What makes a good sequel?

welsh

welsh

Junkmaster
Ok, this discussion of the future of Fallout 3 has gotten me thinking about what makes a good sequel.

I mean, Jaws was a great movie, Jaws 2 was kind of stupid, Jaws 3 was really fucking stupid.

Godfather 1 was great, Godfather 2 was pretty good, Godfather 3- a decent movie but didn't live up to the predecessors.

Predator 1, eh? Predator 2- I thought was quite fun.

Alien 1- good horror movie, Alien 2- great action movie, Alien 3- I liked from the mix but it didn't work so well, Alien 4 - got roasted.

Halloween 1 great. the rest = crap
Friday the Thirtheenth 1 was ok, the rest were crap.
Nightmare on Elm Street 1- pretty good- the rest were crap.

And then Star Wars Empire Strikes Back is considered the best of the bunch by many.

Evil Dead 1, Evil Dead 2, Army of Darkness- while the first was a horror film, the rest were pretty good.

Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead, all pretty good- even the revision of Dawn of the Dead surprised me.

Romero's recent Land of the Dead - seems kind of fucking stupid. I mean a city with a shopping mall in a world dominated by zombies? A thinking zombie that learns how to shoot? WTF?

So while we can presume that most of the time sequels suck, on occassion we are surprised.

So what makes a good sequel?

Your thoughts?
 
Generally?

Something that remains truthful to the original. This is something you see in almost all things that are considered good sequels. The Godfather 2 was pretty similar in spirit to The Godfather, while part 3 somewhat strayed away from that.

The Empire Strikes Back, mainly expanded on the themes from the first movie. While the 3 prequels deviated in style and content, and are considered worse.
 
Day of the Dead was a good movie? In what dimension?

A good sequel is something that delivers more of what fans loved from the original, or can do something a little different that is nonetheless setting appropriate. Aliens and Army of Darkness, for example.
 
I don't believe there is a formula for a good movie sequel. If the movie is good and doesn't do anything to alienate the fans than it will probably be a good sequel.
 
My 2c:

If the first movie/game/book is exceptional, I think its almost impossible to make a sequel that is equal or better. Because for something to be exceptional (apart from high quality production and writing), it must surprise us by showing us something we have not seen or thought of before.

So in my opinion sequels to great works must always disappoint in some way, because the originality factor will be missing.
 
Day of the Dead, as in Romero's third installment in which the scientists and the military types clash underground while zombies take over the world? Yeah it was pretty good.

Army of the Darkness, as much as I liked it, was a good sequel to Evil Dead 2, but Evil Dead 2 was a remake of Evil Dead 1. Although we can think of them as sequels, Evil Dead 1 and Evil Dead 2 are not.

Davaris- What is the sequels take a series appraoch. Consider for instance the Harry Potter series, with each offering a richer contextual understanding of the story?

While I would agree that Jean de Florette was a great movie and Manon of Spring was a lesser sequel, the stories do tell a tale of
(1) An act of evil
(2) revenge.

One could see the sequels as being two parts of a whole.
 
Jurasik park: First book was wonderfull, first movie was okay
second book was very good , the second movie was a piece of shit
third movies was the second book, but nowhere near as good.

I liked the Harry Poter books, as light reading, but by the fourth one i didn't give a shit how quiditch was played anymore.

I think that what makes a great sequel, is it's ability to stand on his own. If you are required to have seen/read the preceading books/movies then the sequel will suck. However having seen/read these will only make you enjoy it more.
 
Davaris- What is the sequels take a series appraoch. Consider for instance the Harry Potter series, with each offering a richer contextual understanding of the story?
Click to expand...

I haven't read her work, but I think she succeeds because I suspect the series was a pre-planned body of work (as opposed to the original being a self contained story). For similar reasons there's no drop in the quality of LOR.

I think the main difficulty artists face in creating sequels to great works, is they are already perfect and self contained and adding things doesn't work. Its like tacking additions onto the Mona Lisa or the Statue of David and wondering why it looks worse than the original.

I have a theory that it's possible to make a good sequel, if the work can be extended and used in a larger world ( though I do think this capability would have to be planned for when the work was being created in the first place). The idea is the extra room gives the artist a chance to surprise the audience again. As an example I'd cite the Alien series and the Terminator series (if they hurry up and move onto the war with the machines).
 
I think you're asking two questions at once; what makes a good sequel, what makes a good film.

Was Evil Dead 2 fun? Yes. Was it a good sequel to Evil Dead 1? No.

I'm mostly confused by your not mentioning Mad Max
 
I still like Beyond Thunderdome the best, I don't care what anybody thinks.

