i always tell my fifth graders that mechanics are the least important part of getting their ideas on the page! (i also tell them to try to fix in the final edit...but nobody's perfect!)
@@MSheen-ef3ly i teach my kids to cross things out (and to skip lines so they can make changes when they revise and edit) all about keeping the ideas flowing
Dude, you should do a book just on writing. I'd buy that book in a heartbeat I think it's a good idea (I forgot about the period in the last sentence because I too am washed up like Indy).
I kind of remember to have liked the old indy character in the "young indiana jones" series. though it was a bit off to still wear a leather jacket...the old man on the whole was cool: he was clever, with a bit of wisdom, but fierce and sharp and witty. this was more or less an old indy the way I would have imagined him to be. nothing like old man indy in the last (two) movies. and come on, harrison ford himself is still funny and fierce in his years. yeah, a shame they did him dirty...
@@mistasomentrue, like if you drop the f bomb multiple times in one sitting it loses it effect. Same if you use over the top blood and gore in your story, as well as jumpscares.
On the topic of writing a good sequel, one thing which I don't see discussed enough is how "Return of the Jedi" uses the second Death Star in a very creative way. Rather than simply rehashing an established threat, the film has the Empire use their new technological terror primarily as bait to capture the Rebels. In the original movie, the heroes ambushed an overconfident enemy, but in "Jedi" it's the heroes who are caught in the trap. All the good guys' plans go out the airlock and everyone is forced to adapt on the fly. Compare this to "The Force Awakens" where Starkiller Base is just "NOW WE HAVE A *BIGGER* DEATH STAR!" and "The Rise of Skywalker" where " *EVERY* STAR DESTROYER IS A MINI DEATH STAR!"
Return of the Jedi wasn't a good sequel. Another death star was a lazy choice. Assuming the rest of the movie was good, which it wasn't, they could have had the same story without a second death star. Also it's that easy to build why aren't there multiple death stars instead? Empire set up the franchise for a epic trilogy and Jedi failed.
What makes a good sequel is the story. If the story is palpable, tangible, has stakes, the message, theme or morale is emphasised and defined through character development (narrative) and resolution (third act/climax) the sequel may surpass the original or at least be equal in credibility to the original. A good example of a great sequel that doesn’t necessarily surpass the original but is just as good is Blade 2. In this sequel Blade begrudgingly leads a team of vampires who are by default, his sworn enemy. Unlike the original where he was seeking revenge, in this story he finds love. He has a subtle romance with Nayfsaa, a pure vampire, when she dies in his arms, he rises to his feet whilst experiencing a sunrise. There’s solid resolution in this climatic moment because her death coupled with the rising of the sun, indicates, tranquility and enlightenment. Blade found peace with himself, just like she told him an earlier scene. “The difference between you and me is that I made peace with who I was a long time ago.” The writing in this film is quite intricate which I like. Its little nuances like this give the film the emotional payoff it needed to justify its purpose as a film. I like to judge each film by its own merits.
19:22 - 19:35 This is a criticism of TLJ that I don't hear often enough. For all its talk of subverting expectations, TLJ failed to seize any of the interesting opportunities it had.
And then Rise of Skywalker walked back everything TLJ did that WAS interesting and worked (Rey not being related to an original trilogy character, for example), and Kylo welding his mask back together (why? Why do that?).
@@ShinGallon "Rey not being related to an original trilogy character, for example" I really didn't like how TLJ handled that. I mean yes, the only reason we expect Rey to be related to somebody famous is because it's a movie cliche (largely thanks to the original trilogy). So it's completely fine if her parents are nobodies. But it's like the joke in Spaceballs when the villain says to the hero: "I am your father's brother's cousin's nephew's former roommate." "What's that make us?" "Absolutely nothing!" Rey has no reason to think her parents are big important people. So when Kylo Ren dramatically reveals that they were not big important people, and he harps on this fact and Rey is devastated about it, it's way too on the nose. This shouldn't be remarkable to them if they don't know they're in a movie.
It's refreshing to hear a writing advice channel with some testosterone in the content that can get you pumped up that doesn't just reference YA stories and Harry Potter constantly.
Really enjoy this channel. I am never going to write a book, much less a movie script, but these videos are great insight into the process behind creating some of my favorite movies, and how hard it can be to get it right.
Yeah I do not have the mental discipline nor the skills to become an author, but for some reason I really really enjoy videos on how to write - i like exploring the literary themes. This is one of my favorite channels on the subject
One good tip from James Cameron: A good sequel should be understandable and complete without having to know anything about the original movie. Terminator 2 was great because you didn't need to watch the first to understand anything. The characters, plot, and story don't need any supplementary knowledge from the first movie. Movies based on books or video games also turn bad when they fail the "Does it stand on its own?" test.
Well, T1 had a far simpler premise. Robot goes back in time to kill the mother of the savior of mankind. It does a decent job giving us glimpses into what that future is, but not much more. T2 has plenty of room to set up the how and the why, and adds the stakes of preventing that future from happening. Throw in another robot sent back to kill the savior of mankind as a child and the stakes are raised a bit more. But because the first movie didn't do a whole lot of heavy lifting on the premise of the future timeline, the sequel had plenty of room to retell that premise while also explaining a lot more of how it came to be.
I disagree, I think it's ok if sequels build upon the previous movies. It doesn't make the sequel good or bad, only less accessible for people who haven't seen the first.
I think it depends on how close of a sequel it is. On one end, you have many monster horror flicks, where the only thing that ties them together is the antagonist, and on the other, you have LotR, which is basically a long film split into three (just like the books). Still, a sequel should make sense on its own. It might be hard to understand everything if you've not seen the original, but you should at least not be lost as to what's going on. But you're always going to get more out of a sequel if you've seen the original, unless something is wrong with it. A re-hashed plot might get worse if you've seen the original, since there's less new in that case, and it might destroy things you liked about it.
What makes a good sequel is the story. If the story is palpable, tangible, has stakes, the message, theme or morale is emphasised and defined through character development (narrative) and resolution (third act/climax) the sequel may surpass the original or at least be equal in credibility to the original. A good example of a great sequel that doesn’t necessarily surpass the original but is just as good is Blade 2. In this sequel Blade begrudgingly leads a team of vampires who are by default, his sworn enemy. Unlike the original where he was seeking revenge, in this story he finds love. He has a subtle romance with Nayfsaa, a pure vampire, when she dies in his arms, he rises to his feet whilst experiencing a sunrise. There’s solid resolution in this climatic moment because her death coupled with the rising of the sun, indicates, tranquility and enlightenment. Blade found peace with himself, just like she told him an earlier scene. “The difference between you and me is that I made peace with who I was a long time ago.” The writing in this film is quite intricate which I like. Its little nuances like this give the film the emotional payoff it needed to justify its purpose as a film. I like to judge each film by its own merits.
I find the "Making the sequel bigger with more stakes" can backfire sometimes. A lot of sequels, especially the third movies, are so lackluster. Bigger is not always better. I think sequels can have bigger events but working in different or more personal reasons can work better. For me its not so much about having bigger stakes but having new compelling stakes that aren't just the stakes from the last movie but bigger. That's why Empire Strikes Back is so good. Instead of a bigger galaxy changing event they choose more personal stakes. Made the sequel feel more intense without having an even bigger death star or something.
How about the Back to the Future trilogy? The stakes of the first movie: Marty has to get back to 1985 while ensuring that he also doesn’t get erased from existence. Part II: reset the timeline so his family isn’t destroyed. Part III: Get back to 1985 without the proper fuel.
