Why are sequels so often letdowns? By comparing specific examples of successful and terrible sequels, we'll get some insight into how to make a good sequel. / nowyouseeit
+Osmorosvo Even though I don`t like Matrix sequels, there is so much that you can add to the story of the first movie. Hell, you can make even an entire universe around it, so I must disagree with you.
They are. I saw the title before rewatching the film thinking "that's witty asf, Mel Brooks is a genius." Then I rewatched it and heard the title said and I was like "that's witty asf, Mel Brooks is forward-thinking beyond reproach genius"
how to train your dragon 2 was a great step forward in the story of hiccup and life on berk with dragons, thats a good sequel. I loved Rio but I could not get through Rio 2. and the continuing line of Ice Age movies has me groaning every time a new trailer comes out.
+Lemonman Lemons thats not the point. Yes the TV show is B average but in this franchise, How to Train Your Dragon 2 is a serviceable sequel to 1 whereas movies like Rio, Rio two ruined the franchise for me. (Also, how do you feel about the marvel cinematic universe deviating from the source material?)
I didn't see Rio 1 , but I saw Rio 2 twice and I just looooved it. So maybe nothing new is added in the sequel, but if Rio 1 is as good as Rio 2, they got themselves a great franchise :) (in my opinion at least)
The whole point of Rio was that Blu and Jewel were the last two blue macaws on earth. Thats why they had to go to brazil and have their adventure.. all the while teacher youth briefly about brazillian culture (festival) But in Rio 2, there is a wholw flock of blue macaws?! That happen to be related to Jewel?! And Bruno Mars was her ex lover creating awkward tension between Blu and Jewel. Just... Why?
i dont know if you covered this but 1:41 (spoilers) the whole gag about repeating the same thing over and over not working also is important to the plot. channing tatum and jonah hill's characters try the same tactics they did in the first movie and they cant find the drug dealer. they then try a different approach and realize they've been looking for the wrong person the whole time.
That ingenious surprising twist in T2 always upsets me because they revealed it *in the movie's trailer*. I wish I had been able to go into that movie having heard nothing about it beforehand, but sadly that will never happen.
Great video, one correction though. The prequels only made more money than the original Star Wars trilogy if you factor out inflation. With inflation episode IV makes more money than I-III.
+JP Kloess Factoring in inflation is so disproportionate because what it's doing is take sales of the movie from the present day, pretending that sale was made in 1977 and then inflating the monetary value of said sale from 1977 money to present day money. So lets say you buy Star Wars for £10, they'll inflate that to the equivalent of what £10 in 1977 was compared to now, which I don't the exact cost but let's say £10 in 1977 is £100 in the present day. No-one spent £100 to buy the film. So the inflation thing is nonsense and is very misleading. That's not to say that because a film makes $1 Billion today it means it did better than a film from the 50s that made a couple of million, depending on inflation, but to adjust inflation for older films is misrepresentative of the sales. The worst one is probably Gond With the Wind because it came out in the 30s or 40s and had loads of re-releases and had those later sales inflated from 1940s money when it's misrepresentative.
***** look, it doesn't matter,,, Spider man 2 is a direct sequel to Spider Man, disregarding of who takes the credit for the success or which production house is involved. Spider man 2 is a sequel to Spiderman, that's all that matters.
there should have been a mention of scream 2, it was a great sequel that kept referencing it was the second movie, and had the characters throughout it arguing whether or not sequels could be good, and which ones were better than the original
What really annoys me about The Hobbit is that it could have been good. The problem was that Peter Jackson wanted to make The Lord of the Rings trilogy again instead of making a different (shorter!) story. It definitely didn't need to be three movies long (one or two would have sufficed) and it should have been less of a monumental story. The Hobbit wasn't about world building and giant Pelennor Fields style battles, it was about Bilbo Baggin's journey into a world and life he was entirely unaccustomed to and how he dealt with that and grow personally. The movies were too focused on being about everyone instead of just being about Bilbo. For example, the book goes into barely any detail about what actually happened at the Battle of the Five Armies as Bilbo was unconscious throughout it and devoted only a couple pages to it, rather than devoting and entire movie to the battle as Peter Jackson did. He also added characters like Legolas, who had no part in The Hobbit, as a fan service and added unrealistic side plots that did nothing to add to the story. Also, the over-saturation of CGI in the movie as opposed to the original Lord of the Rings movies, which used it sparingly and out of necessity for large battles and creatures and stuck to makeup and practical effects for Orcs, made the Goblins and fighting much less believable and severely detracted from the experience as a whole. I was so excited for The Hobbit five years ago when it was coming out but the cash grab that it ended up becoming was an utter disappointment.
