Not in the sense of his meddling with science, and that's the point most people miss. It's in referral to Frankenstein's treatment of the creature he created that was, yes, outwardly repulsive, but inwardly intelligent, caring and gentle until bullied into more extreme behaviour. In this sense, yes, Frankenstein created a monster, but he did so by being a monster himself of cruelty and selfishness.
Using the same criteria, I'm going with Terminator 2: Judgment Day. Not only did it gross 434% more than the first film, but it was extraordinarily acclaimed (with most generally considering it superior to the original), was the highest-grossing film of its year despite an R-rating, cemented James Cameron's career after the financial disappointment of The Abyss, is along with Jurassic Park the landmark film in CGI and is arguably more influential than Jurassic Park given the pioneering use of what would later become motion capture technology, is a benchmark in action filmmaking, and it is so important to the franchise that its shadow has completely ruined every additional sequel's attempt to continue the series. Hell, its importance to the franchise can be boiled down to this simple question: when you think of Arnold as the Terminator, do you think of him as a good guy or a bad guy? Toy Story 2 is a great pick, but part of what holds it back for me is that it seems to be considered the weakest of the trilogy. While all three are tremendously acclaimed, the original and Toy Story 3 have higher critical and audience average ratings than Toy Story 2 on both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes (I'm not talking about the Tomatometer, I'm talking about the average rating, the number directly below the Tomatometer). Now, the first Terminator does have higher critical ratings than Terminator 2 on Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, but for both the audience rating is significantly better for the sequel.
Agreed. I think there's a generational impact here--T2 defined GenX for quite a while, whereas GenY would, of course, be more influenced by the Toy Story series. T2 had a smartass, tech-savvy (pre-)teen, who was the ultimate latchkey kid that so many kids of the 80s identified with. And, T2 showed us a bad-ass, physical female lead, which stood out for _years_ (Sarah Conner's pull-ups scene and escape plan) and opened the door to non-campy female action leads (see: WW of the 70s vs 10s). And, similarLY to SW: Empire, it also flipped the script, which engaged us in a completely unexpected way and gave new depth and insight to the larger universe. Finally, I watched it last year with my own teen kids, and it holds up for me, although the kids didn't appreciate it beyond "action flick" because they've grown up on comic book movies that we didn't have except for Superman.
T2 also doomed the ability of the franchise to move forward with the story. There’s a reason all the Terminator movies afterwards don’t do well in box office, they should’ve stopped at the ending of the sequel. At the time even seemed that was the direction they were going with that ending. Toy story 2’s ending was perfect for the franchise to move forward while adding a new main character audience love, Jessie.
I think for a "perfect" sequel, there needs to be four criteria. 1. It promises to the studio and the artists that the IP is still appreciated and praised by most of the same people as the first, even if it's intended to be the last entry. This can be money or criticism. There are currently a whole host of 80s films that have gotten sequels this decade that had a devastating previous entry. (this is something that just looking at aggregate ratings can distort, as the people who love a sequel might not love the original and vice versa, but because of mass market appeal, the second one can be better received. I.E. The Godfather Part 3 was adored when it first came out, being nominated for 7 Oscars, but is now almost universally despised.) 2. Narratively, something dies. This can be a character, a place, an idea, or any other thing that can be called dead. All the best sequels do this, because as stories age, so does the audience, and all stories must speak to its audience. 3. Narratively, something is born. Again, this can be a character, place, idea, country, or people. Again, when you think about it, all the best sequels do this. This is necessary to remind newcomers why the series is worth something. People need to know that even if they don't go back to engage with the earlier entries, there is still something to be gained from their engagement in a sequel. 4. It organically situates itself as a story that feels entirely its own while also feeling entirely necessary to understanding the themes and characters of the series. Toy Story 2 fits this super well, but then so does Mad Max: Fury Road and John Wick 2. One thing I'm trying to imply with this set of criteria is that many "sequels" aren't actually sequels at all, but rather continuations on the previous entry. LOTR, for example, is one continuous story, because it does not adhere to rule #4, it is actually one long movie chopped up into segments. Conversely, 10 Cloverfield Lane is also not a sequel, as it disobeys #2 and #4. Star Wars 8 does adhere to these (mostly), but will be defined by Star Wars 9, because it doesn't entirely follow rule #4 by being entirely its own. Anyway, those are my ideas.
Well, LOTR was originally one big book rather than 3. The copies I have even continue the page numbers from the last, so it makes sense that the movies would be like that too.
I like this criteria . It's smart and it's all about moving , no, propelling forward, while leaving certain things behind that are just outgrown and unnecessary. Despite the wishes of fans, it's to remain true to the story. Good job!
@@seen921 I agree with the criteria but disagree about Mad Max Fury Road. You could put any action hero from almost any series into the roll of Max and it would not have any impact on the movie. For example Rambo could have replaced Max and the characters impact would have been the same.
Balancing meeting vs subverting expectations. It's super subjective and covered to some extent by the other criteria, but I think it's integral to any successful sequel. There's a bunch of sequels that I love because they take what was great about the first one and give me more of it, like The Force Awaken. There are also sequels I love that take everything you knew about a franchise and turn it sideways, like The Last Jedi. The best sequels fall somewhere in between. They surprise you while still wrapping you in that warm blanket of feels like the original.
With my criteria of best sequel ever made, the prize would go to 1951’s Father’s Little Dividend with Spencer Tracy and Elizabeth Taylor Criteria: All the ones you mentioned along with being so iconic, it cemented two screen icons for the rest of their respective lives while also being the source of all the tropes we have today. No one lists Father’s Little Dividend because a lot of folks haven’t seen it, but it’s so heavily entrenched into our pop culture that when people do see it, they get deja vu, swearing they must have seen it previously. Second added Criteria: The remake of the sequel also has to be a financial success. Father of the Bride II with Steve Martin and Martin Short did well for itself.
Toy Story 2 not only is one of the best sequels, it's one of the greatest achievements in all cinema. The fact that John Lasseter and the other people taking the lead on it decided to trash most of the film just 9 months before theatrical release and complete it all in that short period of time still astonishes me. The people working on it did suffer a lot of mental and physical damage and one person even had to quit the industry entirely but my god! They gave their all.
Did they really just basically start over with that kind of timeline? That is fucking incredible. It could have blown up in their faces in so many ways and they still got that movie.
so while i agree there is one note that needs making here they didnt "scrap" the movie, not by choice at least, it was an accident that deleted the entire thing the only reason they didnt have to start from ashes was that one of the creators (animator i think?) was on maternity leave and had a copy with a decent amount of the movie on hand so she could work from home that said the fact that they managed to finish the movie on time and did so masterfully is still a credit to everyone involved
I think that the most important criterion for a sequel is whether or not it pushes the story forward, has something fresh and new to say and whether it develops the character arcs and themes.
I agree that Toy Story 2 is a damn near perfect sequel, based on your criteria I would like to throw Thor 3 into the mix (arguably a reboot, but still technically a sequel).Thor 3 garnered high critical acclaim, and considerably higher than the first 2 movies, where as Toy Story was also highly critically acclaimed, so Thor 3 improved on this drastically over the first 2. It also did extremely well financially, making far more than either of the first 2 movies while costing only a little more to make. Artistically it changed the game, it did it's own beautiful thing and looks so damn good. It has value as a piece of cinema and entertainment. It isn't as game changing for Marvel as Toy Story 2 was for Pixar, but I'd say it still succeeds very well here. As for narratively, it takes familiar characters and really makes them change. Thor is no longer just a fish out of water action hero, he has real flaws in his self doubt without the hammer. The Hulk becomes an actual character and not just a monster. We get awesome new characters and villains in Valkyrie and Hela (and Korg damnit). So although it may not be the most perfect sequel, I'd argue it's up there.
I would argue that while Thor 3 may have changed the game artistically *for the Thor films* It didn't change any artistic games for Marvel Studios. Guardians of the Galaxy has a very similar aesthetic, and a lot of how Thor 3 does its visuals is based on Guardians establishing that Outer Space Looks Like This
It isn't, and as far as development goes Ragnorok is much more development to the Thor MCU character than The Avengers, even though Thor had a couple one liners in that movie.
