ITT: sequels that were better than the first
If anyone says Aliens in this thread, then you're a fucking idiot.
Aliens is a great movie, but it is not a good sequel.
Alien is an out and out horror film. Jaws or Haloween in space.
Aliens is an action flick.
Hot Shots: Part Deux
Rambo 3 + John Rambo (yeah I know, unpopular opinion, as long as we all agree that part 2 was the weakest)
DB evolution 2 because it can't be worse hence the sequel is better
I wouldn't necessarily say 'better', but it's extremely well done while going in a completely different direction than the first movie.
World War II
I like the 2nd half of the 3rd one, once the Mercs get involved. Not too much of a fan of the him vs. the monster beginning bit.
Best part of Pitch Black: "Did not know who was fuckin' with"
He's probably too damn rich with the FandF movies to bother making anymore unf.
Rambo is the same as Aliens. It's a good movie, but it isn't really a good sequel.
A sequel should take the original idea and take it to a higher level. Show you more of the thing that made the first movie so good.
Aliens turns the unknown into ants or bees.
Rambo takes a PTSD sufferer and makes him a hero.
They both use the original as nothing more than a platform to make a completely disconnected movie.
A perfect sequel is Predator 2.
The original is set in a remote jungle. So what would a pred be like in a huge city?
We see more gadgets, we see inside the spaceship, and we more than one of them.
Not better than the original. But just as good. And a perfect sequel.
7 was the best
I think it's kinda the same thing as Pitch Black or the Rambo series, or even Alien. The first movies feel more powerful and surprising because their specific atmosphere and world appear slowly.
I agree with this guy >>719767676
in general, but am downloading Mad Max 2 right now cos it's been 20 years since I last watched it.
ok you are reading into this more than I am. I'm not too worried about adhering to the word "sequel" and all that it means as much as #2 > #1.
T2 was nothing more than an advert for CGI.
And Arny had decided that he wanted to go into politics and would only do it if he was a good guy.
The only good Terminator movie is the first one. The rest are all bullshit cash cows.
sequal doesnt mean it has to be the second
I hope so.
Supposedly instead of salary for pitch black he wanted the rights to Riddick, so boom you get 2 more movies. He has to get his flabby ass back in shape and fire up some more. Nothing planned showing on IMDB
Totally wrong, the first is time travel story with a lot imaginative ideas, such as artificial intelligence, the frailty but perseverance of humans and the threat of technology.
The second was one large handjob to Arnie, memes galore and an totally implausible "liquid metal" robot thingy.
First was a real sci fi movie the second a clap fest for teens.
Part 7 has the best Jason and kills, (when they're uncut) but 6 has the best characters, plotline, pacing, and was the moment that the series finally embraced being a full on horror comedy.
Seriously, this is one of the most underrated horror comedies of the 1980's, the golden age of the subgenre.
Same here. We're a large minority unfortunately.
TDK is good but I feel overrated
Rises was very disappointing
Begins is a really great origin and sets the tone for a 'new' type of Batman more grounded in reality
>am downloading Mad Max 2 right now cos it's been 20 years since I last watched it.
I watched it again recently after seeing Fury Road and I really find it very impressive (and in the end Fury Road just takes a lot of elements from Road Warrior), a lot of action with good special effects for the 80's, a very ambitious atmosphere and actually an interesting story.
When I saw the first mad max I didn't feel much, got quite bored waiting for something to happen, felt like there wasn't really any story. But the second one is the one I saw first so maybe I just started with a different idea in mind.
Is Godfather 2 better than 1?
Or are they really just one complete movie?
if you ever get the chance to watch Godfather Saga (a chronological version of 1 & 2 with a few extra hours of scenes added), they become one movie, at least to me. Hard to find it though.
I remember prefering #6, probably because I wasn't expecting comedy when watching #7.
Talking about horror comedy : haven't watched Return of the living dead 1&2, but there's no way they can be as good as #3.
Which was the 2nd best in the series.
Any f13 with a hockey mask is a turd.
Except jason x.