I completely agree with this video, I love it when sequels expand the story, instead of telling the same one. Whether that be expanding the plot, the character development, the scope, or all three. That little sentiment about how the Marvel movies develop their characters throughout their sequels makes me extra excited for the DCEU films, especially since they're already more intertwined with 3 films than the MCU was at 6. And Superman's character development in the first two films was great.
James Cameron's approach to sequels has been to effectively change the genre. The Terminator and Alien were both horror movies (largely due to smaller budgets, but they're damn good movies no less), but T2 and Aliens were big-budget action movies that pushed the envelope of special effects and stunts in their time. Telling a new story is important, but telling a different kind of story altogether is a way to really make a sequel stand out.
right?! I mean who would have guessed that cars 2, or rio 2, or the hangover 2, or paranormal activity 2, or the conjuring 2, or grown ups 2 would suck? the trailers were so well crafted! You only realize they were terrible ideas from the beginning after you've bought a ticket and ignored how obvious it is that they are lazy cons! Like when that zimbabwean prince sent me an email asking me to help him reclaim his thrown by giving him money, how am i supposed to know he's lying unless I do what he tells me?
everything is obvious if you pay enough attention to it. slowly you'll be able to figure the end of a movie by its first opening image. one of many reasons that you can't predict something because you're lost in your own thoughts. if you learn to see beyond obstacles than you would be able to see things the way they truly are. no matter what shape they may be.
I really like the sequel to alien, it switched up the feel and went from horror to action whilst adding to the one character that survived the first one (it showed her maternal side with the little girl) and it also added to the xenomorph by having the queen
Giancarlo Vásquez DI Ruggiero Actually he's got a point, MArvel knows how to construct universe but not make sequels, in fact sometimes the sequels or the movies were sacrificed to make the universe work, Iron Man 2 is a great example of a bad sequel, and AoU while the greatest fanservice MCU movie so far was unable to awe as much as the first film
Matt Galvin Yeah maybe they were worse, I can agree with you on that. But I don't think they were necessarily bad sequels. An argument could be made that they were average, but it seems the general consensus on Iron Man 2, Thor 2, and Avengers 2 was that they were pretty good but not great like their originals. So I still think the argument can be made that Marvel knows how to make sequels that are good, but they don't always make sequels BETTER than the originals.
+Matt Galvin If there's a consensus I really don't get, it's everybody sayin' Iron Man 2 sucks. I think it's a really good movie, sure not better than the first one, but it wasn't horrible at all. Everytime I ask why it sucks, I only get general nitpicking about that or that scene... Overall the movie is way better than average. Can't see all the hate. I could even understand why one would prefer the second one over the first.
Hahaha I was editing a film with exactly the same bass music when I watched this video, which worked quite confusing. It's called Bass walker and is available without copyright and shit.
What? They've been receiving critical and general praise for most of their recent films and series. Captain America:Winter Soldier, GOTG, Ant-Man, Civil War, Daredevil S1 & 2, Jessica Jones, and Luke Cage are all acclaimed. And people are extremely excited for Doctor Strange and IronFist. People aren't crapping all over their stuff, that has to be a vocal minority because they've been receiving tons of positivity.
LONG LIVE STEELO I heard complaints about all of them, and they are mainly pretty stupid complaints to be honest. I don't dislike them, but they are complaints nonetheless.
Like I said, it has to be a minority. The films and shows I listed are fan favorites, being highly rated by critics and audiences. If you go on a video related to any of them, there's way more likes than dislikes and the comment section is overwhelmed with positivity. I hear complaints here and there also, but it's just a small group of people. Marvel has been killing it, as oppose to DC who actually receives the abundance of negativity.
onee Personally and as of late, I don't hate their movies at all, but it's a bit irritating when some fans put them as the greatest films of all time and are a lot more profound, to be they're just decent entertainment with little to no depth. And don't forget, marvel movies are THE mainstream now and are watched by masses, so you'd expect divisive opinions.