Ragnorok changed the tone of Thor, it's not entirely about the visuals or aesthetics. That's actually just a minor change, which could certainly be stated to be influenced by Guardians, but it's more about the shift in the bearing of Thor himself as a character. Pay attention.
I've never actually considered the criteria for how I rank sequels. Of course, there are certain aspects that I want to see cross over from the original movie, but that falls into the last two of the Mikeyterias. I do, however, have high standards for reboots, since they _really_ have to justify why they made another one of those, where Nolan's Batman trilogy fits perfectly (maybe not the third one, but come on, how can you one-up The Dark Knight???). As long as movies can make me feel something genuine, I consider them great films. Okay, bad example as movies can also be frustratingly bad that it really riles me up, and that's a feeling in and of itself. As long as it tugs on my good ol' heartstrings, whether it be me crying, or laughing, or traumatizing me (Requiem for a Dream, I'm looking at you) in such a way, that I can't watch them again before going through the entire emotive spectrum, I consider those great films.
Criteria: Fans of the previous films accept it It expands or enhances the world, plot, characters of the previous And subjective value mixed with overall critical response Taking away financial success from my criteria because marketing is somewhat out of the hands of the consumer and subjective value outweighs what people decided not to watch, Blade Runner 2049 is probably the best sequel to me. It makes Deckard a better character, from a person with no meaning in his life except what he is given at the end to a character with meaning in a daughter. It expands the themes of being human means feeling emotion to being human means desiring to create something. It does everything a sequel needs to do.
I mean it's a slippery slope to involve public reception and financial success since they're often not at all representative of quality, but if you're looking for perfection, the fact that it made no money and didn't create enough immediate culture interest to get asses in seats is undoubtedly a massive setback, whatever your criteria. Could be the best sequel in terms of quality, but it can't be perfect if it wasn't a success.
No one watched Firefly, but at least to me and fans of the series, it and it's characters have permeated a lot of my actions thoughts and beliefs. If something doesn't take right away, it means that perhaps it's just too ahead of it's time. Serenity, and Scott Pilgrim vs the World are excellent representations of this cultural permeation in my opinion, regardless of box office & marketing.
Agree with your comment, but I think that Blade Runner 2049 actually concluded that to be human is to CHOOSE to stand for something beyond themselves, which is why the line, "To die for the right cause is the most human thing we can do," is repeated in the film. To actually give up your life, the most precious gift you've been given to something that YOU have chosen to be something worth dying for. It also means that you've given some thought on it and made that deliberate choice. Which means, from that philosophical perspective, some humans aren't human at all. The villain of the film is more machine than man, really. He wouldn't actually die for something. He doesn't stand for anything beyond himself. Deckard is human from this philosophical sense (as opposed to a biological sense) because he made a sacrifice for his daughter. He didn't die for her (but he definitely would if circumstances make it the only way to save his daughter), but he definitely made a huge personal sacrifice to be away from the woman he loved and his daughter, so that she could be safe. It cost him a normal life, a life running and being in isolation. And Deckard was more machine than human for most of the first Blade Runner film until Roy Batty showed him the light. Gosling's character became human by choosing to save Deckard and ultimately dying because of it. Love was human because she fought like hell and ultimately died for something. The cause may not be the right cause in our eyes, but it's most certainly the right cause to her. The "right cause" part of the sentence is most important because that's the most subjective and human part of that philosophical statement. That's ultimately what makes us human: what we perceive to be right and wrong and being willing to make big sacrifices for it and ultimately, if push comes to shove, die for it.
I think Hellboy 2 is a great example of a film that narritively made excellent improvements on the first film, but unfortunately didn't manage to draw enough of an audience to justify it's cost. The improvements are numerous though: boring bland POV character in the first film gets completely cut, we get much more Abe Sapien (he even gets a love story arc!), we get a way more interesting villain, the settings are more interesting and cooler, the lore and character motives and more interesting which brings a slightly lighter and fun tone the second film which I personally prefer, the action is way better if you ask me, and we even get a bit more John Hurt in a flash back scene.
I think that might have been a Fox problem or an advertising problem, not anything wrong with the sequal itself. Although that doesn't make it perfect.
In some ways, it means that the absolute amount it needs to make is a lot lower to beat it financially. However it is also harder because you don't have the same built in audience or expectation that would help drive the audience for the sequel.
Seems like it’d give a leg-up to any film that built up a cult reputation through home video or syndication instead of box-office, though. And “we didn’t realize what we had with this movie until the right audience adopted it and now we can cater to them” is an increasingly common breed of sequel.
Champiness it seems like it’s hard to argue that the sequels which cater to a cult audience will often be more impactful than the original culturally or artistically so I don’t feel like it’s cheapened. Bringing it back around to the original question, I don’t think this matters if you value impact which is what this system seems to do.
For my criteria I'd go with: 1- subjective excellence: this is just how the film functions as a film in itself, no consideration made of its relation to the films before or after it. 2- stylistic expansion: how does it differentiate itself from the ones before it in terms of mood or visual style? What makes it its own film rather than more of the previous ones? This usually comes from a change in writers or directors, but a few examples of really drastic shifts while maintaining the same writers and/or directors would be Shock Treatment and Gremlins 2. 3- narrative expansion: Is it telling the same story as the preceding films, or does it change things up, using the ideas of the films before it to say something new? Batman Returns is a prime example, as it uses the established tone and mood of Batman 89 to explore a very different set of ideas. There are many sequels I'd consider great, but thinking through these criteria, Shock Treatment stands out as my pick for the perfect sequel. It does what I think a sequel should: use aspects of the original, in this case, Brad and Janet as representatives of bourgeois heterosexual America being exposed to and changed by a certain way of living, to say something different: Rocky Horror was a celebration of subversive aesthetics, while Shock Treatment is a defamiliarizing nightmare about the horrific ideology behind the normative aesthetics of 80s television. Large portions of the cast are replaced, with Cliff DeYoung and Jessica Harper stepping in as Brad and Janet, but that change only bolsters the film, as DeYoung and Harper add nuances to their characters that weren't present in the original performances. Gremlins 2 comes close, but on further consideration it discards so much that it becomes its own thing and loses a thematic connection to the original. I also considered Nightmare On Elm Street 2, but that suffers from the same problem, it doesn't act as a continuation of the first film's themes as much as a radical revision of the basic premise.
My criteria: Pretty much the same as Mikey's, only I would rephrase the financial element to an even more simple "Did it make its money back eventually" only because return on investment in, say, 2018, isn't the same thing as making your money back in 2006 at the height of the DVD market or 1985 and I don't know how to compare relative financial success with inflation and blah blah blah. That and my X factor is "Did it elevate this franchise/IP/story/whatever you want to call it forward, and if so, how much?" In other words, did it take the elements of whatever story or world it's continuing and make it better or more interesting? Did it take risks? Did they pay off? You know what I mean. So, as Mikey correctly predicted, my answer surprised me. It was Prisoner of Azkaban. True, financially speaking, it didn't do as well as most of the other Harry Potter movies and there are certainly other sequels in other franchises (or non-franchises) that I personally like more. But critics loved it, people love it, it made a ton of money, it took risks that paid off, and most importantly, it MORE than elevated its franchise. It did everything a sequel should do. (But we saw the Prisoner of Azkaban episode. We knew that already.)
Don Quixote’s literary sequel was published on 1615, written by the original author (Miguel de Cervantes). He did it mostly to definitely kill his main character and stop all the unofficial sequels that were going around at the time, while making fun of them in the process (meta-critic). It was a brilliant idea AND a great sequel (as good as the first part).
