Plan B Forum

We all know the common assumption that each sequel/prequel is worse than the previous one, but this isn't always the case. There are sequels/prequels that are at least as good as, or better than, the original in the series. I'd be interested to see what some people come up with that fit this latter category.

A couple of guidelines--name the sequel/prequel (and the original if you think it wouldn't be apparent) and list whether it is better than, or as good as, the original, as well as any comments you care to make. Also, I would think that we should limit it to true sequels--reboots like the Dark Knight Batman movies are not true sequels IMHO, but use your own discretion. I'll start with a few:

Better
Star Trek the Wrath of Khan--while I didn't hate the orginal like some did, this is a far better movie than any in the Star Trek series of films (I am limiting it to this with the original series characters as I did not watch any TNG films).
Once Upon a Time in America--the long version--not a true sequel, but a re release of the American version incorporating a lot of the deleted materials. The first was incomprehensible, the long version a great film.


As Good As
Superman 2--this was close, but production values on the first are so good IMHO as to put these movies in a tie for best.
Godfather 2--again, a virtual tie, but the movie combining both (which has been released in DVD and shown on cable, but not shown in theaters IMHO) is better than both.

The Empire Strikes Back (episode V) was better than A New Hope (episode IV).
Return of the Jedi (episode VI) was worse than both.

And episodes I, II and III, which came out after IV, V and VI were the very worse of all.

I don't do sequels.

Good topic...

Godfather 2--again, a virtual tie, but the movie combining both (which has been released in DVD and shown on cable, but not shown in theaters IMHO) is better than both.

I completely agree...

I've got that version on DVD, where they show the prequel sequences from Godfather II ( that tells the story of young Vito Andolini coming to America, and Vito Corleone as a young man, played by Robert DeNiro) and then switches over to The Godfather I, and then transitions to the rest of The Godfather II; it's definitely the best way to watch the films...(It's called "The Godfather Saga"; my copy also includes Godfather III, which while not in the same league as the first two installments isn't a terrible movie)

Also, I would think that we should limit it to true sequels--reboots like the Dark Knight Batman movies are not true sequels

In that same category I would put the Bond films...(Which at this point, technically have what, like 30 sequels? If you want to rate the 007 movie sequels, I think you'd have to divide it up based on the actor playing Bond, and rate them that way...)

I'd also suggest 2 sub-categories for "sequels not as good as the original"...

Sequels that were "not as good as the original but still decent movies" versus, "sequels that were just plain godawful"

In the first category, a couple occur to me:

Force Ten From Navarone:

Clearly not as good as the original The Guns Of Navarone, (Starring Gregory Peck, David Niven and Anthony Quinn) but it was still a decent flick with a strong core cast (Harrison Ford, Robert Shaw, and Edward Fox)

The aforementioned Godfather III:

Definitely not as good as the first 2, (and it definitely suffers from the comparison) but still a pretty good movie compared to most of what's produced....

In the second sub-category ("sequels that were just plain godawful" ) two jump to mind immediately...

The Jaws sequels and the The Exorcist sequels... (those two are generally pointed out as classic examples of good original movies with stink-up-the-joint bad sequels)

(I think the key element that usually distinguishes a basically decent sequel from a truly godawful one is whether the motivation behind doing the movie was to at least try to create a respectable film, or to just capitalize on a popular movie original to turn a quick buck...)

On the "better than the original" list: I would add:

Oceans 13: The best of the George Clooney Oceans series; better than the original, (and far better than the first sequel Oceans 12 which was easily the poorest of the three)

Die Hard with a Vengeance: the one co-starring Samuel L. Jackson. Better than the original, and easily better than any of the others in the Die Hard series.

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly: One can dispute whether or not this is technically a sequel, but it's generally seen as the last in a trilogy with A Fistful of Dollars and A Few Dollars More, (with the same characters played by Clint Eastwood and Lee Van Cleef) The "Dollars" movies are good, but TGTBATU is a true western film cinema classic...It ranks in the pantheon of Great Westerns along with High Noon...

On the "just as good as the original" list, I would add:

Magnum Force : While most of the rest of the Dirty Harry series I think would fall into the "not as good as, but still decent" category, (with the Possible exception of the I Spit On Your Grave ripoff, Sudden Impact, which was really pretty bad.) I think this second one measured up to the original....

That's what I've got for now, I'll probably add more later...

I'm thinking also of starting a thread for remakes...

Off the top of my head I can't think of a single remake that measured up to the original...(My favorite example in this category is the remake of The Flight of the Phoenix...What "reasoning process" does a person go through who watches a film that starred Jimmy Stewart, David Attenborough, Hardy Kruger, Peter Finch, Ernest Borgnine and George Kennedy, who then says to himself, "Yeah, sure, I can make a better version of that; no problem" )

You really have to be smoking crack to think you can improve on that...