Your videos are well made, your input is thought provoking, but perhaps the thing I appreciate most is the brevity. I get so many recommendations for 20, 30, hour long videos. That’s cool but often I want something much shorter.
Just started watching your channel. I clicked on this to see if you recognized how awesome T2 is , and it was the first example of a good sequel. Subscribed :)
Nah I think you should have mentioned how expectations on sequels causes them to fail. One always compare them to the first movie. Like how The Hobbit movies are compared to the Lord of the Rings: But they are not actually bad movies, however because they are compared to the fantastic LOTR-trilogy they are doomed to be regarded as lesser films. I think this is often what makes most sequels 'fail' they cannot possibly live up to the hype. But of course you made some valid points in this video. I disagree with the last thing you said tho... If a franchise is loved - why wouldnt we want to see a sequel...? even if it is not as good? :)
Love the Spaceballs clip. Even more relevant now than at the time. Would have been interested to see the inclusion of The Empire Strikes Back, given that it's a much beloved sequel, but also not really a self-contained story by cinema standards.
alex arellano Yeah, as good as the third one was, I felt like they tried way too hard to make the movie funny by over compensating with too many jokes. It kind of just gave me the impression that the production team were too scared of the movie being serious.
In original films we enjoy learning about the world and characters. In most bad sequels, we are introduced to same world with almost no change, just one antagonist and his friends/or problem less then in previous story. Protagonist/s doing the same thing in just a little bit different fashion. But in great sequels we are introduced with familiar worlds with a different setup and narrative lines continuing story as a whole. In Alien the crew was a prey of an unknown source while in Aliens Ripley goes on a battle with colonial marines to defeat enemies. In Batman Begins we see how Bruce becomes what he is in Dark Knight and how he deals with first major villain after he established himself. In Godfather II we saw nothing like in Part I, it's a whole new thing within familiar world. In Harry Potter, it's always a same world but changed every time, expending by new narrative lines and continuing story as a whole. LOTR trilogy on the other hand is one very long movie separated in 3 parts. There are also many sequels doing a right thing in theory but with people in charge lacking craft to pull it off good enough.
What I like about marvel is they they hint at a very small idea and then build on it in the future. For example when cap and iron man have their little stare down in avengers 1, and then a small argument in avengers 2, it's bright full force in civil war
I guess the major point which is far more important than those that were in video is: has this movie need to expand? You see, a lot of failed sequels were pointless from the very beginning. The story of Speed or Hangover can work only once - or you should develop a whole new concept around the similar idea! e.g. Edqe of Tomorrow main trick is pretty much the same as that in Groundhog Day - but just imagine Groundhog Day 2! The reason of success for Terminator 2 is that it's a very different movie, it only uses some elements of the 1st part and recombine it into another story with quite a different meaning. Same thing about Alien and Aliens - Cameron re-imagines Scott's movie (and so did every new director to shoot new sequels - so it's a crime they rejected Blomkamp's project) in his manner, it even has a different genre.
Great stuff, I have subscribed to your channel and want to see more. Perhaps an exploration of what makes a movie a "classic" or what makes for a re-watchable movie.
I really enjoy Cars 2 as a story set in the Cars universe about a character we like, but I agree that it doesn't do anything to build on the first one. I'm super excited for Cars 3 though.
I don't understand the hate for Cars 2. They had Mater be the lead instead of McQueen which I thought was a cool choice and both certainly had character arcs (they both learned to not be affected by other's opinions in different ways) and I thought the spy storyline was funny.
+Crick1952 I just didn't like how the characters "reset" if you will. Instead of building off of the first movie, the characters regressed a bit (not completely). The first movie was two steps forward, and the second was one step back, two forward. A bit annoying.