I would like the stakes to be bigger if there is a good fit to the story. If not, I am also ok with making a sequel something like a second episode of a plain old TV series. Give me just a plain old sequel to Return of the Jedi where Luke is out doing low stakes missions, but not in a boring way. He doesn't need to be killing the Emperor and even worse bad guys. There is a mission that Luke needs to do, and he does it. I would watch that. It would not be as good as Empire but nowhere near as bad as TLJ. I also wish they just did more Captain America movies where he just does superhero stuff without this giant progressing storyline where all the stakes just get bigger.
MCU problem. Save the city. Save the planet. Save the Galaxy. Save the Universe. Save the Multiverse. Save all the timelines of all the multiverse. uh…. I’m out of stakes.
I think there are limits. Usually, raising the stakes on a character level is the way to go. Like the Rocky movies. But these days "high stakes" translates to spectacle. So Death Star is just Puh! Here's a Star Destroyer! Its just artificially inflated stakes. Its a trap the MCU falls into. Raising the stakes translates to some writers as "everything needs to be bigger than last time" without earning / justifying itself.
@@RobertBarry1969 This is, out of the thousand other reasons, why the GotG trilogy are the best MCU films. GotG3 doesn't have as high external stakes as GotG2 or Endwar Infinity Game did, but had tremendous personal stakes for the Guardians, which is why it still worked.
A great example of pivoting genre for the sequel: The Odyssey. Goes from the Iliad's war drama to a fantasy epic journey with a new protagonist and entirely fresh personal stakes.
1. Get sent on mission to find the 1 person in the universe with the knowledge to solve the problem. 2. Fail and get thrown in jail 3. Conveniently, the person in the next cell can also solve their problem 🤷🏼♂️ 4. Get shocked when that person turns out to be a liar who double crossed them 5. Wait, he did double cross them but wasn't lying about his technical skills and ends up solving their problem eventually 🤦🏼♂️
Man Rocky Balboa was such a great sequel. Strangely enough the boxing is the thing I cared the least about. It's more about seeing an aging Rocky seeing how he copes with getting older and the losses this brings. It was also very powerful because us the audience also have gotten older and remember the good old days. It was a very heavy and sometimes uncomfortable feeling this movie created and yet it was done so perfectly that I consider it to be a prime example of a "Past its prime" sequel.
Agreed. It's why it works better as one of the many "let's resurrect this old franchise" films we've seen too many of (Top Gun handled it relatively well, too). It leans into the fact that it is old and past, and makes it part of the plot.
Another issue I can think of with Bad Sequels is "Power Creep". It's where they are trying so desperately to be new and different, that they give their characters new and more powerful abilities that it breaks the world building of previous movies, or make original characters look weak by comparison. Movies or games that are from long running franchises seem to suffer from this a lot.
Oh, for the days right after Force Awakens came out, when we were all excited about where the two upcoming films would go and how they'd grow and evolve the new characters...if only we'd known what was to come...
@@RPWStudios Those things are linked though. As Brandon said, "Palpatine had to somehow return so that the final movie could have a plot". Episode 9 was a rushed bloated mess because it had to do the work of 2 movies. I don't trust JJ Abrams to write a great script at the best of times, but here he didn't even have a chance.
I’ve only been writing for about 11 months and your videos have helped me so much with figuring out how to make different story elements effective. I cannot thank you enough!
@@billnagel1617 Holy smokes you’re right. The theatrical version was never released to video. Also I saw it got 0% on Rotten Tomatoes. My favorite critic quote is “There should have been only one”
Nailed it as usual! I love the examples you use. I feel like Top Gun: Maverick can work as an example for all of them. When you think about it, the first one was more of a sports drama while the sequel plays out an action thriller (the third act was like Mission Impossible with jets) but it felt like a smooth transition. And it came out 36 years after the original, but it didn't desecrate a corpse like Dial of Destiny. It leans into that theme, as Maverick knows he'll be obsolete someday but hasn't lost his edge yet, and he schools the next gen pilots.
Indiana jones lost his son. Losing a child is one of the hardest things anyone could endure. I think it would have been incredibly weird and off-putting to see indie mourning his son, and then the next scene be his regular self that we know and love. he lost himself and therefore also lost miriam. the love between them was always there after they lost their son, we didn't need to see them build back anything, the only thing that needed to change was time as time heals all wounds. specifically loss of a loved one. it seemed fitting the plot had to deal with time and traveling through it. it matches what happens in real life. I think dial of destiny does a great job of showing what it is to be old. my grandmother lost her husband, 2 of her siblings and her best friend all within a few years and I see her struggle every day. she will never be truly the same. time will hopefully "heal" her but she will unfortunately carry that with her for the rest of her life. dial of destiny was in fact a great movie and moved a lot of people, especially older folks or people who have ever had to deal with a great loss. hopefully if you ever watch it again you will be able to enjoy it. I was crying during the credits, losing my grandpa just a few months prior, he loved Indiana jones and I know he would have loved this one as he also love time travel things.
@@danielbrown9368 I would say that Empire does a good job lowering the external stakes and raising the character growth stakes, while T2 does a good job raising both the character growth stakes AND the external stakes.
I love how Escape from LA has Pliskin saying "the more things change, the more they stay the same", which is quite ironic considering that movie is essentially the same as the original, but it tells you how it works for a lotta sequels in general
The one of the things that make a good trilogy is something like Raimi Spider-Man trilogy. They keep the theme of “With great power, comes great responsibility.” Spiderman 1: Obtaining power Spiderman 2: Neglecting power Spiderman 3: Abusing power
S1: Learning to use power responsibly. S2: Paying the price of heroism (result of responsible power use). S3: Running out of ideas and making a mess of it.
I found that the trilogy didn't really grow as a story because the need to go back to Uncle Ben. Peter's motivation didn't have to have "Ben's" justification. The character should have grown.
Great stuff, as always. I'd love to see a video on prequels if you haven't done that already (I searched the channel and didn't find one, but that could just be YT struggling with the search function). More specifically, I'm interested to see examples of prequels that avoided the trap of using an already-known outcome as the source of the drama or tension, like "Will Anakin Skywalker become a bad dude? Dun dun dunnn!"
Better Call Saul comes to mind, though it’s both a prequel and a sequel (especially in the final season). What I found most interesting in that show wasn’t Saul per se, but the new characters introduced in the show, particularly Kim, Nacho, and Lalo. The Godfather II is another combined prequel/sequel, but the prequel part of the movie is so good. Sure, it’s a simple rise-to-power tale of Vito, but it’s threaded perfectly with Michael’s steady moral downfall. More recently: Furiosa, since the movie’s primary focus is really just mapping out the relationship between the Citadel, Bullet Farm, and Gas Town.
I might also throw The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly on there as well, but that’s a stretch since all three movies are self-contained and, aside from showing how Eastwood’s character got his signature poncho, have no other connection.
Puss in Boots 2 is an amazing sequel. I've watched it several times, because it's so good. I watched the first one once and have no desire to ever see it again.
Surf’s Up is a hilarious animated movie about surfing penguins filmed in a documentary style. Surfs Up 2 is a godforsaken attempt to milk the good name of the first movie for all the money it was worth, centered around wrestling stars playing themselves as poorly written surfing penguins, all while cutting the animation budget down to the bare minimum. One of the worst sequels and big studio animated movies of all time.
One sequel I think works well despite being both a copy of the first and a genre change is Evil Dead 2. Evil Dead is a creepy cabin in the woods surrounded by supernatural evil. ED2 rehashes the exact same setting and plot, but this time turns it into a comedy, and it works.
Predator 2 was a decent sequel. New characters, new location that initially felt safer. Felt familiar but plenty of new twists on old situations. Great use of the back and forth of who is winning. Pred 1 & 2 both do this well. There are moments you think the humans are gaining the upper hand, then the predator adapts and outplays them.