That expansion of categories sounds pretty good.

As for remakes, only one leaps to mind, Davis Cronenberg's The Fly (and I liked the Vincent Price original).

Big RR wrote:Godfather 2--again, a virtual tie, but the movie combining both (which has been released in DVD and shown on cable, but not shown in theaters IMHO) is better than both.

I agree with you on both being pretty equally good, but disagree that the chronologically spliced version combining the two is better. The purpose of the young Vito flashback sequences in Godfather 2 was to show the parallels to Michael's life that led him to follow in his father's footsteps. A lot of that is lost, IMHO, by playing everything chronologically. It is one of the relatively few movies, again IMHO, that makes truly effective use of flashback in a way that adds depth to the plot and characterizations.

Lord Jim wrote:In the second sub-category ("sequels that were just plain godawful" ) two jump to mind immediately...

The Jaws sequels and the The Exorcist sequels... (those two are generally pointed out as classic examples of good original movies with stink-up-the-joint bad sequels)

I didn't care for The Exorcist 2. What I liked about Exorcist 3 was that it didn't attempt to outdo the original in portraying gory special effects by taking advantage of advances in technology of the intervening two decades. Instead, almost all of the gruesome stuff took place off camera and was referenced by suggestion (e.g. the trays of blood filled glasses in the hospital room) which for me was much more chilling than if we had seen a lot of bodies being ripped and hacked to pieces on screen.

The purpose of the young Vito flashback sequences in Godfather 2 was to show the parallels to Michael's life that led him to follow in his father's footsteps. A lot of that is lost, IMHO, by playing everything chronologically.

Well, that's what makes horse races...

My interpretation of those flashback scenes is that they showed what made Vito Corleone what he became...

I've always thought that what made Michael into the man who followed in his father's footsteps was the death of Sonny, his decision to kill the corrupt police captain McCluskey, and the time he spent after that in Sicily...

(Particularly the murder of the young woman he became involved with while he was there)

It was that sequence of events that I've always felt transformed the young, fairly innocent All American WWII war hero that Michael was at the beginning of The Godfather I ("That's my father's world Kate, it's not mine") into the cold, calculating Godfather that he himself became...

Lord Jim wrote:My interpretation of those flashback scenes is that they showed what made Vito Corleone what he became...

I've always thought that what made Michael into the man who followed in his father's footsteps was the death of Sonny, his decision to kill the corrupt police captain McCluskey, and the time he spent after that in Sicily...

(Particularly the murder of the young woman he became involved with while he was there)

I agree with all of that. What I am saying is that there are parallels between the two, i.e. growing up in Sicily, the murders of his brother and mother and killing Fanucci put Vito on the path that he would follow, as did Michael's time in Sicily, the murders of his brother and wife, and killing McCluskey. I think seeing it completely chronologically makes the viewer lose sight of that somewhat.

Lord Jim wrote:Good topic...
Force Ten From Navarone:

Clearly not as good as the original The Guns Of Navarone, (Starring Gregory Peck, David Niven and Anthony Quinn) but it was still a decent flick with a strong core cast (Harrison Ford, Robert Shaw, and Edward Fox)

Alistair MacLean was generally considered to be at the top of his form when he wrote and published "The Guns of Navarone", which was only his second novel, in 1957.  By the time he wrote "Force 10 From Navarone" eleven years later, in 1968, he had written ten more books and was in the beginning of a period (from 1966 through 1984) where he was cranking out roughly a book a year; it is understandable that when you're creating literature on a production-line basis the quality of the story is going to suffer (although even then he was still able to come up with a couple of goodies during this time; law of averages and all that, dont'chaknow?).

The other thing is that as written, "Force 10 From Navarone" picked up immediately after the conclusion of "The Guns of Navarone" with several of the same characters making up the cadre of "Force Ten".  Unfortunately, the movie wasn't filmed until 1978, seventeen years after the release of its predecessor.  If the producer had been able to re-use the same actors for the returning characters — Gregory Peck as Mallory; David Niven as Miller; Richard Harris as Barnsby; and Anthony Quinn as Andrea — instead of completely recasting the roles — Robert Shaw as Mallory; David Fox as Miller; Harrison Ford as Barnsby; and the character of Andrea nowhere to be found, although he is in the original novel — it might have been a little bit better.