I have to say, this comment section is [on a whole] the most thoughtful and intelligent I've seen on RU-vid. It's only Day One I guess, but, so far, mission accomplished. Bravo Mikey ❤️
According to your criteria.. I think The Dark Knight would be up there.. it grossed 2.5x more than Batman Begins and is held in extremely high esteem.. it’s story was amazing and Heath Ledgers performance was insanely iconic
Noah Kantor I think it falters when you think about the criteria because it relies too much on Nolan's interpretation of the character rather than an overall interpretation of Batman. If you think about it The Dark Knight is not JUST a sequel to Batman Begins, it is a sequel to ALL Batman related media including, comics, movies (both animated and live action), and cartoon series. So there will invariably be fans of any Batman series that will say 'This is not my Batman...' because they are not stacking him up to the Batman from Batman Begins, they are stacking up the Dark Knight Batman to EVERY Batman that they have read, watched and probably even grew up with, and not alot of people would be happy with that. And it would not just be Batman it would be every character, their actions and any events that they see in the movie.
as much as toy story 2 still owns my child heart, my adult heart still says t2. one thing i love in sequels is when characters get solid, realistic development, on and/or offscreen, and sarah connor's arc from babyfaced waitress to ass-kicking beefsteak mom-warrior is so perfect. it's a testament not just to what would genuinely happen to someone who knew the world was going to end and would do anything to stop it, but the time between t1 and t2, the advances taking place in women's roles in cinema and real life. ripley laid some of the groundwork before her creating a badass female action hero, but sarah sealed the deal with Those Biceps. also you picked the wrong bayquel to drag, you wanna talk horrible sequels, revenge of the fallen boi. megan fox sweetie i am so sorry.
Got into an argument with some gormless toerag recently where they decried certain films as being "not art" literally because they weren't some sort of singular auteur visionary thing like what Spike Jones does, and Coogler is a talentless hack. Coogler. The guy who made Fruitvale Station, Creed, and Black Panther. The latter of which I would argue fulfills all of the Mikeyteria, depending on whether you consider it a sequel (I haven't seen Creed but I hear it's also pretty good). Some folks sure have very strange ideas about what does or does not constitute "art."
BP isn't a sequel. Same reason I couldn't pick the Avengers. I went with Winter Soldier, with the cultural impact being that it changed how we perceive what a superhero film could be.
Eh winter soldiers impact on superhero films wasn't anywhere near what dark knight did. If you classify avengers as a sequel then you could easily classify BP as one but otherwise they are borderline standalone. The problem with the mcu is that these types of quilt-esque films haven't really been done before so I'm not sure we can even classify them per say
I definitely get where you're coming from and sometimes I think the same, but I think an argument could be made that it is. Then again, what Marvel has been doing sort of buggers the standard terminology. I don't know of a word that properly describes a film that is a direct continuation of a story started in an earlier movie but that yet is the beginning of its own franchise and operates perfectly as a standalone while also fitting seamlessly into the broader narrative woven by dozens of other films.
Thanks for not playing That Song; I don't need to cry tonight. My pick was Fury Road, and my reason for that is because it came at the perfect cultural moment. As the pus of gamergate still oozed from the wound, areas of the internet were marking themselves out as overtly misogynistic. This manifested (among other ways) as a virulent preemptive hostility to Charlize Theron's role. That is the sole and only reason I went to see it. I had absolutely no interest in the franchise prior to that point. I felt like her performance deserved to be seen, and I was rewarded with a strong, intensely compelling narrative led by believable and nuanced characters, with an aesthetic I could happily describe as both transcendent and BITCHIN. So. while I know you couldn't address everyone's fave, I'd be interested to know what metric/s it struggled on.
I agree with this, and had the same experience. This is one of the reasons I found myself thinking that while Mikey's criteria are fine and I like them, they could need some sort of addition that addresses bigotry hindering or reducing positive audience reception. Perhaps call it an "Anti-Bigotry Buffer". Films that have bigoted reactions towards them for having female, PoC, disabled, lgbtq+, etc, characters or themes in them, would be scrutinised a little more closely to see if the reception, besides the preemptively hostile people, is actually positive, when it first appears mixed or negative. This is difficult, and flawed, and takes into account the, if not multiple, political/societal climates the films were put out and marketed in. But the world is flawed, society is flawed, and I think it is needed. Especially in the internet era where people can create sock puppet accounts to downvote films they "don't agree with" en masse.
You know, I'd agree with all of that... except I don't know if I really consider Fury Road a sequel. I might make the argument that it's a reboot more than anything else, what with the giant time gap, entirely new cast and characters, the single returning character being characterized significantly differently from the original trilogy, and the complete disregard for any continuity or story thread from the previous films aside from the premise. Don't get me wrong, I adore Fury Road, it's DEFINITIVELY the best Mad Max movie, but I don't know if it can be considered a good SEQUEL if it more or less throws away everything about the previous films outside premise/setting, tone, and quality.
I feel like people who were mad about Furiosa's large role in the film sorta didn't or don't really get the good Mad Max films, like, personally Road Warrior is my favorite of the 4. it's so good people think it's the first Mad Max film, even though it's number 2. in that Film, Max isn't the hero. arguably it's the Gyro Captain who is the driving character, accepting tasks Max won't, initiating plot development, one of the things about Mad Max movies, is that at their best they are basically films told from the perspective of a secondary character, Max, who's cool, but really doesn't have a lot of character. he's mostly quiet when at his best, and he kinda doesn't grow much. Fury Road is the second best to me, because it has some of the most memorable characters in the series, who are distinct and stick with you. Furiosa, Nux, the Wives, Immortan Joe. all of them stick with you.
Hmmm, one thing I'm thinking about as a criteria but I am finding hard to put into a decent criteria: "Mattering more to fans of the original". Let me explain a bit. There's value in talking about most perfect to the most people but I think particularly in certain genres a good film can go deeper. The first film managing to show and build and audience on perhaps a tricky premise for a studio. The second film can say "OK we were allowed to get away with 40% of an idea, lets go further with it". This is the sort of thing that could perhaps alienate some of an audience or some critics but resonate further with fans of the original. Obviously this would mean relaxing the first rule (perhaps to "still profitable" and "within x% critical success of the original") but I'm struggling to think of how to add it as a criteria in and of itself.
My main criteria to whether or not a sequel is successful is character writing consistency. I can't stand it when a character does or says something that they wouldn't do or say. Especially if its used as an excuse in a major plot point. Characters changing is fine as long as it's acknowledged as a change, and the motivation is appropriate.
I swear to god Mikey every time I realise I haven't seen one of your videos, it makes my day. They run on repeat during free periods in my media studies lessons as students come in and out.
My criteria for what makes a great sequel are all related to how it expands upon on and improves the previous movie/movies. 1) How much does it build upon the themes of the previous movie 2) How much do they expand the world 3) How much do they fix the problems with the previous movie
In terms of criteria, I'll keep financial & critical success, and add to it: -Narrative/thematic significance -Meaningful character development -Pushes the boundaries of the movie's world and lore in a purposeful direction
I'm currently on the most creative bender i've ever been on and it's largely a result of watching inspiring you tubers like yourself sir. I never leave comments but had to after the "kill all your darlings" comment/segment of your show. This is something i hold dear and is part of my code. This is what make me strong and able to face racism in Canada, hate from my own and every form of iniquity. This is so because truth lies in suffering and every day i endeavor to carry my cross forthright in the world. This allows me access to something beyond me, and therefore beyond all my haters. It is hard to "kill all your darlings" because in order to be a good artist you have to give up everything, including being a good artist. You have to tell the truth. Thanks Mikey!! :)
For me, the perfect sequel is something that takes something infinitesimal in the first film that was intriguing and expanding that into its own film without feeling forced, be it a theme or an aspect of one of the characters or even a piece of the mythology, something that could've been explored in the first film but there wasn't time, and now they have that time they can pursue these themes. For example, I actually think Catching Fire has the potential to be a perfect sequel, because the first film hints at the toll the Hunger Games take on the survivors, while the sequel is entirely about it, and while it retreads old ground by just putting them in another arena, it really analyzes both what this does to the victors who all have PTSD and the way propaganda is utilized in a media-heavy world, something the first film didn't have time to explore but was still present, and they were able to turn those into the major themes of the sequel.
Not quite a sequel; I'd say it's more akin to Seven Samurai vs Magnificent Seven, ie taking an existing IP and reworking it for a different culture and a different thematic purpose.
