superiour sequels

[Duff-e]

Because we all know Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions really made a neat bow out of those loose ends...

[Sentura]

Because we all know Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions really made a neat bow out of those loose ends...

i thought they were good. at least the story didn't stop at neo flying from a telephone booth, which tells fuck all. closure, goddammit, closure.

[twiz]

I don't think you should include intended trilogies(or longer) in your list, such as LOTR. I don't really consider LOTR 3 separate movies. If you watch each one on their own, they make no sense and/or give no conclusion. They are one movie that is broken into 3 to make the viewing times reasonable. Another example is Kill Bill.

Some stuff you forgot. I think all these go in the 'original better than the sequel' catagory:

Ghostbusters and whatever came after

Hellboy and etc

Transformers(I haven't seen the sequel, as the first was awful. But the 2nd looked even worse.)

Home Alone and whatever(although I quit watching them after the 2nd one sucked)

Boondock Saints(again, haven't watched the sequel as it looked awful. I could be wrong. Anyone?)

Jaws

Toy Story

And a thousand more.

What about the bourne movies? I liked the first, don't remember the second, never saw the third but heard it was good. Anyone?

[Thrik]

All three Bourne movies are amazing.

[Ginger Lord]

All three Bourne movies are amazing.

Aside from the horrendous editing and shaky cam, yes they are.

[Duff-e]

All of it is pretty mainstream. Once people know what they like they tend to just want more of the same.

[twiz]

I think the issue with unintended sequels, as in sequels that were made after the original made a bajillion dollars, is the problem with character development. In a good movie, the entire thing is driven by character development.. learning who the characters are and their personalities through the decisions they make. That's a large part of what makes an interesting and compelling movie to me. With a sequel, the characters are already developed and known to the viewers, so its just left to be more plot. Usually the plot of the sequel is largely the same, since the setting and circumstance of the characters is already set by the first one.

Some sequels that defeat this are often part of a movie franchise that is based on already-known characters, such as X-men or superman or batman. Everyone already knows who those characters are, the setting, etc, so the first one isn't really tasked with the same character development as a typical movie.

Others, like Aliens and Terminator 2, take such a small fragment of what was the original, and develop it with entirely new characters and settings. The first time I saw Aliens, I had no idea there was a movie before it until well after. It functions perfectly on its own.

Sort of like expansion packs for games - the storyline and characters are already established, its usually just some more-of-the-same gameplay to keep you entertained. Not that there is anything wrong with that - just not breaking into anything new and amazing.

[DaanO]

Agreed. But the biggest problem is guts. It takes such a tremendous amount of work and money to make a movie these days (or a game for that matter) that investers have to be almost sure they're gonna get it back. If a movie has proved itself, a sequel will get new investments so much easier than anything else, let alone a daring new concept. I think that's why we see so many sequels to movies that don't need one and i think that's why sequels will differ so little from the originals. Investers just aren't the biggest daredevils most of the time, although recent economic events seem to suggest otherwise....

[Izuno]

My 11 cents:

1) Alien was sci-fi/horror, while Aliens added a huge action/military element making it almost a different genre so comparisons are tougher. I did find Aliens more enjoyable overall compared to Alien.

2) Raiders of the Lost is hands down my favorite Indy movie, and as with Mazy probably my #1 movie of all time. Temple of Doom I found highly underrated but alas inferior to Raiders, but the series shot way up again with Last Crusade. And of course Indy 4 was a total rape of the series and character. Why Mr. Speilberg? Why!?

3) Of the original Star Wars trilogy, Empire was clearly many peoples favorite. Probably my #2 movie all time. Jedi without the Ewoks = awesome so I can say I liked those sequels better, but Star Wars: A New Hope was a clear groundbreaker so it gets major bonus points. The prequel trilogy is up there with the 2nd and 3rd Matrix movies as the biggest disappointments of all time. However, on a recent Star Wars marathon on SpikeTV I found myself watching the prequel movies on and off throughout the day whereas if it were a Matrix marathon I'd skip movies #2 and 3.

