Are sequals ever as good as the first?
By cher913
@cher913 (25781)
Canada
5 responses
@Myrrdin (3599)
• Canada
11 Mar 08
On average sequels suck, but there are exceptions, as you mentioned Shrek is one of them the original was great the second was only slightly less amusing, the third was funnier then either I thought. Same goes for Spiderman, the first was fantastic, as was the second, then the third blew chunks (rather large ones really), then there is the Fantasic Four franchise, the first was good, but it could have been better, the second achieved what the first was capable of. Of course I could mention the holy trilogy, (the original holy trilogy Star Wars, Lord of the Rings is GREAT but hasn't obtained the status of holy as far as movies are concerned quite yet) Star Wars Episode IV was fantastic, Episode V was good, Episode VI was beyond expectations, Episode I blew chucks of epic proportions, Episode II did little to redeem Episode I, Episode III was passable (barely) so the original trilogy was GRAND, the second coming was weak. Lord of the Rings each movie was good beyond belief, but then again it was an ongoing trilogy and the movies don't stand all that well on their own, they need to be seen together to truly apreciate them. The alien series is a prime example of the way sequels tend to go, the first one was great, all others sucked rotten eggs, the same can be said for Jaws series too, the first was great, then they just got stupid.
1 person likes this
@drknlvly6781 (6246)
• United States
23 Mar 08
It all depends on the writer. Like in the Blade Trilogy, I liked the first and second ones, but the third left something to be desired, even with Triple H in it. But with Sister Act, I liked the second better than the first. I definitely liked the first Lion King better than the second or 1 1/2, but I have watched them all. It just depends if the prequel has left room for a sequel, and if the writer is still doing the same or a better job than the first movie.
