Movies Improved Upon by Sequels

[stePH]

I fully expect this thread to be much shorter than its counterpart/predecessor.


One off the top of my head: The Road Warrior was much better than Mad Max, and Beyond Thunderdome was the best of the three.

Next?

[DKT]

I love Star Wars, but Empire Strikes Back is a masterpiece.

[stePH]

I love Star Wars, but Empire Strikes Back is a masterpiece.

I had the same thought; unfortunately Empire is really only half of a movie, and I think it's undercut by Jedi being its second half.

[DKT]

I love Star Wars, but Empire Strikes Back is a masterpiece.

I had the same thought; unfortunately Empire is really only half of a movie, and I think it's undercut by Jedi being its second half.

Wait wait wait.  We're not going to make this into, "Good, but is it really a movie, are we?" 

[stePH]

I love Star Wars, but Empire Strikes Back is a masterpiece.

I had the same thought; unfortunately Empire is really only half of a movie, and I think it's undercut by Jedi being its second half.

Wait wait wait.  We're not going to make this into, "Good, but is it really a movie, are we?" 

 

[eytanz]

Wait, are we looking for movies whose sequels are better then them? Like Terminator?

Or are we looking for the opposite of the "movies destroyed by sequels", which is movies that actually became better themselves because of their sequels (regardless of whether the sequel was good or not)? Because I can't think of any of those offhand...

[stePH]

Wait, are we looking for movies whose sequels are better then them? Like Terminator?

Or are we looking for the opposite of the "movies destroyed by sequels", which is movies that actually became better themselves because of their sequels (regardless of whether the sequel was good or not)? Because I can't think of any of those offhand...

Either one; take your pick.  (The "Mad Max" series is in the first category, so I think that's what I had in mind.)

[edit]
Yeah, the first category.  The subject is "Movies Improved Upon by", not "Movies Improved by".  Feel free to name any of the second type if you think of any.

[Boggled Coriander]

Well, Spiderman 2 was much better than the original Spiderman.  Spiderman 3 was not.

Does Wrath of Khan count as a sequel to ST: TMP?  It never acknowledges that the first movie ever happened.  It is, however, a sequel to "Space Seed", which is of course Not A Movie.

[stePH]

Does Wrath of Khan count as a sequel to ST: TMP?  It never acknowledges that the first movie ever happened. 

I believe it's generally accepted that it occurs after the first movie and the departure of Captain Decker.  And I question the judgment of anybody who claims it isn't better than the first movie.  But for my money, none of the sequels that followed it were nearly as good.

But ultimately I must say, The Wrath of Kahn is a sequel that improves on its predecessor. 

[Windup]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned The Lord of the Rings.  At the theater I was in, people actually booed at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring, I presume because they felt totally ripped off by the ending -- which has the different members of the Fellowship heading off in their different directions, with no resolution at all. 

I wasn't that crazy about The Two Towers, which chucked much of Tolkein's narrative structure for an overlong battle for Helm's Deep. (Again bringing up the question: What sort of idiot fortress designer builds and indestructible bridge leading up to a wooden door?)

But Return of the King pulled off what it had to do with elan, redeemed the other two, and Oscar sure liked it...

[lieffeil]

It's tricky to classify the new Batman movies as remakes, or sequels, but I think they are doing an excellent job. Batman Begins took what had been previously an over-the-top franchise (I love Tim Burton, but seriously...) and gave us a remake of a character that was easier to understand, more realistic. Not to mention a lot darker. The Dark Knight looks to be terrifying.
So excited.

[stePH]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned The Lord of the Rings.  At the theater I was in, people actually booed at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring, I presume because they felt totally ripped off by the ending -- which has the different members of the Fellowship heading off in their different directions, with no resolution at all. 

I wasn't that crazy about The Two Towers, which chucked much of Tolkein's narrative structure for an overlong battle for Helm's Deep. (Again bringing up the question: What sort of idiot fortress designer builds and indestructible bridge leading up to a wooden door?)

But Return of the King pulled off what it had to do with elan, redeemed the other two, and Oscar sure liked it...

At risk of entering "it's not really a movie" territory again, I consider the "trilogy" to actually be one long movie in three parts (as no one part of Tolkien's saga was meant to stand alone).  So the "ending" of Fellowship is not really an ending; it's just a pause.  Oh, and not quite to the point of this thread, but I agree about the Helm's Deep battle being over-emphasized in part 2.  Pare it down to the level of importance it had in the book (and dump that stupid diversion halfway back to Gondor with Faramir), and the trip through Shelob's cave could have been kept in the second part where it belonged.

[stePH]

It's tricky to classify the new Batman movies as remakes, or sequels, but I think they are doing an excellent job. Batman Begins took what had been previously an over-the-top franchise (I love Tim Burton, but seriously...) and gave us a remake of a character that was easier to understand, more realistic. Not to mention a lot darker. The Dark Knight looks to be terrifying.
So excited.

I think they are neither remakes nor sequels.  IMO a remake would be another version of the same film, e.g., Cape Fear or The Italian Job, while a sequel would be a new story chronologically following the events of the previous film.

For that matter, I'm not sure I'd even call Batman Begins a prequel -- more of a "reset", like the upcoming Star Trek movie.  But I haven't seen it, so I can't really say for certain.

