I think the quality of most movies goes down as more sequels come out. The Matrix, for example...the first one was good. The second was a stretch, and the third one never should have been made...
2006-07-22 17:36:05 · 24 answers · asked by Alecto 5 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
It's just difficult to recapture the magic. Take your example, the Matrix. What made that first movie so awesome was that it was so unlike anything out at the time, in several different ways (Storyline, Cinematography, etc). That sense of surprise, awe, and unexpected delight cannot be repeated in a sequel.
It has been my view that you find the best sequels come from movies that are very character driven instead of story driven. The Matrix was definately story driven. Character driven movies that had excellent sequels would include Spider-Man and Lethal Weapon.
It's should also be no surprise that the biggest movies these days are typically story driven, and therefore their inevitable sequels do not come off so well.
2006-07-22 17:45:35 · answer #1 · answered by You'll Never Outfox the Fox 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
sequels are made to make money ... to capitalize on the success of the earlier effort. Besides the fact that sequels are designed to do little more than generate a box office, they take gross liberties with the expectations of the audience that responded so well to the first film.
Typically the first film succeeds because the director's heart (and that of the cast and crew) was wholly into it. Rarely can the passion, innovation, and excellence of the first film be recaptured in a sequel.
There are a few exceptions. The Borne Supremacy was an excellent film that stood on its own. Obviously there have been some excellent Bond films done over the years as well. You probably know others.
But Clerks II, National Lampoon Vacations, Scream II, III, etc are just out for the money.
2006-07-23 00:46:34 · answer #2 · answered by LeRoy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It all depends... usually I think the second in the series is usually the best like the following
Empire Strikes Back...best of the original Star Wars trilogy
Aliens...2nd one I like the best
The Godfather .... the 1st and second one both won Oscars
and there are some movies where all the sequels are as good as the first like
Jurassic Park's
Indiana Jones movies
Die Hard's
Airplane's
But you are right as far as movies like The Matrix or most superhero or horror movies. Creative minds I think just get lazy in a lot of cases or they just capitolize on the success of the first movie because they know if you liked the first one you will watch the second no matter how bad it is.
2006-07-23 00:46:33 · answer #3 · answered by mrraraavis 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting that you would ask that....How many "Rocky" movies were there? (Really...I would like to know!!!!) ...Was Spider Man 2 really such a bad movie? I didn't think so. The Fast in the Furious....enough said! Why was there was there a 3? Ughhhh...But sequels aren't all bad...The second installment of the film adaptation of X Men was as great as the first! While the third was lacking (Where was Brain Singer? Directing Super Man) but good somewhat because it was X-men! ..But alas, I agree with on the Matrix movies...
2006-07-23 00:44:55 · answer #4 · answered by thecureisallineed 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not all sequels sucks and i don't think the Matrix sucks either.
The 1st one introduce us to the matrix, evolution explains about the programs in the matrix and what it does and how it affects the Matrix evolution, the last tells us about the war between mankind and the machine and concentrate on Zion and the future of mankind and the Animatrix tells us the history of the Martix universe.
2006-07-23 01:51:51 · answer #5 · answered by sulphur 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that isn't always true...
good trilogies
Rocky 1-3..and 3 was the questionable one,,,I'd have substituted 4 for 3...but that is just me..
Indy Jones trilogy was fine
Star Wars 4-6 (the original 3 from the 80s not the recent prequal)
Lord of the rings trilogy
Spiderman trilogy
XMen trilogy
Jason Bourne's flicks
Shrek
if you want to consider "The Mariacchi" "Desperado" and "once "Upon a Time In Mexico"...not half bad but some bogus explosions but fun shows...
Alien and Aliens were good..but the rest should have never been released..
2006-07-23 00:51:37 · answer #6 · answered by juanes addicion 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there are exceptions to this- The Lord of the Rings trilogy improved greatly between sequels. It all depends on the purpose of the sequel and how it was related to the previous movie. In the end though, it all comes down to your own opinion.
2006-07-23 00:42:21 · answer #7 · answered by haha10488 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only decent sequel ever made was The Godfather II... Other than that 1 sequels suck -- I have to agree with you one that!!
LOTR may be classified as a trilogy but the 2nd and 3rd movies aren't meant to classified as sequels!
2006-07-23 00:41:19 · answer #8 · answered by ANA83 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most do suck, but a few can be very good. Like the new Pirates. Stuart Little 1 & 2, Dr. Dolittle 1 & 2, ....
Other than that that I can think of - They've done King Kong over six times.
Life is so dull they're having to do remakes of all the old movies!
2006-07-23 00:41:09 · answer #9 · answered by STARLITE 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Usually, yes - because, instead of thinking of new and interesting ideas, studios quickly put together a movie that they know will make money on name alone.
there have been a few good sequels, though - Clerks II, for instance. Or the original Star Wars trilogy.
2006-07-23 00:39:24 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