From a wholly narrative perspective (and in addition to what’s in this video about finding critical and financial success) sequel criteria should probably also include: 1) Adding dimension to the world that we are familiar with (the matrix, John Whick). 2) Characters (especially the focal characters) follow a larger arc that was set up but not completed in the first one (for example, exploring what drives the characters further) like Empire and Godfather did. 3) Up the stakes from the previous one or create wholly new ones that fit in with what we understand the backdrop of the cinematic universe to be, like most Marvel Movies. 4) Challenge the morals that made the first film successful and question whether the hero’s beliefs about morality (and transitively the theme of the entire movie) hold up in other situations as well through a whole new twist of villainy or change in the landscape of the world they inhabit (Dark Knight, Blade Runner, Spider Man) 5. Create sequels intentionally with an end point in mind so the story can focus on what it wants to accomplish by making sequels (or prequels)
Honest to god: one of the best sequels: Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey. Narrative quality is a lateral move yet changes up the elements of the story (not just another time travel story) to be its own thing. It may not be the artsiest of the fartsiest stuff but it keeps the dramatic, comedic, musical, structural, tonal, etc standards as set by the first one while covering new ground. It's familiar but stands on its own. Part of me imagines if The Hangover Part 2 was more than just them getting drugged and having to piece together a wild night that that franchise would be so much better. Had Old School not already been made you could with minimal tinkering change Will Ferrell, Luke Wilson, and Vince Vaughn's character into Zach Galifinakis, Ed Helms, and Bradley Cooper's. Or if in Back to the Future Part 2, Doc Brown had some other device he had created that threw both his and Marty's life upside down.
Rick Regan I'm honestly a huge fan of Bogus Journey. It's a film my Dad and I regularly watch together. I personally enjoy it more than the original, and also appreciate the movie's deceptively simple comments about art, creativity, and human empathy. "You may be a king or a little street sweeper but sooner or later you'll dance with the Reaper!" 😄
Loved this video! You tackle really cool subjects in your videos and I agree with you almost all the time. On a slightly unrelated note, I would love to hear your thoughts on the upcoming Denis Villeneuve adaptation of Dune. Every adaptation before either never got off the ground or is considered to be absolute garbage. There have been 6 previous attempts to adapt "the best selling science fiction novel of all time" and only 2 have been successful, David Lynch and the Syfy series Additionally, I would like to hear your thoughts on fan edits. The Star Wars prequels, David Lynch's Dune, and The Avengers each have long form fan-edits and I would love to hear your thoughts on the phenomena in general. A lot of fans appreciate a series but never sit down and rotoscope 20 scenes to make some character's eyes more blue or create a higher resolution backdrop. Harmy's Despecialized would be a cool place to start I don't want to tell you your business or anything so I'm sorry if I come across that way! I just love discussing the film industry and fanbases and Dune is my favorite book! Really loved the vid and I hope you read this!
Since I suggested it on Twitter I guess I should defend why I selected Gremlins 2 as my favorite sequel, but obviously it doesn't meet any of the metrics you used. When I was 8, I got to stay up late watching the first gremlins movie on HBO and it scared the everloving shit out of me. I saw those little guys everywhere and couldn't fall asleep in a dark room for weeks, much less trust any dark space or Christmas trees. I was never afraid of the slashers or big monsters, but homicidal little monsters that would wreak havok on you for shits and giggles seemed perfectly plausible. One memory that sticks out in particular was spending an entire night watching a small pile of clothing that I thought looked like a sleeping Gremlin, just hoping that I could make it to daylight so that it would die before it noticed I was there. Then Gremlins 2 happened. I have no idea why I decided I could watch it considering how badly the first one had scarred me, but a few months later my brother and I sat down with my dad to watch a dubbed copy of The New Batch (in the daytime, with all of the windows open and the lights on). What I found was a complete inversion of everything that had terrified me in the first movie. Instead of the cunning, murderous pranksters I imagined under every bed, they were silly, over the top, and suicidally stupid. The feminized one and the brainiac one were so funny to 8 year old me that I completely forgot that I was scared shitless of these little guys and was almost sad when they all melted at the end (almost). The fact that a movie sequel could spend almost its entire run time deconstructing and making fun of the source material was a revelation and helped me learn how to make fun of my own monsters.
My Criteria: 1.) Is critically better than the first. 2.) Movies the narrative of the story forward. 3.) Does it stay true to the world it created. This last one is a personal one 4.) DO NOT TAKE OUT THE STAKES!
0.) Is actually a sequel or prequel to a prior movie. Just being in the same franchise doesn't count. For example, I don't count the first movie featuring a new James Bond or Batman. 1.) Is good. (According to me, regular people and critics.) 2.) Brings something new to the table, but effectively building on what came before is preferable to a whole new thing that's a sequel in name only. 3.) Retroactively improves the original. Partial credit if it improves upon some previous films even if not the original. 4.) EITHER: Provides a satisfying ending by itself; OR: Isn't directly bungled by the next sequel. 5.) Bonus points if both parts of #4 are true. If any of 1-4 are untrue, I'll cut it from the list just to whittle it down. After doing so, I'm left with only 40 movies ever. By these data points, here's my list of top 5 sequels of all time: The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (my #10 all-time favorite movie at the time of writing) Mad Max: Fury Road (my #14, etc.) The Avengers (2012) (my #23, etc.) Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (my #2, etc.) Toy Story 2 (my #6, etc.) A selection of Honorable Mentions in no particular order: Several Harry Potters; Return of the King; Logan; Blade Runner 2049; The Dark Knight; Terminator 2; A Shot in the Dark; Thor Ragnarok; X-Men First Class; Wrath of Khan; Fast Five; Aliens; and Wonder Woman (with the caveat that I haven't seen Justice League yet so I can't tell whether the direct sequel bungled it).
Ohhh trust me the direct sequel (Justice League) bungled it. Or really just treated her as if her movie never happened. If some one saw BvS and skipped Wonder Woman to see Justice League, they wouldn't know the difference. Now yes, technically it should be that way since chronologically the events of Wonder Woman changed Diana decades prior to BvS anyway, but still. She was possibly the strongest character written in Justice League but truly only held value to those who saw her movie before hand. They wasted her talents as both a character and for Gal Gadot's acting, in my opinion. Personally, because of the flop Justice League turned out to be, I'd rather wait until Wonder Woman 2 to determine if her sequel bungles what was great in her first stand-alone, but you get my point (I hope).
Okay, going to leave a worthwhile comment now that the video is over: I thought your criteria was solid. I think one of the subjective criteria that I apply is that, not only must the sequel matter to the overall universe, but that none of the characters can be brutalized - that is, changed into basically a whole different character - in the process. Pretty sure that would show up in critical and audience feedback, though.
Okay, going to leave a worthwhile comment now that the video is over: I thought your criteria was solid. I think one of the subjective criteria that I apply is that, not only must the sequel matter to the overall universe, but that none of the characters can be brutalized - that is, changed into basically a whole different character - in the process. Pretty sure that would show up in critical and audience feedback, though.
I like your point about setting criteria and sticking to it, therefore challenging yourself. I'm not going to address perfect sequel, but I've been working on a list of my own of "perfect movies." My only criteria was this: I wouldn't change anything about the movie artistically. I posted about this on FB and asked what people thought would make their list and why, and people just didn't get it. I'd get long lists of critically acclaimed movies, like I hadn't already seen them. I wanted to know why and people are like "just watch em and you'll know," which was asinine to the exercise. Few people got what I was trying to get at or could tell me why it was not only great, but nothing needed to be changed. (the worst was saying that Gone With The Wind didn't make my list because racism, and somebody just not getting it) In my own list, it's been pretty surprising. There are some movies I just absolutely, wholeheartedly love and would rank among the best of all time, but there are some important things I would really want to change. So my own list ruled out some of my biased favorites because I had to admit that there were things I just didn't think worked, even if the overall movie is still amazing.