One important thing to have in order to make a sequel is that the first move movie must have a big sloppy question by the end. A great expample, in my opinion, would be Kung Fu Panda. The main and overall question about all three movies is: "How do we make a panda become a kung fu master?" Over all three movies, Po was gradually learning how to become a Kung Fu master. He first grasps the basics and becomes more confidant, then he learned about inner peace, and then he moves on to mastering chi and learns about family, and acceptance, and other stuff like that. Another thing that drives the story is: "Where did Po come from?" Obviously we ask this question in the first movie as Po's dad is a duck, despite Po being a panda. Po becomes very curious and tries to learn more, which is where the 2nd and 3rd movie come into play. There are also other things besides this that make sequels great, in fact, there are probably plenty of sequals that don't even use this method but are pretty good.
My favourite sequel has to be Star wars empire strikes back since No one expected the first movie to be successful so when it did they built up the story as much as possible and it was perfect
In Italy the ominous 1989 Martians Go Home (www.imdb.com/title/tt0100116/) was translated as Spaceball 2 - the revenge (Balle Spaziali 2 - la vendetta). Painful.
I think the key to the MCU is that they know there will be sequels so it's written like a tv show with two hour episodes. The movie almost always ends with the "monster of the week" being defeated, but the main characters are always developing. If you compare that to a series like Cars where the first movie concludes with the characters completing their arcs, only for a totally different and unrelated plot to pop up for a sequel. There's a major disconnect a lot of the time if the writers don't think there will be a sequel. **NOTE** Cars 3 is a masterpiece
twitch thief Well, none of them are really "sequels" in the traditional sense. They're all meant to be tellings of stories about the legendary Mad Max, and are all very self contained. I'd even argue that The Road Warrior was a reboot as the expanded budget allowed George Miller to fully portray the wasteland he had in mind from the start.
+Matt Sylvester but they are still sequels in a sense that they build up on existing characters and universe and are the next movies in an already successful franchise or single movie. In the video he regards sequels that way, that is also why he can mention the Star Wars Prequels as "sequels".
Disney just stepped in and said hey I like what you're doing keep it going, if you need any help let us know, Marvel studios was like yeah more money please! Big brother said yeah, just help us churn out 2-3 more movies a year we're working on making the most movies in cinematic history
I don't know if you'll see this, but I'd like to know your views on hugely anticipated movies based on great low budget cult TV shows that manage to massively suck by being over written/produced. Maybe start with The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy.
He forgot to mention Kung Fu Panda and Kung Fu Panda 2!! That sequel definitely made leaps and bounds (no pun intended) over the original! Heck, even for it being primarily a comedy, it still made many tear up towards the middle~ Personally, I think it set the bar too high for Kung Fu Panda 3 though. While 3 had its good moments, it almost seemed like Po's character development took a step backwards when he met the Panda village. But 2, oh my gawd!!! I love 2!~
The Irony of MCU having good sequels is just funny. Phase four has flopped so hard, it's not extremely bad but it is simply not as a good as it could be, plenty of opportunity to expand and do something amazing but fails to execute.
I was so disappointed when I heard they were making The Hobbit into a trilogy. The Hobbit is one book and shorter than just one of The Lord of The Rings books. Add in that the first 100 pages of The Hobbit are slow and deliberate, and should be condensed when told in a cinematic format. All of a sudden you're trying to stretch a book full of Tolkien prose that doesn't all convert to film and as such a lot must be left out and no wonder they threw in stuff from The Silmarillion and added tons of filler to the original Hobbit story. If they had left it at one 3 hour movie or two 2 hour movies that focus mostly on Bilbo's character development, which is the real meat of the book, I think it would have been as classic as its predecessor trilogy.
I don't see a sequel these days unless the reviews, my own looking into it, show it to be just what you're saying is a GOOD sequel. Unfortunately, sometimes too, a good sequel doesn't do well. One case is Blade Runner 2049. I LOVE both films, and Tron Legacy has really grown on me. Now why didn't more people go to those that did build on, instead of simply rehashing?
I love Horrible Bosses. To me its great. It is also one of the rare situations where, I personally, think the sequel is better than the first. The second film phenomenal and crazier than the first. Love it, love, love it!
honestly i love your points, but my god was age of ultron a letdown. and most marvel sequels will never be as good as winter soldier and avengers. i wish all mcu sequels were like those two, and Im glad Guardians 2 was amazing. So yeah this was the only point I disagreed with, and I really wished it wasnt the case. otherwise great video. 10/10
I haven't seen all of the latest marvel movies so I could be making a poor assessment but I saw captain america I think the first too Iron Man movies and Age of Ultron and don't remember a single one apart from remembering there being absolutely no space in any of them and absolutely hating age of ultron.
