones and the Lost Crusade as well as Predator 2.
I'll agree that most sequels are not as good as the originals. But it is not true for all movies. I have to agree with others. Terminator 2 is wayyyyyy better than the original. Also you know that all three lord of the rings movies were filmed as one extremely long movie split into 3 parts, right? They didn't just keep making them for business, they made them to finish the story.
@Probulous- 100% correct. The reason the movies get better is because all the plot lines develop and come to a close. The first movie was opening you into this whole world and learning all the different characters and the storyline. The second was basically adding a lot of action and some drama to the story. The third was when everything came together and just was fucking awesome. You cannot have the last movie without the first and second.
Terminator 2 is one of the best action flicks of all time, better than any of the other Terminators. A lot of sequels suck, but not all. Aliens, Godfather 2, Empire Strikes, Temple of Doom, and many others.
Some people say, "Well, those are trilogies so they do not count" but the fact is that a lot of them are only trilogies because the sequel was friggin amazing.
It's funny, I agree with you about the general problem with sequels, and your logic about why they suffer (essentially that the creators no longer care and know they can get more money out of them by putting out literally anything).
But your examples: Lord of the Rings: All 3 are good, I guess you're right about them getting better along the way but that is just bound to happen for the reasons Probulous mentioned. And they were filmed at about the same time. Jurassic Park: Fair enough. Pirates of the Caribbean: I actually consider the 2nd one to be pretty bad in comparison to the other two. A lot of filler action, the major sequences were just the kraken fucking everything up, and it was just too violent (but not epic/cool violent, just "oh so everything is dead" violent). The first one was very interesting and likely the best, but the third actually had much more depth and focused on the characters more than the second. Terminator: The second one was the best, I thought that was universally accepted lol. I'd say that the second was best, the first and fourth are tied (I think a lot of people hate the fourth for reasons they don't even know, like disliking Christian Bale, sequels, thought it should be a trilogy, dislike the hybrid concept, the time/setting, didn't give the movie much chance after the third, etc.), and the third just wasn't even close.
I'm surprised no one mentioned any horror movies. I have a limited knowledge of them but most people seem to hate sequels to horror movies.
As for sequels getting worse, I bet a lot of it has to do with the people involved actually being less inspired to make the movies, since it's less new to them, less of a challenge with much of the theory worked out already, and many of the people who hadn't any enthusiasm left were probably just pushovers goaded in my those who had. It's not all greed, though that's the most obvious answer. And personally I liked the first LotR far better, much as The Matrix. Even if it was true to the books, which I never read, the sequels just seemed to have a bunch of action crammed in artificially for obvious reasons, and didn't impress me. Maybe it was the way those scenes were done.
So would you agree with me if I said, they should have just stopped after the first POTC, because it was good enough to be its own 1part movie(no sequels needed)?
The Toy Story trilogy was absolutely perfect, and as far as I'm aware it wasn't made to be a trilogy at the start.
I think if you looked at the ratio of good to bad sequels vs the ratio of good to bad movies in general, it'd be fairly similar. Sequels just stand out as worse due to higher expectations.
Terminator is definitely not a series for bad sequels. T3 may have lacked, but T2 was far better than the original.
Reminded me of this cartoon, made before the Jurassic Park sequel was actually made lol
Terminator 1 is more like Horror/Thriller/Suspense. Terminator 2 is more classic Action. Both are awesome, both are outstanding.
T3 seemed much more light hearted than 2, i actually "liked" it, it's no genre classic or anything super special but not truly bad... It's just that T2 even nowadays is a bloody good movie, even the CGI does not look to bad... T4.. Ugh... Crap story makes a crap movie.
Lord of The Rings. I actually liked Part 1 the most... Part 2/3, aside from the battles, were/are imho worse.
Jurassic Park 1 is not a good movie, never was, it was just (the first?) CGI-Porn... Jurassic Park was the 90ies Avatar/Transformers. Bad movies with for the time nice looks.
In the Pirates of the Caribbean, I think the second movie is slightly better than the first simply because it introduces a lot more plot and action. The first was excellent still, but then the third suffered because the formula had already gone stale. No one cared about Davy Jones anymore, which made the third movie a real disappointment. And the action sequences felt exactly like the second movie.
The problem here was, the first one was original and in itself "finished"... 2 and 3 were added to make money and it shows... I actually like the new one better than 2 and 3 (they are all rather bad).
I don't think sequels are terrible. Sure most of the time they are but I can think of many movies where a sequel is better than the original. Godfather 2, The Dark Knight, Terminator 2 and The Empire strikes back just to name a few. Maybe the ones with better sequels have an idea that doesn't get boring or sometimes the original is so terrible the sequel looks good.
cant think of a movie where the sequal where better then the first one, probably because the originality that made the first one intressting isnt there anymore along with much more.
