Sequels

[poliphilo]

It's the conventional wisdom that movie sequels are a bad thing.

Only they're not.

Lots of sequels improve on their originals.

Here are some good movies with even better sequels.

Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein.
A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More.
The Godfather and Godfather II.
Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead.
Toy Story and Toy Story II

The problem isn't with sequels. The problem comes when the series gets extended into a trilogy.

The Good, The Bad and the Ugly just about holds its own, but Godfather III and Army of Darkness show a distinct falling away of inspiration. I forget what the third Frankenstein movie was called, but I know I've seen it and it wasn't much good.

The original movie is experimental. The sequel gets it right. The third is almost always a mistake.

Comments

[isoldout.livejournal.com]

Back to the Future?


fafa

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Oo...er

I've seen I & III, but I've never caught II (for some reason.)

I like III. I'm going to be Jesuitical here and suggest that the reason III works is because II and III were conceived and filmed together, so, in fact consitute one long, double-length sequel.

[isoldout.livejournal.com]

Very true.



fafaf

[jackiejj.livejournal.com]

But consider the Indiana Jones trilogy, where the first is excellent, the third excellent (arguably), and the second horrible (IMHO).

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I agree with you, pretty much.

But I think the first film is greatly superior to both its sequels. Three is better that two, but neither is really necessary.

I believe there's a fourth in the pipeline. I wonder how they'll cope with the fact that Harrison Ford is now in his 60s.

[solar-diablo.livejournal.com]

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Incontinence