Predator 2 is totally decent. Part of the strength was that it had totally compelling characters, and the predator in a totally new environment. Instead of out in the jungle, the predator was out in LA. It also worked by giving us a totally different type of protagonist. Danny Glover is a great actor, and the type of character he plays is totally different from a character that Arnold would play. There's a bunch of engaging side characters (like the Jamaican drug lord) and it had a very blade runner style to it.
That's funny, only this morning I looked up this channel wondering if you'd done a Good/Bad sequel video and got the 4 tips for writing sequels video. And now here we are.
I've never seen it, have no desire to. TS3 ended the story perfectly, there is no need for me to sully my memories of it by seeing a "Pixar needs money" sequel (they should have just done another Cars instead)
@@ShinGallon I'm left to wonder why they've made so many Cars movies. The first was immediately deemed one of their worst, the second became the new worst, and the Planes spinoffs bombed harder still. Yet we still got Cars 3.
I think Cars 1 is an underrated near masterpiece. Cars 2 is okay. I have the general issues but its overhated in my opinion. The Plane Spin-offs are okay too. Then Cars 3 was a great movie and a satisfying conclusion to the franchise !!
Worst: Highlander 2. (Critic's quote: "It looks like it was edited at random.") Best: Objectively, it's Godfather II, but my favorite is Aliens Most Disappointing: Alien 3
I know it's not a movie, but as a big fan of the Karate Kid franchise, I HAVE to give some appreciation to its spin-off series - Cobra Kai. In my opinion, the show not only does justice to the beloved characters of the original, but also takes the story in a fresh and interesting direction that fits perfectly within the world of the OG saga. It utilizes its modern setting well, it respects the source material - even the, frankly pretty forgettable, third installment - and despite sharing many plot points with the movies, it never feels like it's just rehashing the same old story. Plus, it embraces the cheesiness of the original unabashedly and isn't afraid to poke fun at itself, which I love. I honestly would recommend it to anybody looking for a good example of a current-day sequel to a beloved classic. It has a healthy dose of nostalgia, but never banks on it to carry the plot, instead adding its own unique twist to what made the original so great. And it's funny as all heck!
i have a good idea for a writing advice Good passive main characters vs Bad passive main characters I know is a weird topic but its pretty interesting to talk about in my book there 4 type of passive main characters 1-The every person in a fantasyland good example Alice from alice in wonderland, bad example Astrid from beatlejuice beatlejuice 2-The zero to hero good example Harry potter, bad example Eragon 3-The revenge cub good example Furiosa from a mad max saga, bad example Jyn Erso from Rogue one a star wars story 4-The self insert character good example Katniss everdeen from the hunger game, bad example either Bella Swan from twilight or Anastasia Steele from 50 shades of grey
I liked Smile 2. You brought up horror sequels being dicey because without the mystery it loses its bite. But the Smile sequal explored new themes & went in an interesting direction.
One sequel that I think is amazing is Guardians 2 and then Guardians 3. Guardians 3 could be a good example of your last point because it builds successfully on a bunch of stuff that happened during other movies.
One of the best examples of a rehash sequel is 22 Jump Street. The main characters are even told repeatedly “just do what worked last time”. Granted, a comedy like this doesn’t really need to raise the stakes like other sequels, it only needs to deliver laughs (which it excels at).
20 Best Sequels of All Time: The Bride of Frankenstein (1935) From Russia with Love (1963) Goldfinger (1964) A Shot in the Dark (1964) The Godfather Part II (1974) The Empire Strikes Back (1980) Superman II (1980) Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) Aliens (1986) Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1997) Toy Story 2 (1999) The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) Spider-Man 2 (2004) Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) The Dark Knight (2008) Toy Story 3 (2010) The Avengers (2012) Top Gun: Maverick (2022)
I am pretty sure the top 3 sequals are really straightforward: - Godfather II - Terminator 2 - The Empire strikes back I do not want to make an order between these 3 as they are really top sequels and top movies. What makes them really special is that they are better than the original one (maybe except Godfather II but it is hard to beat the perfect movie).
Thank you for making this video, it was very insightful! Unfortunately though, I don't think I can raise the stakes in my sequel cause the enemy the first time was pretty much as strong as one could possibly be. Maybe I can raise the stakes in a different way, a not "dangerous" one? I was also kinda planning on shifting the genre, so seeing it as a bad thing made me nervous, but it looks like there are ways to make it good. My first story was mainly action based, with some comedy and romance in it, and while the sequel will definitely still have action, I was planning on focusing more on the romance and comedy aspect of it. Maybe it won't be so bad, since the original had a good amount of romance and comedy in it as well...
I'm currently writing a sequel to this series called Manifest that was on its way to being Lost 2.0 but then got real mediocre real quick for National Novel Writing month. I'll keep all this in mind, Brandon knows what he's talkin about. On that note, Brandon should totally do some content about National Novel Writing Month and how to coordinate it.
And here I was, toying with the idea of a possible sequel to my story (Though I *really* don't want to because I think I've successfully tied up all the loose ends and constructed a pretty solid standalone story but I *REALLY* love my characters and want to see more of them) and this shows up. Is the universe trying to tell me something? Also, GOOD VS. BAD MANIPULATIVE CHARACTERS, boyo! Lemme have it!!
Highlander II is one of the worst movies ever made. I think the actors did a stellar job trying to make the best of a bad story, but in the end it was a disaster. Tomorrow, November 2, is the 33rd anniversary of when I saw that mess of a movie, which also happens to be the first movie I ever saw with my wife. It was amusing after the movie, since neither of us wanted to be the first to say something negative, but once the ice was broken, we ripped that movie apart.
One thing want to add, is to be careful and reasonable on how you raise the steaks. You don't wan a go from an antagonist who may threaten a few characters, to an antagonist in the sequel that threatens the entire universe. Even if there is a story reason, you want to make the escalation of your threats reasonable within the world the story takes place.
The Joker did not need a sequel. The studio was only focusing on money. Phoenix knew there was no where to go after the first one but they gave him a ton of money
The problem with doing a sequel was that part of what made the first film compelling was the debate over what was real and what was only in his head. By making a sequel, that mystery has to inherently die. That said, I've seen far worse sequels than Joker 2 even though the musical elements only diminished the film.
6:06 not to mention his wife is entirely absent from the main plot. Her being on one of the planes at risk is entirely incidental. He's only indirectly saving her, whereas in the first film she is directly being held as a hostage, and he has to physically save her right at the end. She may as well not be there, and there is a lack of personal investment as a result. She is just one among many faceless people. There may be more hostages but we are way less invested in these people.
Hi Brandon. I really love your videos and I have consistently gotten great value from your insights. But I have to call you out about using the director's cut of Aliens to refer to as a good sequel, and not mention that that's the version you're referencing. The theatrical cut is meaningfully more solid and streamlined, and in my opinion, the director's cut (which includes the backstory of Ripley's daughter and of Newt's family too) gives us more than necessary for Ripley to believably build a connection with Newt and for her intention to keep her safe to feel real. Ripley's daughter is a retcon. I'm not saying a retcon is necessarily a bad idea. But if it does not add necessary and story-changing new information (like Vader as Luke's father), then it just has a bloating effect. What I'm saying is that the theatrical cut of Aliens is a better sequel than the director's cut, and the reasons are that it doesn't unnecessarily bloat the character's backstory, and as a genre jumper (I love that naming), it succeeds at organically exhibiting effective emotional stakes that add something brand new to the original's storyline. One more thing; I think the new Beetlejuice sequel is a way worse offender of being past its expiration date than Indy 5.