-"BB"-

For godawful sequels I'd have to put the Rocky movies--the first was a surprise, an old time boxing movie with some modern sensibilities, where the victory was just showing up for the fight and the result didn't even matter (many people seeing the movie didn't even hear the scorecards 9at least the first time), the subsequent ones milked the franchise with sillier and sillier stories (fighting Mr. T, fighting a Russian superman, fighting a Don King Character) ending up with Methuselah fighting Mike Tyson (and whatever the ones after it were); some liked the character, but come on.

eta: And Scooter, weighing in on the godfather saga, I thin II was effective for the reason you stated, the comparison of the rise of Vito and Michael was shown in a compact time by flashbacks. what I liked about the long saga (in addition to the additional scenes) is that the chronology led to a certain end, and we can also see that what Vito did eventually led to what Michael did because this was the business they chose. Vito became more violent when the conditions called for it, and wasn't above the occasional vendetta (like when he went back to Sicily to seek his revenge) and Michael carried that forward. Vito's actions strained family ties (which led, among other things, to sonny's death), and Michael dissolved them entirely. It was like the epic American success story, where the success corrupted and brought on its own ends. IMHO Michael wasn't different from Vito, he was Vito in a world we he could trust no one and where violence had to be met with violence, and this is what I saw in the long film.

I think Star Wars original trilogy and Godfather are the same in that the author/writer had enough inspired material for two movies, but they needed to do a third to finish the story and the commercial pressures forced a mediocre product.

To a certain extent I agree with you re the Godfather series, but then, like Jim, I didn't think 3 was all that bad. But I think the biggest drawback to the Star Wars saga is that they had to develop more an more "cute" creatures for the sake of merchandising. This reached a peak in the third movie with those Teddy Bear ewoks, but I think Jar Jar Binks was done for the same reason (pretty stupid decision IMHO). Disney has done the same with its films more and more--if Snow White was done now we'd have 100 dwarves,

I was just unpacking my last box of books/media and guess what I discovered? The deluxe two disc edition of the extended version of Once Upon a Time in America to which I treated myself a few Xmases ago - still sealed! I'm looking forward to watching it this weekend, I've only ever seen the shorter cut.

BoSoxGal wrote:I was just unpacking my last box of books/media and guess what I discovered? The deluxe two disc edition of the extended version of Once Upon a Time in America to which I treated myself a few Xmases ago - still sealed! I'm looking forward to watching it this weekend, I've only ever seen the shorter cut.

You will be amazed at the ways in which the correct version makes sense.

Indeed you will; it is definitely worth the watching.

I think someone here or CSB recommended it years ago which is why I bought it, I'd seen the original release version and liked it so figured it was a good investment. Somehow I didn't watch it right away and then it ended up buried in a box when I moved one of the times I moved.

I'll report back with my reaction but assuming I'll love it. Also has optional commentary and a documentary 'making of' - will be a nice way to fill a few of my overnight shift hours tomorrow night.

Big RR wrote: Better
Star Trek the Wrath of Khan--while I didn't hate the orginal like some did, this is a far better movie than any in the Star Trek series of films (I am limiting it to this with the original series characters as I did not watch any TNG films).

I knew that "Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan" was a sequel to the first "Star Trek" movie and I generally agree with the assessment that it was far better than the first movie.  I was also aware of the fact that "Wrath of Khan" was — for want of a better way of putting it — also a sequel to an episode of the original series entitled "Space Seed".

Well, I never really sought it out, but earlier tonight one of the cable channels (H&I, which I guess stands for "Heroes and Icons") reran the episode as part of a "Star Trek" marathon, so I took the time to watch it.  I was impressed ... and it made me think:  The "Star Trek" fan community, having gone more than fifteen years with only an animated cartoon to satisfy them, was going to line up like Apple sheeple when the new iPhones are released and plunk down their money for any movie that carried the "Star Trek" name, especially since they were able to round up almost all of the original crew from the TV series.  They had the name and they had the captive audience; they didn't need to make that movie too good (and while it wasn't bad, it could have been better).  But how do they *KEEP* 'em coming back?

ANSWER:  They needed to make the second one better so that people would see it and figure that this was going to be a franchise a la the Bond movies and that the films were going to get better as they went along.  So they pulled out all the stops and did so.  Now, some 35 years later (with nine more movies and four more iterations of the series along the way) the franchise shows few signs of slowing down.  Whether it was lightning in a bottle or a coldly calculated business plan, it worked — even when they rolled out the reboots with an entire different set of actors donning the Federation uniforms.

-"BB"-

Actually, from what I recall much of the ST community was pretty disappointed with the first movie (and admittedly the movie was a bit of a mess, even though I did not hate it); many threatened never to go to another ST movie, which made the producers work extra hard to create a movie like the series (actually plucked form one of the favorite episodes of many).

An interesting aside, the original script had Spock dying at the end (which made sense because the undercurrent of the episode was about aging and facing no win situations; Leonard Nimoy also said he didn't want to portray Spock anymore), but the fans (especially the die hard Trekkies) reacted negatively threatening to never see the movie or any sequel without Spock, hence the ending and the third movie were quickly cobbled together. IMHO, having a major character die could have made this movie even better (tying in the idea that there are situations where one cannot win), but the producers realized where their bread was buttered and relented (and apparently Nimoy did as well).