Why doesn’t this channel have more subscribers?! Now pardon my french here but. THIS IS FUCKING AMAZING. I love every aspect this, it feels like your being real with everyone and you don’t get that much around youtube. Everyone has this fake personality that they put up and they have to do like these somber top ten videos about topics they don’t take an interest in at all. You love what your doing and you have fun while doing it and it feels like your talking to me, not like everyone else who talks to their fan base as a group. Keep it up man 👏👏👏
I might just be basing that on this Mountain Goats cover of the marquee number: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-S_EMrL7D3SA.html ...but I think I remember that being the subtext regardless. Also glad to know I was right about the alien dinosaurs, that alone justifies the film’s existence.
Actually maybe that’s my criteria for a good sequel: does it have alien scientists disguising themselves as dinosaurs? Which means you’ve failed unless you made The Land Before Time: The Stone of Cold Fire.
A perfect sequel should work at the same time as a complete, self-contained experience and as an expansion of the original. For me The Dark Knight Rises is the perfect sequel, it has its own grand, shakespearian feel, completely different from the crime drama that was The Dark Knight, but it offers the only fitting conclusion for the arc of Bruce Wayne Batman Begins started.
Glad to see Fast 5 mentioned. Such a good, and imo underrated, movie. My personal list for a perfect sequel is a little more simple than yours: 1. Entertainment value. Specifically, was this more fun to watch than the first. 2. Box Office Sales. I don't personally think critics are that important, but I think the financial success of something is, both in enabling further art and in predicting the overall impact of the movie on the general public (IE, a movie that made a ton of money must have been worthwhile to a large swath of people). 3. Narrative importance. I'm stealing this one from you, cause I 100% agree that a perfect sequel manages to change the narrative in a significant way while retaining the signature elements that made the first film great. I'm generally a fan of sequels, as they often allow the artists to do a second (or third, or fourth, etc) take on existing material, adding something new, taking something away, and mutating something, hopefully for the better. Some of the most perfect sequels (imo), and keep in mind that I don't have much movie knowledge pre-2005 cause I'm still a young man: 1. The Dark Knight. I also really liked Rises, and I think it gets a bad rap purely because it followed The Dark Knight. If it had followed Begins, I think it would have been much more regarded. I think it also satisfies my criteria well when compared with Begins but falters when compared with The Dark Knight (mostly in #1). 2. Fast 5. 3. Captain America: Winter Soldier. This movie completely changed the game for Cap and the MCU (on Earth). One of the greatest sequels of all time IMO. 4. John Wick 2. 5. Guardians of the Galaxy 2.
Fantastic episode! Though it did manage to remind me we'll never get a MWM about Scream and that made me sad. Hopefully you talk about it in some capacity in the future. Endlessly fascinated about people's opinions about it.
This subject matter and video kept bringing me back to one thing: "HOW/WHY did Blade Runner 2049 not land at the box office?!?" I would love your thoughts...perhaps in its very own video? PRETTY PLEASE In my humble opinion (since it fails your very first criteria for perfect sequel haha) I walked away after this film asking myself "how can anyone have possibly made a better sequel?" & 30 YEARS LATER no less, for some serious level of difficulty bonus points. Movies with lofty goals seldom deliver on expectations let alone surpass them so this film has always stood out to me as an anomaly. It balanced the reverence for the original with delivering new ideas and moving the story forward in a way that felt true to its roots. It was a logical progression of the world, story, and characters we became aware of while also improving on visuals and set design that the original BR was known for. Blade Runner 2049 did something no film has ever down to me personally...it transported me to a place where I literally forgot I was watching a movie. For that reason alone I submit it as one of/the best sequel of all time.
I agree with your criteria, although I would add a fourth criteria of "Technical Advancement"- basically, does a sequel fundamentally improve upon the visual language of the first movie's storytelling? And not just, "did they have better effects/cameras/editing" because often, that can be more of a factor of the money invested in a sequel compared to a risky original IP, and shinier doesn't necessarily mean better. But rather, did they learn from the example of the way the first movie was crafted, and then make active technical choices to improve or clarify the original "experiment" so to speak. I would put forth "X2: X-Men United" as another perfect sequel. Did better financially, took on a much more ambitious scope, more culturally and narratively additive in a way that reflected the new post-9/11 American sentiment, and with my fourth criteria, employed a much more active and engaged camera, a wider variety of more challenging environments for scenes, a much less staged use of the characters' abilities than the first one, and a better score.
I'm gonna go home and write my own criteria and do this, but for now I'd agree with Toy Story 2 as the perfect sequel in the commercial sphere of filmmaking...that, and one other. The Avengers was an odd sort of sequel to 5 previous films, but its cultural impact, financial and critical success, and effect on the whole of Hollywood were all ginormous. It also took all the characters forward in some way, small though it was for some. It successfully grafted not only the characters from different franchises, but the themes and tones of them as well, together, while introducing its own themes and ideas. It cemented the superhero film as the dominant genre for a decade and counting. And now, with Black Panther, technically a sequel to Civil War, we're looking at another cultural impact. We'll have to wait and see if that film changes the landscape of films made - I'm hoping we see an influx of films starring diverse casts, Afrofuturism and other genres that promote them.
My wife and I were chatting after watching your latest episode and thought I would add our thoughts, as it pertains to criteria and numbers. We host a podcast that covered every episode of Friends (We want to be super nerds) and decided to run the numbers by picking the Most Valuable Friend(MVF) of Every Episode and Rating them all of them as well. As you mention we too were surprised by the results versus our predictions. We were both convinced that Rachel or Chandler would win the MVF and that Season 2 or 3 was the best. BUT the numbers bore out that Ross won and that Season 5 is the best. We had watched Friends at least 2 full times before beginning the podcast, so we were well aware of the highs and lows. Which is the long way of saying that you are 100% correct about being surprised by how the actual numbers can really effect what you think about the things we all watch. I even sometimes defend Ross when Friends fans jump on him like a pack of wolves (it happens more than you would think). Also: Your show is one of our favorites, when a new Movies with Mikey drops we grab a cocktail and settle in for some real entertainment. Thanks for everything you do!
That's for trilogies, but that is my opinion. If you want to go further than 2, you should plan it out before you even make 1, and make sure its consistent in most aspects. This is why the new star wars movies, and even the prequals to an extent, are so polarizing, its not consistent and causes the fans to split off. The newer movies are done by different people, and are made up as they go.
I actually think that Terminator 2 is one of the best sequels. But it is to me for the completely opposite reason. It was that good that I didn't want to watch any further Terminator movie diminishing the high note I got to experience the series on :)
Using your criteria (as best I could remember it): Lord of the Rings, both sequels. Both grossed more, both were critically acclaimed, both were loved by audiences, both involved major character development and changes, even from side characters, the cast and crew loved the work they produced... If you include TV, MASH. If you include a sequel to a TV series - Firefly / Serenity … AND, by the way, you should do a topic on this, LOTR shows studios that if they plan ahead, the story doesn't get jerky over the period of sequels (e.g. Star Wars, I have whiplash from some of their shenanigans) - because the LOTR stories were already written, and the production team shot all the books at once, some new director with a different vision didn't come in and make the third film a stop motion Claymation movie because he thought it would be better that way. (Just making a point) I say this all the time, especially about US TV - PLAN for 3 years of shows, have a plot mapped out (Lost - I am looking at you here), keep to it, and develop your characters with some sense of reality, not sudden leaps of a mountain top change without due cause.
I think a perfect sequel delivers on the promise of the original film, and then exceeds it in every way. When I saw Bryan Singer's X-Men I remember feeling: "Wow, that was pretty damn good but it REALLY feels like it could have been better." I also remember hearing a bit about studio interference, and that Singer didn't really get a chance to make the film he wanted to. Don't know if that's true but at the time I remember having an overwhelming feeling that if they just let him make the exact movie he wanted then we were gonna get a killer sequel. And then X2 came out and did EXACTLY that. For me, X2 surpasses the original in every way. i cared more about the characters, the story was more engaging, the action was better (to this day the Nightcrawler White House attack STILL blows me away). And there was this intense satisfaction of feeling that I finally got to see what was promised to me in the first film, but had not quite been delivered. X2 is not my favorite movie, and there are sequels in other franchises I like more. But I can't think of another sequel that gave me more of that feeling of "YES! Now THAT is what I wanted to see!" than X2, which is why it is (for me) the perfect sequel. Thanks for reading.