To answer both questions, let's talk about the Blade trilogy. The original set up a strong protagonist, an interesting (but perhaps weak) antagonist, and left us with something to look forward to in the next movie. Blade 2 followed up on the original, raised the stakes and threw in wild cards with a lot of questions on loyalty and motivation. The action and intensity were also mich more engaging. Blade Trilogy (the movie) was a letdown. While the stakes looked raised and a stronger villain was introduced, the movie suffered from playing it safe and stepping away from the darker tones of the first two movies. While the movie isn't as bad as some sequels we could collectively name, it fails compared to the first two. A questionable sequal would be "Aladdin; the Return of Jafar". Now, if we can overlook the absence of Robin Williams, people bag this sequal even though it does a lot right. The stakes are raised, Iago becomes the shifting point and the ending is nail-biting. The animation lacks because the movie was also designed to be broken down into episodes for the TV show that followed it, and the animation styles are consistent with each other. This introduced the (still much better) sequal of "Aladdin and the King of Thieves", which nailed it as one of the few successful Disney sequals.
Best sequel(s): Aliens, Terminator 2, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, Empire Strikes Back Worst sequel: Rise of Skywalker. Still the only Star Wars movie I will never watch again. My hate for it is only rivaled by my hate for Alien 3. I feel like a sequel doesn't necessarily have to raise the external stakes as long as it does a good job raising the personal stakes for the characters. Guardians of the Galaxy 3, for instance, doesn't have external stakes as high as "Ego overwriting a huge chunk of the galaxy to become expansions of him" like GotG2 had, but it has tremendous personal stakes involving Rocket and the other Guardians trying to save him as well as Rocket coming to terms with his past, and GotG3 is a fantastic movie AND sequel that gave closure to all the characters stories in a satisfying way (thank god Gunn didn't have New Gamora end up with Quill, that would have been so forced and wrong and ruined the movie).
I think One of the worst kind of sequels that mainly is exclusive to live action movies and TV I guess, but it’s when the character actors are replaced with people with minimal or no resemblance to them. Like they expect us to think this is the same character you saw in the previous movie, but they look and sound completely different And in some cases behave differently. The biggest offender for this in my opinion is “Mostly Ghostly 2” it’s about a boy and his ghostly friends that only he can see and interact with having to stop a supernatural entity from returning to power and leading a ghost army to torment people for all eternity. Max Doyle is the main character and was recast for the sequel. I can give him a little bit of a pass in this case, because his character is getting older, but even so they still retained the actor for Tara Roland who also got older. Characters like Nicky Roland were and Collin Doyle were also replaced and with actors that don’t at all represent or look like they could represent the characters for the first “Mostly Ghostly.” Same with the actors who played the parents in both films. The film’s antagonist Phears, also got recasted and the new actor didn’t have the same charisma or personality of the previous. A good example oddly enough comes from 2 movies. One is “George of the Jungle 2” not a great film by any means but not horrible either. George was recasted for this movie but the actor they got not only understood the character but still had some physical traits that made it believable that I’m seeing the same character. They even worked in a funny joke with the narrator talking to the new actor and saying why the original didn’t return. The second film should come as a shock to no one, “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.” Richard Harris sadly passed away after the second film so they had to recast him and the new actor Michael Gambon also understood the character of Dumbledore and gave us his own version of the character while still keeping true to the original actor in some way.
Since you mentioned the Alien franchise I have to bring up the Prometheus movies. The third and fourth were bad but the Prometheus movies were completely off the rails. As far as I am concerned they completely ruined the Alien franchise and in my own personal canon they don't exist. The Xenomorph is obviously a bioweapon designed to wipe out whole planets. My own thoughts on this are that the so-called Engineers built this weapon since they were engaged in a war and in the end the weapon destroyed them as we see in the first movie. This may be a bit cliche, but look at the alien; this is something that was designed to kill and keep killing until no one was left. What else could it be but a weapon? I know that Scott wanted to do something different but the truth is, the origin of the Xenomorph didn't need to be explained. It is much more scary and mysterious left open and by trying to come up with an origin story, it ruined the whole franchise.
My headcanon is Alien 3 was just a nightmare Ripley had in hypersleep and she, Newt, Hicks and Bishop lived happily ever after because 30 years later I'm STILL pissed at Alien 3 especially when the Dark Horse comics did a way better job of following the second movie up.
'Maverick' was a terrible example. I remember reading comment sections and a lot of people were just mindlessly buying multiple tickets to support a film which they falsely believeed had no digital effects in it (which truthfully had tons). The original was superior in every way and even 2005's 'Stealth' had better aerobatic choreography. Plus, it doesn't even come up with a plausible reason why the mission isn't simply conducted by stealth bombers and cruise missile volleys (a plausible reason WAS possible, but they go for the most laughable and unrealistic options in the actual story).
The problem with the modern sequels today is that writers do the same plot thing over and over again look at Jurassic World, Star Wars Force Awakens the Death Star again but bigger and it gets easily beaten.
14:09 as someone who has always maintained that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is not as bad as everyone says, and in fact can be quite enjoyable still (OG trilogy is still the goat, don't get me wrong), it pleases me no end that it is no longer considered the worst Indiana Jones movie. None of you knew how good you had it.
I don't know how many people have seen Doctor Sleep but I think its one of the top tier examples of a really great sequel. The original Shining movie by Stanley Kubrick had set a high bar yet Doctor Sleep was able to connect with jts predecessor well. The dialogues were great, cinematography was great, actors were great. Overall a perfect sequel
Spike Lee's Inside Man was a brilliant heist thriller combo - giving the genre a fresh new take which I found utterly compelling. Great characters, great actors and a great script, One of my all time favourites. Then they made the sequel which not only was a cheap re-hash of the first, but also tore down and destroyed the protagonist from the first film - Clive Owen's Dalton Russell, by claiming that he was only a stooge for the sequel's much cleverer and smarter protagonist - his sister, of course. We learn of course that SHE masterminded the events of the first film and then monotonously has to do the same thing again, while a bound and gagged Dalton is cheaply killed off by the bad guys to show their resolve. I genuinely felt dirty after watching that garbage and threw the movie in the trash.
I have some stuff to unpack about sequels. 1) The Matrix movies. The original is a very "expositional" movie, it does a TON of worldbuilding, but in a very compelling way, AND it has a whole bunch of action amidst all the philosophical talk and exposition. Reloaded does some more world building about the Matrix itself (and not just the reason why it exists), but it doesn't need to do as much as the first movie, and therefore can focus more on action... by multiplying Smith. The third movie kind of has a genre shift where it's more of a war movie of sorts because we're in the real world for a good bit, but we're also at the final confrontation between Neo and Smith, and Neo fulfills his role as a hero by committing the ultimate sacrifice. And then Resurrections poops all over that by giving us Neo back alive (nullifying the impact of his sacrifice), Trinity isn't dead anymore, blah blah blah. 2) Terminator 2. Name a better sequel, lol. The original Terminator wayyy is more of a horror movie than an action movie, and I definitely do prefer T1 to T2 (mostly because I don't like teenage John Connor that much), but T2 is Ahnuld badassery at its best. The whole idea that humans managed to overcome the first terminator in T1, but the new and improved terminator in T2 requires *another Terminator* to be defeated is a great way to raise the stakes IMO. 3) The entire Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. The original movie is one of my favourite movies of all time, I've watched it so many times. But in the original Pirates movie, Jack Sparrow wasn't the main character, he was just a chaotic force making the plot go forward for the main characters just for his own benefit. The main story was about Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley's characters. But Jack Sparrow was so funny that despite him just not being main character material... the producers made him the main character of I don't even know how many of these movies exist anymore. The worst type of sequel though is the sequel an entire fanbase yearns for but doesn't get. Where is our sequel to 2012's Dredd?