[birdless]

It's tricky to classify the new Batman movies as remakes, or sequels, but I think they are doing an excellent job. Batman Begins took what had been previously an over-the-top franchise (I love Tim Burton, but seriously...) and gave us a remake of a character that was easier to understand, more realistic. Not to mention a lot darker. The Dark Knight looks to be terrifying.
So excited.

I think they are neither remakes nor sequels.  IMO a remake would be another version of the same film, e.g., Cape Fear or The Italian Job, while a sequel would be a new story chronologically following the events of the previous film.

For that matter, I'm not sure I'd even call Batman Begins a prequel -- more of a "reset", like the upcoming Star Trek movie.  But I haven't seen it, so I can't really say for certain.

If I were on the creative team of Batman Begins et al, I would want to disavow all knowledge of the previous Batman movies. Yes, the first two were good, but all of the following movies were so bad that it almost ruined the whole franchise for me.

[stePH]

Last night I remembered Evil Dead 2 which definitely improves on its predecessor, though I think of it as more a remake than a sequel.  And Army of Darkness, unquestionably a sequel (though its beginning rewrites the end of ED2) was even better.

[eytanz]

Last night I remembered Evil Dead 2 which definitely improves on its predecessor, though I think of it as more a remake than a sequel.  And Army of Darkness, unquestionably a sequel (though its beginning rewrites the end of ED2) was even better.

Yup, I agree on both counts (though the ending of Evil Dead 2 is far cooler than the retconned version at the beginning of Army of Darkness. And Army's of Darkness endings (both versions) suck. But the movie itself is great).

[Tango Alpha Delta]

Toy Story 2. 

[Russell Nash]

Toy Story 2. 

I think it was a great sequel and added to the greatness of the first, but I don't think you can say it improved upon the original.

I'll also add that while Terminator 2 was bigger than 1, 1 was the better all around picture, low budget and all.

[eytanz]

I'll also add that while Terminator 2 was bigger than 1, 1 was the better all around picture, low budget and all.

I disagree. Terminator 1 was just a slasher film with a robot. Terminator 2 was considerably more interesting to watch.

[Russell Nash]

I'll also add that while Terminator 2 was bigger than 1, 1 was the better all around picture, low budget and all.

I disagree. Terminator 1 was just a slasher film with a robot. Terminator 2 was considerably more interesting to watch.

Too much magic technology. The need to make Arnold a hero was annoying.  2 also felt some need to make wonderful statements and get a bit preachy.

[Tango Alpha Delta]

Toy Story 2. 

I think it was a great sequel and added to the greatness of the first, but I don't think you can say it improved upon the original.

I'll also add that while Terminator 2 was bigger than 1, 1 was the better all around picture, low budget and all.

Toy Story: I thought exploring Woody's worth as a toy in the first movie was deep and brilliant, and I was floored that they were able to not only revisit the theme successfully from another angle, but expand upon it.  (Yeah, I know... I read too much into EVERYTHING.  Even the significance of the names "Woody" and "Buzz"... )

Terminator: Sure, there were holes you could drive a truck through in the first two, but it was the "twist ending" of T3 (oh, silly viewer... there's no 'mainframe' ... the Internet came alive!) that pissed me off.  That, and the obvious cookie-cutter pattern of taking T2, adding a hot chick and the word "nano" to the killer robot, and expecting us to like it.  Fie!

[eytanz]

Too much magic technology. The need to make Arnold a hero was annoying.  2 also felt some need to make wonderful statements and get a bit preachy.

Oh, it's not a perfect movie - far from it. But I still think it's better than the first one.

[Russell Nash]

Toy Story 2. 

I think it was a great sequel and added to the greatness of the first, but I don't think you can say it improved upon the original.

I'll also add that while Terminator 2 was bigger than 1, 1 was the better all around picture, low budget and all.

Toy Story: I thought exploring Woody's worth as a toy in the first movie was deep and brilliant, and I was floored that they were able to not only revisit the theme successfully from another angle, but expand upon it.  (Yeah, I know... I read too much into EVERYTHING.  Even the significance of the names "Woody" and "Buzz"... )

Terminator: Sure, there were holes you could drive a truck through in the first two, but it was the "twist ending" of T3 (oh, silly viewer... there's no 'mainframe' ... the Internet came alive!) that pissed me off.  That, and the obvious cookie-cutter pattern of taking T2, adding a hot chick and the word "nano" to the killer robot, and expecting us to like it.  Fie!

3 almost pushed Terminator into the Movies destroyed by Sequels thread.

Too much magic technology. The need to make Arnold a hero was annoying.  2 also felt some need to make wonderful statements and get a bit preachy.

Oh, it's not a perfect movie - far from it. But I still think it's better than the first one.

Agree to disagree then.

[eytanz]

3 almost pushed Terminator into the Movies destroyed by Sequels thread.

That's one thing we can agree on.

As for Toy Story 2, for me it's in the category of "sequels that equalled their predecessors". Both 1 and 2 are wonderful, but I don't think either is strictly better than the other - 2 adds depth on some levels (Woody's history) but loses it in others (the toy-torturing kid next door is a far more interesting villian than the toy-store owner).

[Ocicat]

When I was in college years and years ago, this subject came up.  The only three we could think of at the time were Star Trek II, Road Warrior, and Evil Dead 2.  So I agree on all those.  Spider-man 2 as well. 

And let's see... Aliens was fantastic in a totally different way than Alien, and I couldn't say which is better.  But the existence of the second movie makes the first one much cooler.  And the existence of the third really hurt the whole deal.