Are Sequels Ever As Good as the Originals?

 by Wilf Brown

In my opinion, most sequels are never as good as the originals. Some would agree with this statement whilst others would strongly disagree. Over the history of movies and films, some sequels have been incredible, and so much better than the original. For example, George Lucas’ Star Wars. Although both the first and second movies were exhilarating, many say that The Empire Strikes Back was worth watching more than A New Hope. 

On the other hand, sequels can often not live up to expectations, and even destroy a good original with how bad the following movie is. An example of this is the Matrix, where the first film was mind-blowing, but the two sequels were terrible and uninspiring, ruining the Matrix trilogy that was initially looking so promising. 

A possible explanation that supports my opinion that originals are always better than their sequels, is the fact that creators of such incredible fantasies find it hard to produce another piece of film that is as top-quality as the first film. This is partly why these creators choose to work within the same type of genre or concept. The audience does not want to be given a sequel that is the exact same movie but with some small twists, instead they want something that can keep the same broad theme but also be noticed for its own parts. The audience also wants characters to remain consistent throughout the whole set of movies. Some say that was the main cause of the Ghostbusters’ sequel failure, because they decided to change some of the characters for the new movie. 

Another thing that a good sequel needs is for its characters to retain some key characteristic or accessory, throughout their journey. Something iconic. Something that represents the character as a whole. Indiana Jones had his hat and whip. Han Solo had his Millennium Falcon. Batman has his Batmobile. 

Villains are key for a sequel. A weak villain makes weak conflict, which makes for a dull story that weakens the characters. A lot of originals and sequels have managed to produce absolute specimens of villains, resulting in a fantastic movie. However, sometimes the main goal of the original film is to destroy the villain, meaning that if a sequel is then commissioned, the villain has to be recreated and is often far less innovative than the first.

The final point I believe contributes to sequels being less effective or exciting than the original is that Hollywood studios often pounce on successful filmmakers and offer them huge amounts of money to make a sequel quickly and on a far larger budget than the original. This can sometimes work, where the quality of the production is so much more impressive than the original but other times it feels like a bit of a sell out and that the movie is only made for commercial gain not the integrity of the film maker. Also, when the sequel is made too quickly on the back of the original, the plots are often poorly thought out. An example of this is the second Police Academy film, which was brought out within a year of the original. 

In conclusion, I believe that there is still hope for sequels but in order to have a chance of rivalling the original film, the creators need to think bigger than Box Office takings and take their time to create something that would be a stand alone hit even if the original film never existed. Saying that, it needs to stay true to and develop the original characters and accessories the first film created. Consequently, this contrasting requirement leads to my original opinion that sequels rarely come close to the original!