I feel like I'm in the minority of people who liked Edward Furlong's John Connor. But that might be because I was a kid when I watched it and could imagine being in his place a lot better. But he is a good, well written character, who has a fair amount of agency despite being mostly a child in distress. There are five Pirate movies because I think they put a pause on them after Depp's and Amber's hearings. The third movie actually made me a much bigger Barbosa fan because honestly, I want the pirate captain that bravely helps power us through a storm rather than the one who would instruct us to sail through the storm before abandoning ship to save himself.
some might disagree with me, but I think Bladerunner 2048 (or whichever year it is) is a good sequel. it tells a new story, answers some questions left behind by the first movie, and the Phil Decker character isn't a whimp. though it might be a bit tough to catch up what's going on without knowing the first movie. thus, it's not perfect.
One of my favourite sequals is Blade Runner 2049. I adored Blade Runner, it's my joint favourite movie of all time along with the original Ghost in the Shell. I was genuinely furious when they announced the sequal because Blade Runner didn't need a sequal at all. But I decided, as with the live action Ghost in the Shell, to go and see it and make up my own mind and I genuinely cried three times in that theatre. It's a beautiful film that builds on the themes of the original without rehashing it - it goes deeper into what the replicants are and people's relationship with them and when Dekkard is brought back, it gives him a meaningful character arc that builds on the original movie, without making usurp K as the main character of this story. I literally applauded at the end of the movie, in the theatre and if I ever get the chance I want to shake Dennis Villeneuve's hand for doing what I thought was impossible.
I would like to see a video on reboots by now. Especially why the original Mortal Kombat movie worked (it's so cheesy, but still so good) while the far less cheesy reboot feels really off. And that's not only because literal plot armor 😂
I’d add a sequel category around expanding the mythos from standalone into trilogy/franchise. The first instalment is a great movie on its own, whereas the sequel intentionally sets up further installments. There are many examples of good and bad here.
How did Highlander 2 not get a mention for the worst tone-shift sequel? It undid all the world building, all the mystery, the somber world-weariness, all the stakes of the first and somehow had worse action scenes to boot. I guess that it could go under the line of "but it doesn't exist," but it does. It's still somehow better than The Source...
3:56 I'm kinda already plotting out my series sequel... its kinda a little bit of a rehash... but somewhat undoes some of the beats of the first one... but it teaches the protagonist to hone in on his anger for the antagonist after he roughs the villain in the past... so would this make for a lazy sequel pr would it make for a good one?
The Rehash sequel reminded me of the Avatar sequel where they connect with nature, then protect nature from the same resurrected evil humans who did the same thing in the first movie.
Okay but I think an even better example of a rehash sequel would be Incredibles 2. The Supers are illegal once again. Mr. Incredible wants to do illegal superhero stuff while Helen wants to protect her family. They get approached by a corporate billionaire who offers them a chance to carry out superhero stuff and get paid for it. Instead of Mr. Incredible, we have Elastagirl do it. She discovers who the villain is and her schemes and gets captured. Mr. Incredible has to rescue her like Helen had to rescue Bob in the first film. Both get captured and the kids have to help them. So the plot structure is so similar. Even Syndrome and Screenslaver are very similar villains. What's worse is that Elastagirl does not have a significant character arc despite being the main protagonist and Bob's character arc in the first movie is kind of retconned. However, I do think Incredibles 2 is a fun thrill-ride and pretty over-hated. With Avatar 2, there were some compelling new elements like Loak wanting his father's love and affection. Throughout the movie, this conflict gets challenged again and again. Loak fights with the Chief's Son and this angers Jake. Then he gets lost and takes the blame for himself. He bonds with the outcast creature and that further angers Jake the Chief. Finally, in the climax, Netayam's death further fuels the conflict and at last Loak uses his newfound way of the water skills to save the family with the help of Kiri of course and he finally gets his father's love and affection.
Best sequels of all time: Empire Strikes Back Terminator 2 Aliens 2/3 from James Cameron who actually uses similar formulas in both. The blueprints are there and somehow filmmakers fail ever after to achieve what has already been achieved
Great video as usual. However I disagree with what you said about Goose's death. It had nothing to do with Maverick's recklessness, it was purely an accident that had nothing to do with Maverick's behavior.
It may not be a major thing but one of the main plot changes that annoys me in movies is when the hero and love interest spend the entire movie in a will they/won't they scenario. By the end they get together after resolving all their issues and doubts. Then in the sequel they've broken up. It's usually the woman who does so which is even more annoying. Examples of this are Hellboy (2004), (HB and Liz) and Jurassic World 2, (Owen and Claire). I didn't see HB2 but in JP2 they didn't reconcile.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Typo by me at 13:28... Should be "PAST ITS (no apostrophe) EXPIRATION DATE"
I should have caught that during editing, but I'm washed up like Indy.
@@WriterBrandonMcNulty no body's as washed up as Indy!! Now it's the years and the miles.
i always tell my fifth graders that mechanics are the least important part of getting their ideas on the page!
(i also tell them to try to fix in the final edit...but nobody's perfect!)
@roonietunes7 which is why pencils have erasers!!
@@MSheen-ef3ly i teach my kids to cross things out (and to skip lines so they can make changes when they revise and edit) all about keeping the ideas flowing
Dude, you should do a book just on writing. I'd buy that book in a heartbeat I think it's a good idea (I forgot about the period in the last sentence because I too am washed up like Indy).
Here’s another tip: Don’t turn Harrison ford characters into losers.
Good advice
Or any of our favorite characters!!
@@Onio_362like Gambit!
I kind of remember to have liked the old indy character in the "young indiana jones" series.
though it was a bit off to still wear a leather jacket...the old man on the whole was cool: he was clever, with a bit of wisdom, but fierce and sharp and witty.
this was more or less an old indy the way I would have imagined him to be.
nothing like old man indy in the last (two) movies.
and come on, harrison ford himself is still funny and fierce in his years.
yeah, a shame they did him dirty...
he wont have any more i guess anyway
My favorite part every time is “this sucks because…”
It's probably because whenever he says that, he's right
I don't know man... the phrase doesn't raise the stakes from episode to episode and suffers from diminishing returns😉
Hahah harsh critic
@@mistasomentrue, like if you drop the f bomb multiple times in one sitting it loses it effect. Same if you use over the top blood and gore in your story, as well as jumpscares.
On the topic of writing a good sequel, one thing which I don't see discussed enough is how "Return of the Jedi" uses the second Death Star in a very creative way. Rather than simply rehashing an established threat, the film has the Empire use their new technological terror primarily as bait to capture the Rebels. In the original movie, the heroes ambushed an overconfident enemy, but in "Jedi" it's the heroes who are caught in the trap. All the good guys' plans go out the airlock and everyone is forced to adapt on the fly.
Compare this to "The Force Awakens" where Starkiller Base is just "NOW WE HAVE A *BIGGER* DEATH STAR!" and "The Rise of Skywalker" where " *EVERY* STAR DESTROYER IS A MINI DEATH STAR!"
It's "The Rise of *Palpatine"*
Return of the Jedi wasn't a good sequel. Another death star was a lazy choice. Assuming the rest of the movie was good, which it wasn't, they could have had the same story without a second death star. Also it's that easy to build why aren't there multiple death stars instead?
Empire set up the franchise for a epic trilogy and Jedi failed.
@@robnhood007 how would you have written Return of the Jedi?
