Why do movie sequels always suck?

Question

Examples: Pirates 2, Grease 2,Mission impossible 2, X-men2, Scooby Doo 2, Spiderman 2, Cheaper by the dozen 2, Istill knowwhatyou did last summer, Basic Instinct 2, Start tle 2, Scary Movie 2 3 4, Bring it on2, Men and Black 2, Dumb and dumberer 2, The Seed of Chucky, The Mak 2, Ice Age 2, Jurassic Park 3, Tomb Raider 2

Answer 1

Many of those you listed sucked in their first incarnation....

The short answer is that sequels are mada for money only. Recognition of the first movie brings people back hoping for more.

Answer 2

Wait a second - you say X2 and Spider-Man 2 suck? Have you seen the first ones? The sequels are much improved over the originals in every aspect of filmmaking. And how can you say that Jurassic Park 3 sucks but not The Lost World? They're both inferior sequels. I do agree with most of the list though, and to answer your question: the reason that most sequels suck is that they can't improve on the original concept. Sequels are made to bank on the profitability of the first one.

Answer 3

each so often sequels could be extra clever than the unique. Empire strikes back became the terrific famous guy or woman Wars ever, observed via a clean wish then Revenge of the Sith. The POTC and LOTR sequels are good I hate it whilst Disney make crap unimaginative sequels to classic cartoons. what's the ******* element? can no longer they spend their time beyond regulation engaged on new techniques for clean video clips? maximum horror sequels suck yet devil's Rejects became extra clever than homestead of 1000 Corpses. interior the comparable way Evil ineffective 2 became extra clever than the 1st action picture.

Answer 4

Terminator 2 was a good sequel. Some plots are just bad to begin with even though they manage to pull it off the first time around. Ex: Istill knowwhatyou did last summer

Answer 5

Actually, I didn't like the original Tomb Raider, but the sequel was pretty good.

Anyway, not all sequels are bad. Only the bad ones are sequels that didn't need to be made in the first place

Answer 6

I don't know --the only one I saw that didn't suck was Alien....but Hollywood has this funny idea that they can remake every picture ever made...they even remade the Wizard of Oz...the wiz.....now they wanna remake Casablanca...I mean why bother? how can u remake a classic?....It kinda makes Hollywood look like they have no original thinking(ers)?? Not one new idea out there? I agree with you totally....some of the new low budget films are great and original..but hollywood seems to have lost a great deal (not all--there are still some good films produced).........but sequels suck.

Answer 7

Counterexamples:

Shrek II
Toy Story II

And the Alien sequels were mostly good.

If you consider Lord of the Rings to be a movie and two sequels instead of one series, the "sequels" would have to count as some of the greatest film ever made.

Answer 8

The Godfather part two, was at least as good as the first- but to answer your question; they spend years working on the first and then throw together as quickly as possible whatever to get you back in the theater. Again Lord of the Rings is a good exception, but they made plans for all of them at the beginning

Answer 9

I think they are trying to gett as much possible money from a movie, example, you watch Ice Age and think it is a great movie, the sequel comes out and you watch it..its not that great,but they already have your addmission fee from watching the sequal. The other reason sequals stink is becuase of a bad story plot.

Answer 10

These movies don't suck (not all of them) it's just that they don't live up to the expectations of the first one. You see the movie thinking it's gonna be the same as the first, and when you see it's different, you automatically reject it. There are some that live up to expectations, and there are those where you have to count them all as one movie (Star Wars, Lord of the Rings).