Sequels that are better than the first movie.

C

Caedence

New member
Alien 3 is a butchered masterpiece.

Alien: Resurrection is just the butcher's leftovers.

Loved the way Joss Whedon publicly ripped on it in Buffy TVS.
 
Not in the slightest.

Jerry GolRABmith's fantastic orchestral score to the original is in itself miles better then anything The Mummy Returns had to offer.

That being said, I'm also a fan of Alan Silvestri's score to the sequel.

The new film is easily going to fall into the "third film jinx" category. No doubt in my mind.

Even the composer scoring this one is way out of his league. That being Randy Edelman.

I lost all hope the moment Rachel Weisz jumped ship. Re-casting a major character this far in is ridiculous. Hollywood never learn, because it never works.

Don't even bring James Bond, Batman, etc into this, because they are not in anyway justifiable comparisons.

Just look at Dumbledore in Harry Potter. Perfect example. Richard Harris "Yes"... Michael Gambon "No".

Gambon did nothing but contribute to ruining the series.

Such an overrated plank of wood. Richard Harris... anything but.

With Rachel now gone from The Mummy franchise, of all people they re-cast her with Maria Bello.

Roll on the horrid attempt at a British accent.

The teaser poster is laughable also.

It's...

Mortal "Mummy" Kombat

Clean Look at 'The Mummy 3' Teaser Poster!
 
i agree that most superhero films have better second parts (e.g. blade, xmen, superman). Usually because the first parts become so bogged down in back story and introducing the characters/situations that they dont really give us much of the characters actually kicking ass.

Although it wasnt a amazing film by any means I think Fantastic Four2 showed huge improvements over the dreadful original.

also, the Bourne are one of the few franchises where the films seem to get better as the series progress as I loved the third film but i found the original quite dull.
 
This will have been done before I'm guessing but based on today's conversation from work. How many sequels are better than the 1st movie?

People will often reel off loaRAB but me personally in my entire movie catalogue collection I personally only believe there are 3 sequels. 1 definitive and 2 others that are better (IMO).

Definitive Sequel: Terminator 2 - Judgement Day
.... without question a better movie than The Terminator

But also Short Circuit 2 and Hot Shots Part Duex.

Those are the only 3 I say are personally. Some trilogies and 'series' of movies which are 1 long story and I don't compare to one another. (Harry Potter, Lord Of The Rings, Back To The Future) Also maybe a few others that come to being maybe 'on-par' with the first but that's it.

Your preferred Sequels now though.
 
Aliens was an example of a sequel that took the original concept, did something different with it and produced a film as good as the original, but for different reasons. It certainly didn't surpass the quality of Alien, though.
 
Personally, I think Gambon is great. Much better than Harris (he plays it thoroughly differently - so I understand there is room for love on both sides), who was patently too unwell to be playing the part by the second film. He whispered his way through CoS. The guy was a legend, but the fact that he was on his last legs was depressingly obvious.
 
Absolutely. Khan will always be the best Trek film, sorry J.J. Abrams but I already know your film isn't going to be anywhere near as good, I don't need to actually see it to confirm that on this occasion.


I couldn't disagree more. Sister Act 2 is terrible. The only good thing to come out of it was the Soundtrack.

Well, that's why we have small minorities.

Sister Act is a classic in its genre. Even Whoopi Goldberg has gone on record as saying the sequel's plot line stunk and the only reason she ever did it was so that the company producing it would finance her own project "Sarafina!" which inevitably flopped.

Sister Act 2 is not only very poorly written, it's a complete insult to the first film, especially its characters. I don't know why Maggie Smith even signed on. For the money I guess.

As for Lauryn Hill... A conceited racist who's career deserved to fall flat on its face.

Compare Sister Act to its sequel today...

The first one has barely aged.

The second has dated miserably. Says it all really.
 
Although I like Aliens, it's nowhere near as great or important a film as the first one.

The film most famous for being a better sequel has got to be Bride of Frankenstein.

Evil Dead 2 was better that Evil Dead - although really it was a remake with a bigger budget.

Jurassic Park: The Lost world was better that Jurassic Park
* ducks again *
 
I always enjoyed Terminator II more compared to the first film. The less said of Terminator III the better. :eek:

The Bourne trilogy - Bourne Ultimatum was the better film of the 3.

The LOTR trilogy. The second & third were brilliant. The first one was good too but the other 2 were that step ahead in quality.
 
Police Acamedy is a good example of, you should quit when your ahead. The first was amusing, but as they rolled them out they got worse and worse..cant recall what number was the latest, 27?

As for better than first, cant think of one right now
 
It partly depenRAB on which one you see first. If you see them in order, the sequel is at a disadvantage because the original seems fresher. If you see the sequel first, it has all the new concepts of the original plus a whole lot more. It usually has a better budget, because it has an established audience, and most of the original talent are still interested in it and exploring ideas they had too late in the include in the first film.

I prefer Hellraiser II over Hellraiser I partly because I saw it first. Most people saw HR I first and prefer that.

Often its the third film in a series which is the real stinker. What is common to the first two films becomes the formula which defines the franchise. Any attempt to innovate outside of that scares the finance and marketing people. The original creative talent have by now lost interest and moved onto other projects. New creative talent are struggling, because now the process is driven by money, not art. As examples I'd cite Hellraiser III, and Alien III and Terminator III and Blade III.

(The other rule of thumb is that sequels done by James Cameron are good.)
 
I would say Batman Begins, but I guess that is a re-imagining of the Batman story for a new audience / decade. But taking the 'Burton' movie series, I'd go so far as to say that Batman Forever surpasses both the dour Batman Returns and the original Batman. 'Batman' had flashes of brilliance, but overall was uneven in tone, an overly flashy Nicholson performance and a script that was more a series of quotes than true dialogue. Batman Forever admittedly, softened the gothic elements, but still retained elements of darkness, had a great origin story for Robin and continued the inner conflict of Bruce. Val Kilmer, apart from Christian Bale, is the only other Batman actor to look the part - physically too. Yes, the movie did set the camp neon tone that Batman & Robin :eek: took to extremes, but just about managed to rein those gaudy excesses in - Burton still remained as producer on Forever, so perhaps his 'darkness' balanced those elements out. Together with a witty, funny script ('Holy Rusty Metal Batman!! :D), Kidman looking her absolute best and some great set pieces, Batman Forever is the only Batman movie besides 'Begins' that I find myself revisiting, when I need a fix of the old Dark Knight.

And no doubt, 'The Dark Knight' itself will walk all over its stunning predecessor, come Summer 2008!!
 
Back
Top