Why are Sequels Always Worse?

[pokeplayer984]

This is a question that seems to come to me.  Why is it that in this day and age sequels end up being worse then the original?

There was actually a time when sequels were just as good, if not better, than their originals. (The early days of Star Wars is a fine example.) They lived up to expectations, and at times surpassed them, making them quite enjoyable.

Nowadays, when there's a sequel, it's more than likely crap! (Or even worse then crap! (God forbid anything is made worse then that.)) It's worse then the original and doesn't live up to expectations.

What happened?

People loved the idea of something getting a sequel, but now it just gets mixed feelings.

How did this happen?

Your thoughts?

[NeoGenesis005]

Boy you speak the turth.  you will find alot of that on Disney to. Maybe its because some storyboard writers are not as creative compared to the ones in the past.

[Nick22]

Disney's sequel;s , with only a few exceptions, were far inferior to the original stories. several were kaugably bad imitations of the original- Cinderella 2 anyone?

[DarkHououmon]

In my opinion, the reason that sequels seem worse than the originals could be the result of a few things, such as a change of director, change of staff, or not being able to meet expectations.

Unlike the originals, which are usually the first of their kind, having not yet established fans, it is more difficult to satisfy all fans with a sequel because different fans have their own ideas on how the sequel should go.

[Kor]

It is likely a variety of reasons.  Some movies have storylines that should be just 1 movie only.  

Another reason is the mind set of hollywood that the sequel won't make a much money as the first so we don't need to try as hard, why bother.  Also they tend to prefer cheaper writers then experienced good writers also.  & likely other reasons also.

[Nick22]

The story's arent original, usually they yell the same story as the first, except having the kids of the original character have the "experience"

[Cancerian Tiger]

I believe it's a combination of a lack of imagination, unoriginal ideas, inconsistency with the original storyline, retcons, and a possible change of directors.  The meaning of "family films" seems to have changed as many films target children as the main audience.  What should be films that appeal to all age groups and can be watched by entire families have become so dumbed down that parents have to leave the room, especially when a cheesy song comes on, and older folks label such films as "gay" or "childish" <_<.  As for live action sequels, the combination mentioned above applies to them.  Remakes are not that much better either :.

[Nick22]

remakes are basically sequels in everything but name.. and theu, like sequels, usually detract from the original..

[Malte279]

One thing about sequels of animated movies (LBT being just one example) is that they are hardly ever produced for the cinemas but tend to be direct to DvD releases which are generally produced with a lower budged and with not as high a priority on quality (slight flaws in the animation won't show as distinct on the relatively small screens DvDs are usually watched from as they would on a large cinema screen). Another point is that the first movie of a series still has the benefit of introducing something totally new to the audience and part of the screen time can be used on introducing characters and setting. In the first movie of a series this can keep an audience hooked, in sequels this is much less the case and something more sophisticated has to be thought of for the entire screentime. Often new characters are thought to be a device to bring up something new while the attempt to explore the existing characters more thoroughly is rarely the way the moviemakers go. No LBT sequel without new characters so far with the possible exception of LBT 5 which was mainly based on the return of an old new character (yes, I know there was Elsie, but she was mainly a "deus ex machina" device to save Littlefoot and Chomper and return the gang to their families. I must admit though that they did their best to add some color to her, which I think turned some viewers against her though).
Finally, moviemakers may well be aware of the bad reputation of sequels and therefore they may be less willing to stake much money in a project that is likely to fare less well than they would hope just because it IS a sequel.
There are exceptions of course. For all I know the second Terminator movie for example popularized the Franchise more than the original did. There are other cases where stories are so open ended and which offer so many possibilities that even after many sequels it still remains successful and the sequels have their ups and downs. Star Trek is one example for this I think (I hope to see the new movie one of these days if only I can find anyone with the time to come along).

[LBTFan13]

Defintely the low popularity of most sequels is a possibility as to why they are not in the same calibur as the original. Only a few sequels in my opinion have lived up to be better than the original (Terminator 2, Spiderman 2, Godfather 2). It seems like people can get VERY excited for a second movie in a popular franchise, but once a third or fourth movie in the same franchise shows its face, people decide that the franchise is worn out and has lost its magic. That's most likely why the LBT sequels are met with such poor remarks, because none of them will ever be able to capture the magic, or dark emotion, the first two or three movies made.

I also believe change in actors also creates problems. For example, most noticeably LBT, the change in voice actors for Littlefoot and Ducky probably did not bode well in the long run, but then again the kids who watched LBT II were probably not old enough to remember the voice actors of LBT I. In most cases, a change in actors usually leads to this constant complaining, "He'll never be as good as the original guy," or "She doesn't fit the role like the first girl." That was my main problem with Mortal Kombat Annihilation, because Bridget Wilson and Christopher Lambert were both terrific in their respective roles as Sonya Blade and Raiden, but changing them in Annihilation was a bad move. Sometimes the writers can't control this because of extenuating circumstances, like in Harry Potter where the actor who played Dumbledore in the first two movies died so they were forced to find a new actor.