Well, since you asked... :) I'm going to focus on what a good sequel is to me, completely subjectivity. 1. Production/technical values: the film MUST at least be on the same technical/production level as the first one. That means no low budget/direct to home video or Netflix sequels. The sequel must be unconstrained by the restrictive forces of "nobody wanted to finance the film on the level it deserves". This is NOT contradictory to my previous "don't". This is about how good the film looks and how well it was made. It doesn't necessarily need to cost more, but it needs to feel natural. Appropriate. An example of what I'm talking about would be Clerks and Clerks 2. Clerks was made for no money. If Clerks 2 had been made in a similar style that would be just fine. Clerks 2 had a way bigger budget and it shows. Even then, Clerks 2 was really "small" in cast, size and scope. This fits and passes the rule. Now, if Clerks 2 somehow managed to look worse than Clerks 1 (which was filmed at a convenience store for 5 figures), like it was filmed on a green screen with terrible chroma edges or something, then it would fail, even if it cost a million dollars somehow. An example which fails this rule would be Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon: Sword of Destiny. While it looks alright, it does look a little worse than the original masterpiece. Being filmed in English for marketability, and lacking the casting level of the original, makes the whole thing just feel cheaper. And nothing shatters suspense of disbelief like that 2. Narrative Advancement: Films are stories. They tell us a tale, usually fictional or modified just enough to be fictional dramatizations. A sequel needs to show us more of the tale we didn't know before in a way that changes thing. A sequel where the status quo is restored at the end of a story hasn't really told us a story. Something must happen that can not unhappen. At least not without some time travel gimmick. A strong vivid memory of my youth watching a sequel in a theater was Spider Man 2. Every single story beat changed something fundamentally with the way characters interacted, and distanced them further and further from the original. Learned lessons were rethought. Love triangles were formed AND shattered. Secrets were revealed. Futures were formed. Previously formed futures were altered. FYI, this is probably about as perfect of a sequel as I consider them. 3.The scope film must shift in at least one of three ways: Either in scale, focus, or tone. With scale, for example, they don't have to go bigger, necessarily. A sequel can shrink in scale and still be better. The focus can expand to a larger or smaller set of issues, shift completely to left field and look at new problems or problems of side characters/new characters, or even narrow to a single character who wasn't focused on before. A sequel can also have the same scale and focus, but take on a completely new tone, and sometimes even genre shift. This rule may seem to kill a lot of serialized storytelling. I contend that it removes bad serialized storytelling. Because the best films I can think of for this criteria are the Marvel films. Specifically the Thor sequels, which both manage to hit all three points. The evil counter example for this one is Hangover 2, which is basically hangover 1 with window dressing. 4. The sequel must not suck: this one is entirely up to your own tastes. I do not count financial or critical success as a criteria. Partially because I like some wierd stuff, but also because that removes the subjectivity of other people. While I believe certainly that some films are objectively good, that opinion in itself is subjective. To me, while art makes money, always has and always will, that criteria has as little impact on the final product as author intent. Don't get me wrong, I don't fully subscribe to the whole "author intent doesn't matter" school of thought. I just think it doesn't matter for this specific task i.e. making the perfect sequel for my own. So instead, I ask did YOU like it? Hopefully you at least liked my criteria. I love pretty much all the sequels you mentioned, but my personal favorite is The Dark Knight. Here my fave sequels that you didn't mention in this video. 10 Cloverfield Lane Finding Dory Toy Story 3 Mission Impossible 3, 4, and 5. I'm on the fence about 2. The Matrix Reloaded Spider Man 2 Clerks 2 All Marvel Sequels And my personal favorite that MwM did NOT mention in this video (or any of your videos for that matter): Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence.
Fantastic video again, love it. However surely Aliens blitzed Alien in video sales though (I realise they often come in box sets). It did so well on home setups!
Every movie ever, every work of art that ever viewed a work of art prior, is a sequel. Therefore, I give you, Unforgiven is the best sequel western ever. I would love to declare it the best sequel ever, but there are so many movies that learned from the predecessor - Stand By Me - Sandlot - Second Hand Lions... When "Walk this way" (Aerosmith) was redone by Run DMC, that is the perfect example of what I am talking about. Rap to me sucks, but we all learn from each other's talent. I love Gangsta's Paradise, despite that I have little love for the genre. On that note, I have watched critics, Siskel and Ebert, etc. You have a talent, and your production value is incredible. Keep it up. Have you considered reviewing games? Some of the best sequels have been in game format - Fallout, Ultima, …
"Don't think in terms of your favorites, think in terms of why those things are your favorites and then apply that criteria to everything under the sun." A clearer statement as to why I actively seek out channels like FilmJoy could not have been made. All the channels I've found focusing on critical game/sound design as well as film analysis pump life into me. Please continue to produce quality content like this.
Why oh why don't you have f*#king millions of subscribers? You are the best, mate! The ways your mind wonders is the so unpredictable yet fascinating and gripping. If only I wasn't an introvert, I would recommend/share your channel on my social media if I only had any....friends. sad. great sadness. though...not really. anyways, thanks.
Awesome video as always Mikey! Have you ever though of curating a "movie night" like at a local theater with movies that exemplify these ideal, or well your ideals for what makes an awesome movie?
So, it's nearly been a month since this came out, but if I had to pick criteria for a perfect sequel, then: 1: Same, same, but different. Same characters with new goals, new conflicts and a new part of the world to explore. I know that's a broad stroke, but I had to compress it from three different paragraphs. Tennyson, eat your heart out. 2: It'd have to do better financially than the original. 3: Rewatchability. This is a major factor for me as a lot of films I enjoy are ones I come back to. Not to analyse them, but simply to enjoy them. Make me want to come back and experience them! That's it. Mine are more focused on narrative structure rather than the financial purely because I am not good with money. I just know that in order to get a sequel, you need to have it.
It’s not a direct sequel but avengers is technically a follow up to 5 movies and fits all that you put forth criteria wise. It probably doesn’t count but it comes close.
I would like to add an additional criteria element to your list, as currently I feel it focus' on more of a group based reaction. I would like to see a more individual level of attachment to the concept of a perfect sequel. The being the relationship between the creative minds of the original and the sequel, where the narrative construction, visual aesthetic or working environment is so important to the original director that they choose to continue that vision into the sequel. It can be easy for some sequels to be greenlit for the purposes of financial or critical acclaim which do not entice back the original director/writer. This criteria also takes into consideration the intent of the first artist/group of artists, rather than the needs/wants of the wider public/industry.
Hi Mikey:D Thank you for so much wonderful content!! I'm just dropping in to mention a sequel I know which predates Gulliver's Travels, though I'm sure there were even earlier part two's in history! When The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha was published in 1605, it was met with such fervent fanfare that fanfiction began circulating almost immediately, often passed off as the genuine work of author Miguel de Cervantes. This irked the writer enough to draft his own sequel ten years later in which he killed off Quixote (spoilers 1615?) so as to put an end the the whole rigamarole! Just offering some thought food for you I hope you might find toothsome:P Thank you again for all the giggles and delight!
These are really good, really well considered criteria, but I have to say, I don't think that making money should be such a heavily weighted consideration. I just don't think that whether or not the shareholders of whatever company the artists had to go through to make the film made a bunch of money for nothing amounts to anything in terms of the artistic and cultural value of a film. And that's just one criteria in your list, I know, but I think it radically changes which films can be considered great. A work of art can be a monumental achievement, a cultural touchstone, an unforgettable piece of history, without making anyone rich. Or I suppose to put it another way, in the world today, the only way you get your movie made is if some suit THINKS it can make him rich, but that isn't a meaningful reflection on the value of the film to, you know, people, in human terms.