4) I'm undecided about Terminator 2 over Terminator. Similar to Aliens series, T2 was almost a different genre than T1. There was something about late 70s and 80s sci-fi horror that lacked the action-humor of T2 and Aliens that put T1 and Alien in a different category. T1 had some funny moments, but it was definitely not funny the way T2 was funny. T1 was darker and more ruthless, perhaps again because it was a groundbreaking film in terms of concept/execution.

5) Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan was about 1 million times better than Star Trek: The Motion picture. Khan is my #3 movie of all time. In fact, as many people know even # ST movies were the good ones until Nemisis which blew chunks. Data died and I didn't give a shit. So in that sense the series went up and down in a cycle.

6) Original Batman movies all sucked imho except for the first one from 1985. BB and TDK were a new breed and I actually liked TDK better than BB which was still awesome. Heath Ledger in TDK gave possible the best performance I have ever seen which pushed that movie over the top.

7) The first 2 Jurassic Park movies were both awesome, but I actually think The Lost World was a bit better. Too bad the series took a huge nosedive with Jurassic Park 3. I'm still saddened that Michael Creighton passed away in 2008

Similar to the Indy series, I found the original Bourne movie totally awesome as we got to know this character and learn about his capabilities. It was the first time we saw a spy like that in cinema. Now "going Bourne" has a whole series of meanings in popular culture. That is an incredibly influential film. The second movie in the series I thought was the worst, as with Temple of Doom in the Indy series, though still good overall. The series ended with an awesome 3rd movie that rivaled the first in excellence.

9) As for the Lord of the Rings movies, I admit I loved all 3 and could probably watch all 3 extended editions in one day in a row (it would take perhaps 12+ hours, too). Since all 3 were made together the quality level and technical aspects don't really vary / improve much with each new movie. They definitely are not perfect but I feel the 1st and 3rd movies are the best. The first because it's the first time this world comes alive in film and the 3rd because it was epic beyond epic, despite it's 17 endings and the lamest "Gandalf!" line by Frodo at the end. Sheesh. I digress.

10) Finally, I found the 3rd Harry Potter film to be my favorite, while the 4th was simply too much...I don't know what but it wasn't watchable to me. I haven't seen the 5th through 23rd films in the series.

11) And as far as the Twilight series goes, my wife and I rented the first. It was OK. Didn't bother to see the second after it got a 17% on RottenTomatoes and my cousin's girlfriend wouldn't shut up about how it was the best movie of all time. Please. :roll:

And in the un-asked for "THANK GOD THEY DID NOT MAKE A SEQUEL CATEGORY":

1) E.T. The Extra Terrestrial...What Speilberg did in this film was incredible and it is the only movie that can bring tears to my eyes. A sequel would have pushed it into total lameness territory.

2) Event Horizon...cause the only thing worse than seeing this movie would be seeing it again or a sequel

[D3ads]

*slaps Izuno*

Event Horizon is an awesome film!

I'll throw it out there that Die Hard With a Vengeance is the best of the trilogy too.

[twiz]

Agreed. But the biggest problem is guts. It takes such a tremendous amount of work and money to make a movie these days (or a game for that matter) that investers have to be almost sure they're gonna get it back. If a movie has proved itself, a sequel will get new investments so much easier than anything else, let alone a daring new concept. I think that's why we see so many sequels to movies that don't need one and i think that's why sequels will differ so little from the originals. Investers just aren't the biggest daredevils most of the time, although recent economic events seem to suggest otherwise....

Yep, same reason why we see GOW 2, halo whatever, MGS4, GTA4, RE5, etc etc etc. Rather make safe money than take risks. Can't blame them.

[Rick_D]

die hard with a vengeance > die hard

Unfortunately all your opinions have been made invalid.