I think writers are sometimes blinded by the success of certain sequels that it clouds their judgement in these situations. The Godfather II was an AMAZING sequel, so much better than the original in my opinion, and the same applies with Terminator Judgement Day. I feel writers look at successes like these and try too hard to match their quality that they don't stop and think about what exactly they are doing.

Most of all, I think in Disney's case, the sequels are made entirely for this generation instead of the former generation of people who saw the original movies. For example, I watched both Bambi II and Fox and the Hound II recently. Both of them were good movies, but terrible sequels. I think Disney is really trying to win the kids of this generation that they really don'y pay attention to the older generations who loved the originals.

[Saft]

Before I start on what I'm going to say, I have to admit there are a few sequels out there that are compared and are as good (or in some cases) better than the original.

However, regarding why are sequels come about as worse from the original, I guess that it's down to many reasons.  Most sequels (for example disney) are generated for the newer generation of children, so thus it the creators are not the same, the storylines are simpler or are non-extistant and are garnered to earn as much money as possible.

Unfortunately due to bad or simple storylines these sequels (I'm thinking on the Lion King ones for an example) sometimes ruin the magic of the original.

[WeirdRaptor]

I would have to disagree that all sequels are inferior to the originals.

Some Sequels I found better than the originals:

1. Lethal Weapon 2
2. The Dark Knight
3. Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer
3. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
4. The Lord of the Rings (to the Hobbit)
5. Jurassic Park III

The reason why a lot of sequels suck, though, is because they're made for the money and often the original crew (and sometiems cast), don't return.

[landbeforetimelover]

Easy.  They actually try on the first one because it has to be REALLY good in order to get on the screen and make them money.  After that though, they might be able to shoot another crappy movie or two out their butt before people stop paying to see garbage.

Also, sometimes movies weren't made to have sequels.  Star Wars was meant to have more than one movie.  It was DESIGNED that way.  But movies like the Lion King weren't really made to have a second and third movie.  They made more movies because the original was so successful.

[Nick22]

Harry Potter and LOTr are other examples of films that were designed to have sequels. Shrek? Not so much although the 2nd film made boatloads of money..

[Dash The Longneck]

They aren't always worse in fact some disney seqeals are better then the original. Here is an example The Rescuers Down Under. Has anybody seen that sequel?Of course it was a sequel to Disney's The Rescuers. And that was an amazing sequel. I'd go as far as saying it may have been the best animated sequel ever. It really depends on what the movie is I mean I find most Disney sequeals ok. Some I hold as high as the original or even higher. I guess it really just depends on the movie. Some sequels are better then the origianl and some aren't.

[Spartanguy88]

Here's something I think about for the Spiderman movies:

I personally thought the second one was better than the first one. It had a better story, Alfred Molina was great as Doc Ock, and it simply had better production values.

As for the third movie, it had great action scenes, but there was simply too many story-lines in the overall plot to fit into one movie. I think they should have held off the Sandman arc until the next movie. And plus, I really think there should have been more black suit action instead of dancing... <_<

[jedi472]

I think it's pretty interesting that we're talking about how bad some sequels can be, animated or otherwise, when at the same time we are members of a site that promotes a film series that is basically made up of sequel after sequel. I mean, can anyone honestly say that an LBT sequel was actually better than the original? Sure, some of them are pretty good, and they did create something of a fictional universe that is fairly awesome to say the least, but they also have had some pretty serious problems, too, from LBT 10's plothole-filled story to LBT 13's just plain weirdness. Yeah, Disney has churned out a ton of direct-to-video sequels that basically killed some of the goodness of the original, but I think Universal tried to do the same thing with LBT. All they did differently was produce marginally better results.

I don't know, I just thought I'd bring it up.

[Malte279]

Aye, with good reason you do. I agree that there is a certain irony in this.
The original movie and the sequels of LBT are almost two entirely different things. Even the very first sequel was a major breach with the setting of the original movie and it is kind of remarkable that Littlefoot never ever seems to have given a thought about his mother when dealing with Chomper.
However that may be I will frankly admit that the original movie alone, without the sequels would not have captured my interest as long as to turn me into the LBT fan that I am now in spite of the fact that I almost don't care about the later sequels anymore as they seem to be just too far removed from both, the original movie and the early sequels. Some say that they care only about the original and not about any of the sequels at all. To this day I am uncertain whether or not I should really believe them

[babidikrakenguard]

The sequels to disney movies aren't as good as the original but i would not say they sucked. They are good, just not as good as the first.

Cinderella 2, Not as good as the first, but still good.
Lion King 2, Again.
102 Dalmations, Again.
And so on and so forth.

Other then the Disney movies, we've got..
Secret of NIMH 2, not as good as first but still good
and the Amarican Tail movies, which i dont remember much about the sequels.. Still, they are good but not as good as the first.

[WeirdRaptor]

Lord of the Rings doesn't have sequels, Nick. It was released in volumes.