True but Mikey's point earlier in the film is that the goal of a sequel - which a production company has to greenlight and fund - is in part to make money. The Hobbit wasn't made to make an adaptation of The Hobbit. It was made to rake in some more LotR dollah bills. So when a project's goal is to make money - amongst other things - then the success of that project has to have the money it made as part of the criteria. If a science experiment sets out to make a lead ball levitate in the air, but it steand turns that lead ball into gold, the experiment has been a failure, even if the results it achieved can be utilised for other experiments. If a studio says "let's make a sequel to Jurassic Park" they're doing it to rake in some of those sweet Jurassic Park dollars, even if we get some awesome T-Rex action and a Jeff Goldblum performance, the studio won't see it as having achieved the original goals unless it makes that money. And Mikey ISN'T saying that these criteria are what makes a GOOD sequel, but the PERFET sequel. If Toy Story had been well received, popular, great narratively, but hadn't made as much as Toy Story 1, we probably wouldn't have gotten Toy Story 3 further down the line. So "making money" is also "sustaining the franchise". Look at comics. Some awesome comics get cancelled because they aren't selling. So, truly, the perfect comic sells well as well as being a great read, since it enables more of that comic series to continue being made, possibly with even BETTER sequels.
You covered my primary criterion for a perfect sequel. A perfect sequel is like a perfect doctoral dissertation: it expands the field to which it contributes in a memorable way which spurs discussion and scholarship for decades to come.
Let's check Army of Darkness. Profit: Made $7.5 million more than Evil Dead 2. (Excellent!) Critical response: 72% Critics / 87% Audience. (Pretty good.) Cultural impact: Made Bruce Campbell famous. (Great!) Duke Nukem 3D stole from it. (Ugh!)
My son who loves Pacific Rim and I (also but for back story, GAMERA! ULTRAMAN! reasons) watched Mikey's Best Dumb Movie Ever review. Loved it. A few days later we watched Army of Darkness because, well... When the film ended my son turned to me. "That! was the best dumb movie ever." Hail to the king baby.
I understand and appreciate all your criteria, because this video is fucking wonderful, and I do remember seeing Toy Story 2 for the first time and the beautiful artistic pain and resolution it caused. The only issue I have is any concept of box office score as being necessary to success as a movie, let alone a sequel. There are so many highly regarded movies that weren't originally highly regarded in any sense (i.e. critically for Empire Strikes Back, popular--thus box office--for Blade Runner, and also narratively for Empire, and more controversially now with The Last Jedi, which I personally believe--despite shortcomings--will come to hold heavy sway in the upper echelons of Star Wars films, and contrapositively in regard to the latter Hobbit movies, which made money but satisfied little else). I think my own bias as a screenwriter and philosophical dipshit is too prominent here, but my point is that film is art--regardless of what Micheal Bay does with exploding helicopters--and that art by definition exists autonomously. Regardless, I enjoyed this video immensely.
In my opinion, your best criteria is the impact the sequal has on its predecessor and its universe. Some of my favorite sequals do this (Empire strikes back, guardians of the galaxy vol. 2, thor ragnarok, the dark night, the last jedi, dead man's chest, just to name a few). In RARE instances, I'll watch the 1st film in a series and walk away thinking meh. But then I'll watch a sequel to that original and walk away loving it and wanting to immediately rewatch both the original AND the sequel. Guardians of the galaxy vol. 2 and the last jedi did that for me in regards to their perspective franchise's 1st installments.
Loved this one Mikey. I don't always agree with your opinion (or even understand it sometimes) but you nailed this one. I really like this thought of giving us a better look at how you look at movies. I've been rather confused/frustrated with some recent movies where critics or real movie buffs love a film (Jedi, Ragnarok, etc) and I see them and either think they're really not good or just meh. It sometimes feel like we are watching completely different movies.
I always categorized Godfather Part 2 differently from other sequels because it’s technically a direct continuation of Godfather. 1 and 2 are the contents of the book by Mario Puzo. I’ve always thought of those two as one long-ass movie, though that thought process messes up your criteria. Anyway, long story short, Godfather Part 3 is the cinematic equivalent to the Great Pacific Trash Island.
I love the criteria you've created Mikey, but I think I'm just going to make one change that matters to me. I want to add: Makes me wonder about more possibilities. I think a truly perfect sequel needs to keep making my mind wander to it. I agree with you on all your points about Toy Story 2, but for some reason, my mind doesn't wander back to that movie. That's probably just me, but that movie doesn't occupy much of my mind when I let my self drift. And because of unique circumstances around this film (that I believe fits all other criteria listed in this video) always made me wonder more about it. Because I know I'll never, no matter what, get a TRUE sequel to this already sequel. And that complete vacancy of a possibility has made me always wander back to it. And that film is the Dark Knight Rises. You, yourself, in your video reviewing this film, seen here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-hFTmCqq-rYc.html , said that Heath Ledger gave the best performance ever. Everything from the use of Heath's lick lipping to the improvised hospital scene was one small piece of the greatest cinematic performance of all time. I keep coming back to it. I bet you keep coming back to it too. And we'll never get a true sequel. They didn't bother finding a replacement because there is none. Heath defined a role so distinctly that there was no point in trying to replace him in the next movie. They just had to write him out. I have a list of things I'll never get to see. It goes: 5. The Surface of the Moon 4. Guillermo del Toro's The Hobbit 3. Edgar Wright's version of Antman 2. Firefly Season 2 (I agree with you. I don't want it if they try to bring it back. It's done and it was perfect.) 1. Another Heath Ledger movie as the Joker I wonder what would have been the best way to bring that character back into the spot light, because there's no way they wouldn't bring him back. Would the entire next movie be about him alone against the Bat? A stand off to end all stand offs. Or would they have done an anti-Justice League thing, where the Joker gathers all of the crazies around Gotham to form a league of villains meant to push and tempt Batman into more extreme measures that his conscious finally couldn't allow? (It's also the anti-Justice League movie because it would actually find interesting storylines and make money) This is, of course, not the only way you can fit this requirement. There are plenty of other movies that meet this requirement in their own unique ways. For example: -Star Wars the Last Jedi has completely wiped the slate of expectations clean. There's virtually nothing to guess because of the tidiness in the way they wrapped things up and I wonder at least once a week about what type of possible Star Wars film I would make next. Not necessarily the one they're going to make, or even the one they should make. But just the one I would want to make. -Mad Max Fury Road. I love how they rebooted it and the complexity of the world intrigues me. Max is a grown protagonist seeing the world through a more complex lens and I want to see what adventures he goes on, through that lens. The lens of standing up for the right thing in a world that doesn't care, but needs to. -Black Panther has just dropped an extreme case of isolationism and I want to see how the people of Wakanda react to getting introduced to Western styles of government. They still use a linage based leadership that is earned in TRIAL BY COMBAT. It took one loophole in their rules to nearly start a world war for world domination. And they would have won too. Anyone else see how that's a little relevant to today? I also want to see how the world reacts to this extreme influx of technology. Probably on its own, that last reason isn't enough to see a movie, because that sounds like the premise for a half decent sci-fi movie of the week, but when combined with the other reason, I keep coming back to this movie. -10 Cloverfield Lane. I'm working on a fan fic script. Michelle saves her own life with fashion and alcohol. She is my new favorite superhero. As you can see, movies can earn this headspace of mine through lots of different ways. Dark Knight just happens to do it in a unique way, and fits all of your other criteria, of which I agree. And just for posterity, here's how TDK meets your other criteria: 1. It made literally $1 Billion. It cost $185k. 2. You made this movie your example of this criteria (thanks for doing the work for me, Mikey!). 3. We're living in an explosion of super hero movies, and plenty of that credit goes to the first Spiderman movie, but a hefty chunk of that credit belongs to this film. And financial success played a big role, but most of it was because Nolan crafted a believable world with more complexities tackled here than most other movies, while finding plenty of faithfulness to the original content, building upon the existing sequel's material, and inspiring a revival in comic book love across the world. This movie still inspires people. And it makes me think more about the systems in my world around me.