Lord of the ring doesnt count because its not really a sequel, its just a huge movie shot at only 1 time and then split in 3. Also its 100% based on a story thats already written so its not like they couldve adapted the story based on the reaction to the previous movies.
On July 08 2011 15:12 Blisse wrote: Why do most sequels suck?
Is it because the big corporations sees the success of their first movie and decide they don't give a crap anymore and just release movie after movie to milk the most out of the series?
Well sometimes.
But for people like Steven Spielberg, they have enough money that they don't really care about money that much. There really comes a point in your career where the money doesn't even matter anymore. You just want to make good movies.
Oh, here we go with corporation talk :/. I'd argue that a lot of sequels are suckling from the teat of their cash cow. Take the fourth Pirates movie. The plot of the first three were done. There didn't need to be a fourth. But people are still willing to pay to go see it. In the world of art this may be a mute point, but in the world of business you make as much money as you can. Perhaps, in an ideological paradise, money doesn't matter anymore, but this is the real world...
With all of that in mind, let's move on to Jurassic Park. Good, yes? And the second and third were complete bombs. Why? Because after the first movie, you think immediately that the next movie is going to be great as well. But you're already used to the idea of dinosaurs in a park and in the city. Now, you tell me, what else can they do?
Jurassic Park 2. Dinosaurs in a jungle, people get stuck and have to escape. Jurassic Park 3. Dinosaurs in a jungle, people get stuck and have to escape. It's exactly the same as Jurassic Park because there is nothing else you can possibly add to the movie. Sure, maybe the collective minds of several million fans have come up with an okay fan fiction, but there's really nothing you can add to make it even more amazing.
I'm ok with the Lord of the Rings arguments, your opinion is your opinion, but have you ever READ Jurassic Park? The first movie is, primarily, a short explanation on how the dinosaurs came to exist again and then a lot of surviving when you're in the wild with them. The book focused a lot more on how the dinosaurs came to be again in an interesting "what if?" scenario you see in a lot of science fiction. The first movie didn't cover all the material in the book, primarily a survival sequence in the pterodactyl habitat. This was a big part of Jurassic Park 3, so it's a far cry from fan fiction, it's actually a legitimate part of the story.
Sure, the plot of Lost World had a number of differences from the book, but the overall story was decidedly different from the first. The first movie was "hey, we made this theme park with rez'd dinosaurs, isn't it awesome? Oh crap, the power is out and they're loose!" while the second was "there's another island with dinosaurs, but this time a rival is trying to steal the dino's and the main characters are trying to rescue someone." Yes, they both have the survival aspect in common, but what do you expect? The plots, on the other hand, are different.
Overall you seem to judge movies based more on action than the story they tell. The action sequences of sequels ARE going to be similar because if they weren't then you'd have an entirely different movie! The key differences are in the plot. A film is another way of telling a story, and if you don't have the stomach for the plot then don't expect to enjoy ANY sequel!
On July 08 2011 22:09 Horiz0n wrote: cant think of a movie where the sequal where better then the first one, probably because the originality that made the first one intressting isnt there anymore along with much more.
It's mostly a matter of opinion. However, it's generally accepted that The Empire Strikes Back and The Godfather II were better than their predecessors.
Personally, I like Evil Dead 2 AND Army of Darkness better than the first (with Army of Darkness being my favorite - that was #3 in the series). I also like Aliens a lot more than Alien. Let's not forget Dark Knight versus Batman Begins, either! In the end, everything is debatable!
You're comparing something like LoTR, which was designed to be a trilogy, vs Terminator, which was not.
Not to mention T1 is nothing liek T2, and T3 is nothing like any of the others beyond the whole robots fight humans schtick. Complete different as far as style, ambiance and a whole bunch of other things
Tolkien's publisher just released it against his wishes in three installments cause it was so long.
Which is why it is so hard splitting it into three movies also. I never really considered the movies as individuals too much, I thought of them as a single 20 hour long adventure. It just makes more since that way.
For terrible sequels see Karate Kid Part 2. Seriously? WTF!!! First you take time to learn karate from the coolest goddamn person to ever walk the earth. Then you go on a fucking rampage kicking the shit out of everybody you see, collecting some broken bones and shit on the way. And because you get so injured, Asian Jesus has to perform his body fixing awesomeness. Finally you fight Johnny, all while that annoying kid is yelling "Put him in a body bag Johnny!", and finally you crane kick him in the face to win the tournament. All of this for a girl who then dumps your ass in the sequel!!?!?!?!?!!! NO! JUST NO!
A lot of sequels are "boring" simply because of the expectation of the first movie or because the plot is carried on. What I mean is that there's nothing radically different in the second movie when compared to the first. But in your examples, the sequels are not that bad. LOTR was well done and epic throughout, probably one of the most re-watchable movies of all time. Pirates of the Caribbean 1 and 2, in my humble opinion, were both not that bad. I loved them both and had a great time. Terminator is just Terminator lol. Even Batman: the Dark Knight wasn't terrible. So I honestly think that you can't label sequels are bad simply because they are sequels.