@@robnhood007I agree
What makes a good sequel is the story. If the story is palpable, tangible, has stakes, the message, theme or morale is emphasised and defined through character development (narrative) and resolution (third act/climax) the sequel may surpass the original or at least be equal in credibility to the original. A good example of a great sequel that doesn’t necessarily surpass the original but is just as good is Blade 2. In this sequel Blade begrudgingly leads a team of vampires who are by default, his sworn enemy. Unlike the original where he was seeking revenge, in this story he finds love. He has a subtle romance with Nayfsaa, a pure vampire, when she dies in his arms, he rises to his feet whilst experiencing a sunrise. There’s solid resolution in this climatic moment because her death coupled with the rising of the sun, indicates, tranquility and enlightenment. Blade found peace with himself, just like she told him an earlier scene. “The difference between you and me is that I made peace with who I was a long time ago.” The writing in this film is quite intricate which I like. Its little nuances like this give the film the emotional payoff it needed to justify its purpose as a film. I like to judge each film by its own merits.
"Aggressively naked"🤣🤣🤣
19:22 - 19:35 This is a criticism of TLJ that I don't hear often enough. For all its talk of subverting expectations, TLJ failed to seize any of the interesting opportunities it had.
Subverting expectations is just a smart way of saying: it makes no sense
And then Rise of Skywalker walked back everything TLJ did that WAS interesting and worked (Rey not being related to an original trilogy character, for example), and Kylo welding his mask back together (why? Why do that?).
@@ShinGallon well, after TLJ nothing else mattered. YOLO.
I was happy that Jar Jar Binks didn't get back. Good enough.
@@ShinGallon "Rey not being related to an original trilogy character, for example"
I really didn't like how TLJ handled that. I mean yes, the only reason we expect Rey to be related to somebody famous is because it's a movie cliche (largely thanks to the original trilogy). So it's completely fine if her parents are nobodies. But it's like the joke in Spaceballs when the villain says to the hero:
"I am your father's brother's cousin's nephew's former roommate."
"What's that make us?"
"Absolutely nothing!"
Rey has no reason to think her parents are big important people. So when Kylo Ren dramatically reveals that they were not big important people, and he harps on this fact and Rey is devastated about it, it's way too on the nose. This shouldn't be remarkable to them if they don't know they're in a movie.
You are one of the few RUclipsrs I can properly listen to when it comes to Writing and Media Literacy and I thank you for your work!
I never get tired of hearing comments like this. Thanks so much! Happy Halloween!
It's refreshing to hear a writing advice channel with some testosterone in the content that can get you pumped up that doesn't just reference YA stories and Harry Potter constantly.
Really enjoy this channel. I am never going to write a book, much less a movie script, but these videos are great insight into the process behind creating some of my favorite movies, and how hard it can be to get it right.
Glad you like them! Thanks!
Me too! Just love the analysis
Ditto!
We all tell ourselves we are going to write that book one day...
Yeah I do not have the mental discipline nor the skills to become an author, but for some reason I really really enjoy videos on how to write - i like exploring the literary themes. This is one of my favorite channels on the subject
‘Finn gets stuck with an optional dlc mission’ brutal 😂
One good tip from James Cameron: A good sequel should be understandable and complete without having to know anything about the original movie. Terminator 2 was great because you didn't need to watch the first to understand anything. The characters, plot, and story don't need any supplementary knowledge from the first movie. Movies based on books or video games also turn bad when they fail the "Does it stand on its own?" test.
Well, T1 had a far simpler premise. Robot goes back in time to kill the mother of the savior of mankind. It does a decent job giving us glimpses into what that future is, but not much more.
T2 has plenty of room to set up the how and the why, and adds the stakes of preventing that future from happening. Throw in another robot sent back to kill the savior of mankind as a child and the stakes are raised a bit more. But because the first movie didn't do a whole lot of heavy lifting on the premise of the future timeline, the sequel had plenty of room to retell that premise while also explaining a lot more of how it came to be.
I disagree, I think it's ok if sequels build upon the previous movies. It doesn't make the sequel good or bad, only less accessible for people who haven't seen the first.
I think it depends on how close of a sequel it is. On one end, you have many monster horror flicks, where the only thing that ties them together is the antagonist, and on the other, you have LotR, which is basically a long film split into three (just like the books).
Still, a sequel should make sense on its own. It might be hard to understand everything if you've not seen the original, but you should at least not be lost as to what's going on.
But you're always going to get more out of a sequel if you've seen the original, unless something is wrong with it. A re-hashed plot might get worse if you've seen the original, since there's less new in that case, and it might destroy things you liked about it.
True, but that scene in the hall behind the arcade is 100 times better because everything we know from the first movie gets turned on its head.
What makes a good sequel is the story. If the story is palpable, tangible, has stakes, the message, theme or morale is emphasised and defined through character development (narrative) and resolution (third act/climax) the sequel may surpass the original or at least be equal in credibility to the original. A good example of a great sequel that doesn’t necessarily surpass the original but is just as good is Blade 2. In this sequel Blade begrudgingly leads a team of vampires who are by default, his sworn enemy. Unlike the original where he was seeking revenge, in this story he finds love. He has a subtle romance with Nayfsaa, a pure vampire, when she dies in his arms, he rises to his feet whilst experiencing a sunrise. There’s solid resolution in this climatic moment because her death coupled with the rising of the sun, indicates, tranquility and enlightenment. Blade found peace with himself, just like she told him an earlier scene. “The difference between you and me is that I made peace with who I was a long time ago.” The writing in this film is quite intricate which I like. Its little nuances like this give the film the emotional payoff it needed to justify its purpose as a film. I like to judge each film by its own merits.
I find the "Making the sequel bigger with more stakes" can backfire sometimes. A lot of sequels, especially the third movies, are so lackluster. Bigger is not always better. I think sequels can have bigger events but working in different or more personal reasons can work better. For me its not so much about having bigger stakes but having new compelling stakes that aren't just the stakes from the last movie but bigger. That's why Empire Strikes Back is so good. Instead of a bigger galaxy changing event they choose more personal stakes. Made the sequel feel more intense without having an even bigger death star or something.
How about the Back to the Future trilogy? The stakes of the first movie: Marty has to get back to 1985 while ensuring that he also doesn’t get erased from existence. Part II: reset the timeline so his family isn’t destroyed. Part III: Get back to 1985 without the proper fuel.
I would like the stakes to be bigger if there is a good fit to the story. If not, I am also ok with making a sequel something like a second episode of a plain old TV series. Give me just a plain old sequel to Return of the Jedi where Luke is out doing low stakes missions, but not in a boring way. He doesn't need to be killing the Emperor and even worse bad guys. There is a mission that Luke needs to do, and he does it. I would watch that. It would not be as good as Empire but nowhere near as bad as TLJ. I also wish they just did more Captain America movies where he just does superhero stuff without this giant progressing storyline where all the stakes just get bigger.
MCU problem. Save the city. Save the planet. Save the Galaxy. Save the Universe. Save the Multiverse. Save all the timelines of all the multiverse. uh…. I’m out of stakes.
I think there are limits. Usually, raising the stakes on a character level is the way to go. Like the Rocky movies. But these days "high stakes" translates to spectacle. So Death Star is just Puh! Here's a Star Destroyer!
Its just artificially inflated stakes.
Its a trap the MCU falls into. Raising the stakes translates to some writers as "everything needs to be bigger than last time" without earning / justifying itself.
@@RobertBarry1969 This is, out of the thousand other reasons, why the GotG trilogy are the best MCU films. GotG3 doesn't have as high external stakes as GotG2 or Endwar Infinity Game did, but had tremendous personal stakes for the Guardians, which is why it still worked.
A great example of pivoting genre for the sequel: The Odyssey. Goes from the Iliad's war drama to a fantasy epic journey with a new protagonist and entirely fresh personal stakes.