I think the criteria you set in place makes the most sense, that "everyone walks away happy." In terms of other films meet such criteria for a perfect sequel lets see... 1) Captain America: The First Avenger, The Winter Solider, and Civil War. Going off of Rotten Tomatoes scores, they go up and up with each movie: 1st Avenger -> Winter Solider = 9% Critic Score increase; WS -> CW = 2% increase; going from 80% to 89% to 91%, not to shabby. (Went from making an B to A in the class). 2) In terms of FAN reception, from 1st Avenger to Winter Solider scores went from a 74% to a 92% (an 18% increase), while Winter Solider to Civil War dropped slightly from 92% to 89% (a 3% decrease, but all and all not bad, its like a child bringing their report card to their parent and the parents being disappointed because the kids now making a B instead of an A now). 3) The First Avenger made (by the math of Gross Revenue/Production Budget with numbers provided by Box Office Mojo) 1.26 times its budget (176,654,505/140,000,000), Winter Solider made 1.53 times its budget (259,766,572/170,000,000), and Civil War made 1.63 times ITS budget (408,084,349/250,000,000). Again, going up and up! 4) In terms of the ramifications to the narrative caused by these movies *SPOILERS TO ANYONE WHO HASN'T SEEN ANY OF THESE MOVIES* : Winter Solider teaches Captain America that sometimes leaving the past behind can be a positive for your well being but at other times in ends up with you having your best friend effectively be a zombie of his former self and now you have to try and bring him back from the brink, ultimately not knowing who to trust for the next couple of years, calling into doubt your relationships with all of your current friends. And then there's Civil War, ultimately changes the dynamics of the Avengers as a whole but in terms of Steve Rodgers story, he chooses his ideals and his past as the most ideal way to lead the Avengers by choosing Bucky over Tony and to follow your gut not the government, but at the cost of dividing the then current team. Both movies pushed the narratives of not only Steve Rodgers story but of the Marvel Cinematic Universe as a whole. 5) When it comes down to it, I would argue that Winter Solider meets all the criteria you put in place, as it ups the review scores of critics and fans compared to The First Avenger, made even more than The First Avenger in terms of both %'s and $, and pushed the narrative forward at least in terms of Steve Rodger's story which chain reacts into Civil War. Civil War's only "dink in the armor" is the Rotten Tomatoes Fan scores but I digress. I would say that Captain America: The Winter Solider is a perfect Sequel, probably not as much as Toy Story 2 is to Toy Story, but still a perfect sequel given the criteria you laid before us.
the most important thing is memorable, do you remember that sequel? Even for good or for bad reasons do you remember the middle Lord of the Rings movie? You remember how it starts and ends though
If I had criteria I think it would only be for determining if a sequel succeeds or not, and it would come down to taking a movie and making it more than it was to begin with. Raiders of the Lost Arc was an amazing action adventure movie with great characters, but the Last Crusade was that as well as a story about a father and son reconnecting after years of enmity and reconciling. Star Wars broke new ground in science fiction but The Empire Strikes Back took it further before turning the world we thought we knew on its head. I feel a sequel doesn’t have to surpass the original, only take what we had and go further.
Fucking AMAZING Mikey!!! Phenomenal episode. I want to add that for my perfect sequel, the only criteria I would want to change is the money it made BUT that's just idealistic of me. Your reasoning for having it made the most sense and you made an excellent choice with Toy Story 2. I hope to some day see you tackle a Godzilla film but either way gonna watch till I drop. ❤️❤️❤️❤️
It would be interesting to base a sequel’s value on only its artistic value in its franchise and how well it follows its predecessor and not on its financial success
Criteria for a Good Sequel - It's part of an ongoing story so flashbacks must make sense (Winner: Indian Jones and the Last Crusade) - Expand characters with new details and motivations (Winner: Captain America Winter Soldier) - Allow new elements to shape the plot, not the "It was Spectre behind it all every time" bullshit (Winner: Mad Max Fury Road) - Explore the back story deeper than relevant or expected for the plot (Winner: Skyfall) - Don't change a character to be more likable/ethical/kind if that's not who they are. (Winner: Logan) - Don't fix mistakes or weaknesses from the previous movie. Move on and make this one better. (Winner: NL Christmas Vacation) - Create a story that shows one simple reality: Not all outcomes are solve by the same solution as last time (Winner: Terminator 2) - Use GREAT actors in the supporting roles instead of fearing to overshadow the main talent. (Winner: Batman Returns) - Make callbacks interwoven and natural to the story. (Winner: Oceans 13) - Make the first movie better because of the sequel added so much more richness. (Winner: Godfather 2) I feel like I could keep going but only because I could find so many things NOT to do.
My criteria for a perfect sequel are threefold: 1. Retaining the original's magic A sequel always depends on the original. It has the huge benefit of relying on an already built universe but at the same time has the enormous burden of fullfilling that universe's rules. In order to work as a sequel to another movie, it has to work in context of the original. In the best case, it even retroactively makes the original better by introducing key ideas that tie everything together like missing puzzle pieces. This thought leads into my second point: 2. Expanding on the original's idea People don't go to the movies for a sequel that does the same shit that the original did. This points sounds as if it's a bit contradictory to the frst one, and that's true. Finding a fine line between what made the original special and what makes the sequel good is extremely hard. But in order for a sequel to succeed, it needs to enrich the universe that it relies on in a meaningful way. This means opening up the world to new possibilities, making the world "larger", while still allowing viewers to feel connected and appreciated. 3. Working as a standalone movie Although, as you can see, I value a sequel's connection to the original quite heavily, I feel like it needs to be able to stand on its own. While especially my first criteria, but also partly the second one appeal to viewers of the original, a perfect sequel has to work for people who haven't seen the original, too. This doesn't mean that it has to be a completely different story in the same universe, it is totally okay and even expected for the movie to make "more" sense in connection to the original. But it still has to present a coherent product for everyone, that ideally encourages you to delve into the universe and therefore the original as well. I can't really decide on one perfect sequel but based on the criteria, my top 3 would be Empire, Aliens and T2 (yes I like scifi)
In the author's mind, the lives of the characters keep going after the "Fin". I feel like art is the understanding of how to END stories. I guess the studio's goal is to find that spot where the credits generate the maximum Sino -bucks.
For me, there's only three criteria for the perfect sequel. 1. Narrative Impact - How does it change the universe it inhabits? How does the tale deepen and extend thanks to the sequel? 2. Artistic Impact - How does the sequel one-up the visual fidelity of the original? How is the world given new life? 3. Cultural Impact - How is the zeitgeist affected by it? How does it change the way we view sequels within that genre? I don't think money should enter the discussion at all. Yes, I understand how important it is, because movies aren't made from nothing, but that's not the point of film as a whole, or at least it shouldn't be. I think that art and entertainment should be the factors by which you gauge any film. For me, using this criteria, I have to say that John Wick Chapter 2 is probably the best sequel ever made. 1.Chapter 2 not only puts the final neat bow on John Wick, but it also further deepens the world of the criminal underground. Markers are introduced, the Continental is shown to be international, there's so many services tied directly to the Continental it makes your head spin, and the Bowery and High Table get introduced like it's only natural that they exist. 2. The fight choreography is brought to an unbelievable height in Chapter 2. Gun fights have more finesse, as well as brutality. The visuals are more stunning than before, which includes such scenes as John's house burning down in the night, Gianna bleeding in the tub, and the untouchable finale in the mirror exhibit. 3. While it hasn't been long since it started, the impact of not only Chapter 2, but the entire John Wick series as a whole is being felt already. The action genre landscape has changed from shaky camera cutting and frenetic choreography to balletic gunplay and long takes. John Wick changed how action movies are made, and Chapter 2 only enhanced that quality. For reference, my favorite sequel is likely The Dark Knight, so there's that. Also, with similar criteria to this, I find Saving Private Ryan to be the best film ever made, period. My favorite is Interstellar, though.
I'm watching this episode of FilmJoy while also watching James Cameron's Aliens. One of the best examples of how a sequel should be done. Oh and Mikey I just want to say that I love the work you do. I have been a sub to your channel for about 2 yrs and you hands down have the best video essays on youtube.
