Can a sequel be better than the first movie?

It seems like the sequels themselves make more money than the first ones! For example, "The Hills Have Eyes Two". This movie wasn't nearly as good as the first, yet it made a lot more and was a lot more publicized. I agree, sequels are never as good as the first movie, and they are merely schemes to make another couple million dollars. Silly Hollywood!

I can think of only one sequel that I liked better than the original. I liked Mission Impossible 2 WAY better than Mission Impossible. I had to see the first Mission Impossible twice, just to get the context of everything. Mission Impossible 3 was good as well, but Mission Impossible 2, with Tom Cruise and Thandie Newton, was in my opinion better than the original Mission Impossible with Tom Cruise.

yes. just to be fair enough. sometimes we are attracted by the first season. and it turned out to be a rubbish for the following seasons. but we have to say sometimes we did have some surprise. at least i am looking forward surprises always.

I think too that sequels are made to make money. When a movie gets popular, the industry sees a chance to make even more money of it, and then sequels are born. Unfortunately, sequels are always worse than the 1st movies, and I think I still haven't liked a sequel so far.

It can depend on the movie. Sometimes a sequel can be better then the movie it spun from, but others its.... let the series die already. I don't mind those where there is one or two sequels, but anything past three leaves me twitching.

Actually i am from India.In India I have seen many films in which the sequel is really better than the original one.This is because in India the people never look upon stories they just need their mass hero