Actually I never intended for the Lord of the Rings to do anything but act as an introduction to my idea that sequels are terrible because the first movie is so good that there are no more ideas. I said if you flipped the order of them around, the Lord of the Rings seemed to fit this description, but because it was presented in the way it was, the Lord of the Rings seemed to get better and better, and that's probably why the Return of the King is considered the best movie by some.
And I totally forgot that it was one movie split into three. It doesn't really invalidate my argument since I never used the Lord of the Rings as an example... at least I'm pretty sure I didn't. Left to sleep after my post. :D
And the reason I didn't put "Why Most Sequels are Terrible" is because that makes for a terrible title and argument. My argument is, "Why Most Sequels are Terrible," as shown if you read the op carefully. And I don't have the experience or memory to call on every example ever of every movie series. And even if I did, it's still my opinion.
It's just an idea that I had, instead of people always saying, the corporations get greedy and release subpar content to milk the most out of the brilliance of the first movie, maybe we're just used to the idea, and disappointed when we watch somewhat of the same movie twice.
I liked reading the arguments against me though, really interesting stuff that I never knew before.
Also, which Terminator is the one with the cop and which Terminator is the one with the woman?
I don't know what you're talking about with low expectations for LOTR 3... I loved all three of them! The 3rd only blew me away because it's one of the best movies of all time, and the scores of all three are simply incredible.
On July 09 2011 05:06 Blisse wrote: Also, which Terminator is the one with the cop and which Terminator is the one with the woman?
Terminator is the one with the soldier sent back in time (so he's like a cop), Terminator 2 has the machine that wears a cop uniform, and Terminator 3 has the female machine.
Your post is confusing... Sequels sucks, yet LotR got gradually better... but only because the first one was so horrible I guess? Anyway, what about the Jason Bourne movies! Those are all amazingggg!!!!
I feel like the first LOTR film was by far the best, and while I liked the other two, there was enough holywood moments (shield surfing legolas), or just plain misjudgments (gullible instead of wise ents and the boring army of the dead), that they weren't as perfect.
The first just had it all right...from Gandalfs fireworks to Rivendelll, it just felt expertly crafted and right.
Generally on topic, isn't the Empire Strikes Back considered the best Star Wars film?
On July 08 2011 21:40 BadBinky wrote: I don't think sequels are terrible. Sure most of the time they are but I can think of many movies where a sequel is better than the original. Godfather 2, The Dark Knight, Terminator 2 and The Empire strikes back just to name a few. Maybe the ones with better sequels have an idea that doesn't get boring or sometimes the original is so terrible the sequel looks good.
wasn't planning on commenting cause everybody has mostly hit all my points... just felt I had to mention The Dark Knight isn't really a sequel... it's like the 8th movie in a series of films. Kinda like calling Quantum of Solace a sequel.
A huge part of what makes sequels worse than the first is that character, plot, and setting development are key elements in the quality of a movie. Take The Matrix for an example. The whole setting in The Matrix is very deep and intriguing, but most of it is spewed out in the first movie. In the second and third, you don't get the thrill of seeing a new setting and characters unfold, you only see how they interact.
On July 09 2011 10:18 Chairman Ray wrote: A huge part of what makes sequels worse than the first is that character, plot, and setting development are key elements in the quality of a movie. Take The Matrix for an example. The whole setting in The Matrix is very deep and intriguing, but most of it is spewed out in the first movie. In the second and third, you don't get the thrill of seeing a new setting and characters unfold, you only see how they interact.
This is somewhat true, but with proper writing the plot and characters can grow and develop beyond their original incarnation. I guess the most recent example of this would be the Harry Potter series. The crafted storyline of the books allowed the script writers to create a longterm story arc which flows through the movies.
The movies themselves grow with the characters both in tone and content. Some would say that this is just an example of corporations taking advantage of good writing but my counter to that is quite simply, are the movies good? I would suggest that by earning well over $1 Billion dollars the franchise has at least been financially successful.
I stand by point raised in my first post, that without a proper storyline, without well constructed writing, sequels fail. This is not because sequels themselves are inherently bad, the writing is.
As has been said before, this comparison falls flat when you start comparing movies that have longer stories than 1 movie can hold, to movies where the story is captured in one movie.
In LoTR, the story doesn't end until the third movie. In Matrix, the original story ends in movie one but there were more ideas floating around that was later adapted to movies two and three. Movie 2 and 3 is one story and thus, of the same "quality", albeit not as good as the original. The same goes for Pirates, a great first movie, but the others does not add anything we haven't already seen, it's just milking the concept and characters.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Or4jk.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/miX1T.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Rcf87.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xV4Cf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rksAZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://clarkbunch.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/squirrel.jpg)