Brilliant observation 🧜♀️
Finn gets an optional DLC sequence... lmfao
1. Get sent on mission to find the 1 person in the universe with the knowledge to solve the problem.
2. Fail and get thrown in jail
3. Conveniently, the person in the next cell can also solve their problem 🤷🏼♂️
4. Get shocked when that person turns out to be a liar who double crossed them
5. Wait, he did double cross them but wasn't lying about his technical skills and ends up solving their problem eventually
🤦🏼♂️
The way he says "somehow" when Paul's on the screen is just perfect timing
Man Rocky Balboa was such a great sequel. Strangely enough the boxing is the thing I cared the least about. It's more about seeing an aging Rocky seeing how he copes with getting older and the losses this brings. It was also very powerful because us the audience also have gotten older and remember the good old days. It was a very heavy and sometimes uncomfortable feeling this movie created and yet it was done so perfectly that I consider it to be a prime example of a "Past its prime" sequel.
Agreed. It's why it works better as one of the many "let's resurrect this old franchise" films we've seen too many of (Top Gun handled it relatively well, too). It leans into the fact that it is old and past, and makes it part of the plot.
Impeccable editing on this one. Almost every shot is a visual illustration of the argument you’re making in that moment. 10/10
Thank you! These videos are a ton of work, so it’s awesome to get comments like these
Well, you deserve more attention for it. At this point you’ve really honed your video essay skills to a razor’s edge
Another issue I can think of with Bad Sequels is "Power Creep". It's where they are trying so desperately to be new and different, that they give their characters new and more powerful abilities that it breaks the world building of previous movies, or make original characters look weak by comparison. Movies or games that are from long running franchises seem to suffer from this a lot.
I love how often the last jedi is a bad example of everything. Fuck that movie
It’s bad. And somehow Rise is worse. It’s hilarious how that whole trilogy is a disaster in myriad of ways.
Oh, for the days right after Force Awakens came out, when we were all excited about where the two upcoming films would go and how they'd grow and evolve the new characters...if only we'd known what was to come...
@@michaelbonet9062 Exactly. People always say how but the last jedi is but the ep 9 is simply worse.
@@RPWStudios Those things are linked though. As Brandon said, "Palpatine had to somehow return so that the final movie could have a plot". Episode 9 was a rushed bloated mess because it had to do the work of 2 movies. I don't trust JJ Abrams to write a great script at the best of times, but here he didn't even have a chance.
Much like a lazy sequel, it's the lazy sequel of this channel that keeps repeating itself like new bad installments of Friday the 13th
I’ve only been writing for about 11 months and your videos have helped me so much with figuring out how to make different story elements effective. I cannot thank you enough!
Highlander 2 was the first time I ever felt betrayed by a movie
That is a good example. The shift in genre from fantasy to sci-fi was jarring, among many other issues.
i forgot about that dumpster fire, good example.
He couldn't use Highlander 2 as an example because, like Godfather Part 3, IT DOESN'T EXIST.
@@billnagel1617 Holy smokes you’re right. The theatrical version was never released to video. Also I saw it got 0% on Rotten Tomatoes. My favorite critic quote is “There should have been only one”
"There can be only one!"
Even Kingdom of the Crystal Skull gave Indie a better sendoff than Dial of Disgracery.
The Bride of Frankenstein. Beyond outstanding. Yes, it's not a modern movie to reference for your audience but I still think it applies.
Very good reference.
@ thanks. Again, it’s not a modern reference. But still….
Hey we can like old movies around here!
Nailed it as usual! I love the examples you use.
I feel like Top Gun: Maverick can work as an example for all of them. When you think about it, the first one was more of a sports drama while the sequel plays out an action thriller (the third act was like Mission Impossible with jets) but it felt like a smooth transition.
And it came out 36 years after the original, but it didn't desecrate a corpse like Dial of Destiny. It leans into that theme, as Maverick knows he'll be obsolete someday but hasn't lost his edge yet, and he schools the next gen pilots.
Your video structure and voice are always engaging, love your content!
Most extreme genre shift: Pitch Black vs Cronicles of Riddick.
I always consider both movies as using the same protagonists, not as one being the sequel of the other.
@@jesusromanpadro3853haha, that's your best bet. It's strange because I don't dislike either one, but they are as different as day and night.
Indiana jones lost his son. Losing a child is one of the hardest things anyone could endure. I think it would have been incredibly weird and off-putting to see indie mourning his son, and then the next scene be his regular self that we know and love. he lost himself and therefore also lost miriam. the love between them was always there after they lost their son, we didn't need to see them build back anything, the only thing that needed to change was time as time heals all wounds. specifically loss of a loved one. it seemed fitting the plot had to deal with time and traveling through it. it matches what happens in real life.
I think dial of destiny does a great job of showing what it is to be old. my grandmother lost her husband, 2 of her siblings and her best friend all within a few years and I see her struggle every day. she will never be truly the same. time will hopefully "heal" her but she will unfortunately carry that with her for the rest of her life.
dial of destiny was in fact a great movie and moved a lot of people, especially older folks or people who have ever had to deal with a great loss.
hopefully if you ever watch it again you will be able to enjoy it.
I was crying during the credits, losing my grandpa just a few months prior, he loved Indiana jones and I know he would have loved this one as he also love time travel things.
Best sequel: Terminator 2.
I would go for Empire but would in no way argue your call here. I can argue for Empire, but not against T2. Just iconic.
They're both great in their own genres. T2 for action and Empire Strikes Back for fantasy.
@@danielbrown9368 I would say that Empire does a good job lowering the external stakes and raising the character growth stakes, while T2 does a good job raising both the character growth stakes AND the external stakes.
What about aliens?
One of the most fascinating sequels ever: Evil Dead 2. They just went and remade the first movie.
I love how Escape from LA has Pliskin saying "the more things change, the more they stay the same", which is quite ironic considering that movie is essentially the same as the original, but it tells you how it works for a lotta sequels in general
The one of the things that make a good trilogy is something like Raimi Spider-Man trilogy.
They keep the theme of “With great power, comes great responsibility.”
Spiderman 1: Obtaining power
Spiderman 2: Neglecting power
Spiderman 3: Abusing power
S1: Learning to use power responsibly.
S2: Paying the price of heroism (result of responsible power use).
S3: Running out of ideas and making a mess of it.
I found that the trilogy didn't really grow as a story because the need to go back to Uncle Ben.
Peter's motivation didn't have to have "Ben's" justification. The character should have grown.
@@blshouseThe third movie is an example of Sony should’ve let Raimi cook instead of interfering
The third movie ruined everything
What a grand discovery of your channel I have made as an aspiring writer
Great stuff, as always.
I'd love to see a video on prequels if you haven't done that already (I searched the channel and didn't find one, but that could just be YT struggling with the search function). More specifically, I'm interested to see examples of prequels that avoided the trap of using an already-known outcome as the source of the drama or tension, like "Will Anakin Skywalker become a bad dude? Dun dun dunnn!"
Better Call Saul comes to mind, though it’s both a prequel and a sequel (especially in the final season). What I found most interesting in that show wasn’t Saul per se, but the new characters introduced in the show, particularly Kim, Nacho, and Lalo.
The Godfather II is another combined prequel/sequel, but the prequel part of the movie is so good. Sure, it’s a simple rise-to-power tale of Vito, but it’s threaded perfectly with Michael’s steady moral downfall.
More recently: Furiosa, since the movie’s primary focus is really just mapping out the relationship between the Citadel, Bullet Farm, and Gas Town.
I might also throw The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly on there as well, but that’s a stretch since all three movies are self-contained and, aside from showing how Eastwood’s character got his signature poncho, have no other connection.