Day of the Dead, as in Romero's third installment in which the scientists and the military types clash underground while zombies take over the world? Yeah it was pretty good.
Click to expand...

You mean where Princess Leia waxes philosophical with a Rastafarian, and they train a zombie to use a gun? The same levels of stupid just grew into City of the Dead.
 
Was that Carrie Fisher in that flick? I thought it was ok, but maybe that's because I went to a midnight showing that was a lot of fun.


Thunderdome was weak.
 
Bradylama said:
I still like Beyond Thunderdome the best, I don't care what anybody thinks.
Click to expand...

Banned.

How do you feel about that. Huh?!

Beyond Thunderdome was fine. Running along great. Good setting, good story, good people, and then suddenly...POW. "Walker, Waaaaalker."

If Max had shot the kids, fine, but shit...
 
Bradylama said:
I still like Beyond Thunderdome the best, I don't care what anybody thinks.
Click to expand...

I recently saw it again and it was better than I remembered it,I'd rate the series in order from best to worst as Road warrior,Beyond thunderdome and Mad Max personally.

Day of the Dead, as in Romero's third installment in which the scientists and the military types clash underground while zombies take over the world? Yeah it was pretty good.
Click to expand...

You mean where Princess Leia waxes philosophical with a Rastafarian, and they train a zombie to use a gun? The same levels of stupid just grew into City of the Dead.
Click to expand...

They didn't teach a zombie to use a gun,the doc. gave the zombie a gun to prove that zombies had recollections of their previous selves and weren't just "monsters".(since the zombie saluted the officer,doc. figured he might've been in the army before and hence knew what a gun was...doc. did mention they could be trained though,but never concerning a gun,so later on when "Bub" uses it,it isn't due to him being trained as a zombie,but a recollection of how to use it since he previously was human)
You're entitled to your own opinion on "Day" sucking,we all have different taste,but I have to object to this clearly faulty statement.

To go back to topic:
A sequel should follow the original in a good enough way,if it's set in a distant future,it should have some flashbacks about the past.(just some minor cuts where the new characters past is revealed,by showing his grandfather or whatnot,for a few seconds of film)
If it has the same character a few years along the way it can do the same thing...just a little bit of the past to fill in on the character.(or like in the case of Chronichles of Riddick,tell the story with words when he meets people from the previous film)
A good sequel doesn't have to be a carbon copy of its predecessor,but it should use some elements of it that makes the viewer feel at home.
A sequel to Waterworld (not very likely to be done,but just an example) could for example start in a desert,where the tattoed girl (as an old woman) sees the trimaran and tells the group of wanderers about its history and why she's around as the elder due to it.(just that little bit of information that links to the previous,but still can make the film stand up on its own for those that missed the previous)
 
welsh said:
Comments on: Predators & Aliens.
So what makes a good sequel?
Click to expand...
What about Alien Vs. Predator. My comments are that it was good Action flick, but nothing else, nothing else.

Have many even seen the first Mad Max, I got bored in the first few minutes, and didn't even watch the rest.

But what makes a good sequel. A good pre-sequel, a good story carrying, and a predictable but still surprising ending.
 
This is a hard nut to crack.

Gremlings? Gremlings 2?
Second is the best imho.

Mad max 2 derives from the plot in mad max 1 quite a lot so basically (this is my 2c) they just borrowed the main character for it. Could have been separate titles. Mad max 1 has a lot of those 70-80's elements. Gay gangs who fight each other. Im thinking the warriors.
A small side note: The warriors and Mad max was released the same year. Just looked it up. Come to think of it mad max 2 had a lot of that too but the essential difference is the way they do it. The violence is much more raw in the second movie which is also one of the things that just makes it better. Its wasteland violence, which the first wasnt. So its basically a question of taste. Then the third movie. Budget. And Tina Turner feels pretty believable. And it stays true to the concept. And I love the ending even though I dislike the tiny retards.

Conclusion then. If the story holds something new, but still true in some way to the predecessor, and the quality of that is at least equal its a worthy sequel.
 
What makes a good sequel?

Id say if you get the same feeling when you saw/played the original. That is why people want sequels anyway.

They can do what they want with the concept as far as Im concerned, as long as I get the same kind of feeling (Which is usually hard, if not impossible to describe with words) that I got from the original, Im happy.
 
when you want to play the same game more... but not the places you already played. the game that satisfies this feeling is a good sequel.

maybe a good sequel is a first game that just doesnt have an ending. or very very long.

the most succesful rpg games have been the ones with the longer play time with the scenario intact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top