I also think it's how much time passes between a movie that makes the sequel good, the more sooner the sequel is released, the better chance I have of liking it. The longer between the movies the less fresh the first one is in my mind.
Great analysis. "Rocky II" was good, I think, because it did what "Toy Story 2" did--gave a new emotional challenge for the main character, i.e. dealing with fame.
+Suturno I overall enjoy the Marvel franchise, I know that the sequels in general are often not as entertaining as the first ones but I got from what he was talking about in general is that the MCU has succeeded in that TV style progression. Tony Stark is still Iron Man and Steve Rogers is still Cap America but their personalities and outlooks have developed tons since their debuts. I'll agree that they do have the same issue he mentioned to the Hobbit films that some of the ensemble cast gets left behind if they don't get their own solo films, that has been affecting their intended balance in the long run.
In my opinion, Captain America: Civil War is one of the best sequels in film history. And that's not just because of how much it builds off of Winter Soldier; it's because Civil War is a great sequel to Winter Soldier, Age of Ultron, and Iron Man 3 while also being a fantastic precursor to Spider-Man, Black Panther, and Infinity War all at the same time. It juggles so many plot threads while also being a great movie.
I think the rebooted planet of the apes series is quite well for itself so far. The story is a little cliche in places but it's got its own flair to it I'm excited for its third entry!
I do have one problem is that grossing in movies and sequels can hardly be relevant in some cases like star wars since you have to count inflation as a factor
Great video, as always. I have one issue though. I thought 22 jump street was ok, but much worse than the original. simply being self-aware shouldn't save film from criticism. for example, Piranha 3DD was an intentionally shitty movie. it was trying to make fun of those kind of ridiculous shitty slasher films, but ended up just being terrible because it WAS a ridiculous shitty slasher film. 22 Jump Street has the same problem, just not as bad of a case. it talked about how it would be a bad sequel, and that kind of self-awareness shouldn't nullify any criticism of actually being a bad sequel. it's really more of a copout than anything. Otherwise, great job, i love you
I have a love-hate relationship with Home Alone 2. I love as much as the original but it's practically the same movie. It's clever enough to not be called a cash grab in my opinion but it's most likely bias.
I like the prequels. They may not be brilliant movies, but thay have a great story and work very well on the bigger picture. Those movies added so much to the Star Wars universe. The Force Awakens is a cool movie, but as a sequel to Episode VI it fails shamefully.
***** The prequels added some boring things, yes, but they made their universe so much more complex and alive than a simple fight between light/darkness. You can say it all is too Star Trek-ish, and you may be right, but I fail to see the problem here.
***** It's not supposed to go deeper, but well, it does now. There are 8 movies, games and some series too, you can't have it all without deep world-building. Besides, I rather have a new story with all it's flaws than the same story all over again, but I guess it all comes down to opinions at this point.
***** I still believe that the prequels were needed. Their plot is great, maybe even better than the original trilogy. Anakin's downfall to the dark side is a wonderful idea, and even badly executed the 3 movies work just fine in the bigger picture. They expanded Star Wars's story far beyond the journey of the hero that you see everywhere. What did The Force Awakens do? Again, it's a cool movie on it's own, but as a part of the series it's just not good.
But there are some outliers. Lots of people liked Aliens more than Alien, but it shows little character development in Ripley other than her attachment to Newt. The only thing it does is give us more aliens, more explosions, and a big robot suit. So maybe lots of explosions and special effects can go a long way despite the movie not having the best writing? I'm not saying Aliens was a poorly-written movie, because it's great, but it did lack in that department.
Gamefly Y 1. Keep calm, I didn't comment that to be insulted that way. 2. Alien 2 or Aliens is a really good movie, but I've seen some critics about it because it changed its style a lot compared to the first one, that's all.
I always say a good rule for a film it to make 1 or 3. Either make one and leave it at that or make a trilogy that has an overall arc. Ghostbusters is an example of not following this rule. The first is a classic and would have been fine on its on. They made a poor and forgettable sequel but couldn't save the franchise by making a 3rd.