Not even trolling
Two ways of cheating the mechanism
1) Part of the T1000 is made of graphene, and since it's a carbon based material, the whole body can travel through it
2) The T1000 travels back in time using a different time machine, slightly more advanced than the one the resistance used. It could be a better prototype in the core facilities of Skynet, or the last time machine Skynet could develop before losing the war
>not a movie
You have a point, tho.
Still, since games constantly get developed with better graphics, more features and changed (hopefully improved) gameplay, any sequel in a series of games should add up and improve their predecessors. That's basically the expectation a customer has when buying them.
movies on the other hand can't live by cgi alone, so the tech-factor is a rather small one, dwarfed by good camera, writing and acting.
Therefore movie-sequels, unlike games', are not predestined to add up or improve their predecessors. If anything, they can only hope to enrich the IP as a whole.
>The computer graphics took approximately one year from initial boarding stage to the final delivery date. It was ten months of actual production for thirty-five people so about twenty-five man years of work went into a computer graphics sequence that makes up less than five-minutes of running time in the film.
Pretty much just the T-1000 required CGI. Things like explosions etc. are real.
>More CGI don't necessarily make it a bad film
No, it's just that whenever Cameron has a new tech like CGI or 3D, he uses the hell out of it usually not to the detriment of the material.
You're right. Anything can be made up to explain a sequel. But it doesn't necessarily make it better, or even good.
A true Terminator sequel should've been multiple Terminators. Maybe 1 good one and 2 or 3 bad ones.
And also some future tech, like a gun that can kill Terminators (brought through in the stomach of one of the Ts).
The only good idea in T2 was that Sarah Connor wasn't a victim anymore. She knew what was coming and was preparing for it.
I disagree then. Those both took themselves far too seriously, and were inferior to Halloween, Black Christmas, and other more serious slasher flicks. Part 3 was when the series started getting good.
You got an alien prequel... By the same guy and how did that turn out.... Oh that's right it was a piece of fucking shit. James Cameron did what Ridley Scott can't, make a decent alien movie.
Also much better than anything that came after it. It's also one of the few action movies I consider to be even good, let alone great.
In a way the effort that CGI needed was a good thing, because it forced movie makers to use real effects, which can look much better.
Halloween 1 has better acting, writing, pacing, camerawork, ost, and a better antagonist: The original Michael Myers is one of the all time great film monsters, simply because of how subtle and, for lack of a better expression, "real" he was. There are real men who did things similar to Myers, and besides the death of the boyfriend (which is the worst scene of the movie as far as I'm concerned) the deaths are real and unsettling because of that. It also helped how they portray Myers, shooting him from a distance through most of the film, an ever looming threat portrayed as this boogeyman. It also dabbles in minor thematic ideas like the nature vs nurture of people like Myers, but does so without ramming it down the audience's throat and not losing focus on the core of the film, the threat of Myers himself. There's a reason this is in the National Film Registry, it's a horror masterpiece.
Halloween 2 shouldn't have happened, but it's a fun slasher flick with good kills. I fucking love the original though, one of the all time greats.
I've never been able to decide.
Is Dawn better than Night?
Story was still crap, and the lasting impact of the movie was the hasta la vista meme and action comedy bits common on all the late 80's early 90's movies
Arnold & friends big adventure.
Yeah he's thinking about the phantom menace
RotLD 1 is the only movie that gave me nightmares just cuz of the ending
I prefer 2 to 1.
Because Zod and no backwards Earth.
1 and 2 were so slow.
3 was fair
but 4 inspired us to hate Russians even more and was perfect for its day.
No that's the Revenge of the Sith
We get it. You don't like the movie. The story is not the main part of the movie and that's not unusual for an action movie. Much like in Dark Souls, the universe itself is much more interesting than the story. The atmosphere is good, the pacing is good and T-1000 is a great villain, because he creates a constant sense of urgency and pressure. The effects and action are also excellent, because most of it is real and the CGI was groundbreaking at the time.
you now have the theme song in your head
Every Superman movie, 70's on, were cringefests.
They have yet to make a good SM film.
Because Superman is a faggot. And the sexual tension between him and Batman is just hard to look at.