Brandon's channel is the best!
Thanks! And Happy Halloween!
Puss in Boots 2 is an amazing sequel. I've watched it several times, because it's so good. I watched the first one once and have no desire to ever see it again.
Surf’s Up is a hilarious animated movie about surfing penguins filmed in a documentary style. Surfs Up 2 is a godforsaken attempt to milk the good name of the first movie for all the money it was worth, centered around wrestling stars playing themselves as poorly written surfing penguins, all while cutting the animation budget down to the bare minimum. One of the worst sequels and big studio animated movies of all time.
I did NOT know that Top Gun: Maverick was a sequel!
One sequel I think works well despite being both a copy of the first and a genre change is Evil Dead 2.
Evil Dead is a creepy cabin in the woods surrounded by supernatural evil. ED2 rehashes the exact same setting and plot, but this time turns it into a comedy, and it works.
And Army of Darkness works as one that changes the type of movie. To action comedy.
Predator 2 was a decent sequel. New characters, new location that initially felt safer. Felt familiar but plenty of new twists on old situations. Great use of the back and forth of who is winning. Pred 1 & 2 both do this well. There are moments you think the humans are gaining the upper hand, then the predator adapts and outplays them.
Predators should have been 35 minutes longer, have way more humans in the plot so the alien hunters don’t look weak and make it antihero
Predator 2 is totally decent. Part of the strength was that it had totally compelling characters, and the predator in a totally new environment. Instead of out in the jungle, the predator was out in LA.
It also worked by giving us a totally different type of protagonist. Danny Glover is a great actor, and the type of character he plays is totally different from a character that Arnold would play. There's a bunch of engaging side characters (like the Jamaican drug lord) and it had a very blade runner style to it.
The franchise lost it's edge long ago though. Like MauLer said, if you wanna revive it, make a movie where the predator fucking wins...
That's funny, only this morning I looked up this channel wondering if you'd done a Good/Bad sequel video and got the 4 tips for writing sequels video. And now here we are.
Lower stakes are one reason Toy Story 4 didn't land for me.
Same here. Such a letdown after TS3.
I've never seen it, have no desire to. TS3 ended the story perfectly, there is no need for me to sully my memories of it by seeing a "Pixar needs money" sequel (they should have just done another Cars instead)
@@ShinGallon I'm left to wonder why they've made so many Cars movies. The first was immediately deemed one of their worst, the second became the new worst, and the Planes spinoffs bombed harder still. Yet we still got Cars 3.
@@deckardcanineThe answer is simple: money.
I think Cars 1 is an underrated near masterpiece. Cars 2 is okay. I have the general issues but its overhated in my opinion. The Plane Spin-offs are okay too. Then Cars 3 was a great movie and a satisfying conclusion to the franchise !!
Worst sequel? Best sequel? Let us know!
We're all thinking of the same thing
Hahaha
Worst: Highlander 2. (Critic's quote: "It looks like it was edited at random.")
Best: Objectively, it's Godfather II, but my favorite is Aliens
Most Disappointing: Alien 3
Troll 2 counts as both, right?
@@wadegolden3589 Highlander 2 was so bad, I stopped liking the first one.
Often seeds of lingering consequences outside of the first storys main conflict are great fuel for sequels.
I know it's not a movie, but as a big fan of the Karate Kid franchise, I HAVE to give some appreciation to its spin-off series - Cobra Kai.
In my opinion, the show not only does justice to the beloved characters of the original, but also takes the story in a fresh and interesting direction that fits perfectly within the world of the OG saga. It utilizes its modern setting well, it respects the source material - even the, frankly pretty forgettable, third installment - and despite sharing many plot points with the movies, it never feels like it's just rehashing the same old story. Plus, it embraces the cheesiness of the original unabashedly and isn't afraid to poke fun at itself, which I love.
I honestly would recommend it to anybody looking for a good example of a current-day sequel to a beloved classic. It has a healthy dose of nostalgia, but never banks on it to carry the plot, instead adding its own unique twist to what made the original so great. And it's funny as all heck!
Cobra Kai is one of the best spin-off series of a movie to come down the pike in a VERY long time.
I'm tired of the teen soap opera. Too many characters. Only character I genuinely enjoy any more is Chozen.
i have a good idea for a writing advice
Good passive main characters vs Bad passive main characters
I know is a weird topic but its pretty interesting to talk about
in my book there 4 type of passive main characters
1-The every person in a fantasyland
good example Alice from alice in wonderland, bad example Astrid from beatlejuice beatlejuice
2-The zero to hero
good example Harry potter, bad example Eragon
3-The revenge cub
good example Furiosa from a mad max saga, bad example Jyn Erso from Rogue one a star wars story
4-The self insert character
good example Katniss everdeen from the hunger game, bad example either Bella Swan from twilight or Anastasia Steele from 50 shades of grey
I'm surprised you didn't talk about the greatest Horror sequel ever created: Tremors 2.
Now I want to rewatch the Indiana Jones trilogy :)
I liked Smile 2. You brought up horror sequels being dicey because without the mystery it loses its bite. But the Smile sequal explored new themes & went in an interesting direction.
One sequel that I think is amazing is Guardians 2 and then Guardians 3. Guardians 3 could be a good example of your last point because it builds successfully on a bunch of stuff that happened during other movies.
This was a pretty neat analysis of good vs bad sequels. You think maybe you can do the same for animated movies?
I'm a big movie fan with a big collection and watching your videos helps me to better understand and collect good movies.
Great video as always!!! (Also many thanks for the credits) 🎉❤🙏🏻
Thanks for the support!!
One of the best examples of a rehash sequel is 22 Jump Street. The main characters are even told repeatedly “just do what worked last time”. Granted, a comedy like this doesn’t really need to raise the stakes like other sequels, it only needs to deliver laughs (which it excels at).
20 Best Sequels of All Time:
The Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
From Russia with Love (1963)
Goldfinger (1964)
A Shot in the Dark (1964)
The Godfather Part II (1974)
The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
Superman II (1980)
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Aliens (1986)
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1997)
Toy Story 2 (1999)
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
The Dark Knight (2008)
Toy Story 3 (2010)
The Avengers (2012)
Top Gun: Maverick (2022)
@@Psychward4 i think Transformers Dark of the Moon was a great sequel as well, even if it is the third movie
Just picked up all 3 books on amazon! Love the channel, keep it up
I am pretty sure the top 3 sequals are really straightforward:
- Godfather II
- Terminator 2
- The Empire strikes back
I do not want to make an order between these 3 as they are really top sequels and top movies. What makes them really special is that they are better than the original one (maybe except Godfather II but it is hard to beat the perfect movie).
I'd add The Dark Knight and make it the Mount Rushmore of sequels
The best explanation of what a sequel should be is schafrillas rules in the Shrek 2 review
Thank you for making this video, it was very insightful! Unfortunately though, I don't think I can raise the stakes in my sequel cause the enemy the first time was pretty much as strong as one could possibly be. Maybe I can raise the stakes in a different way, a not "dangerous" one?
I was also kinda planning on shifting the genre, so seeing it as a bad thing made me nervous, but it looks like there are ways to make it good. My first story was mainly action based, with some comedy and romance in it, and while the sequel will definitely still have action, I was planning on focusing more on the romance and comedy aspect of it. Maybe it won't be so bad, since the original had a good amount of romance and comedy in it as well...
Ypu literally just posted this as I opened RUclips to watch your videos
Nice, we're on the same wavelength today. Happy Halloween btw!
Two of these movies I’m doing an observational study on rn, thanks!
I'm currently writing a sequel to this series called Manifest that was on its way to being Lost 2.0 but then got real mediocre real quick for National Novel Writing month. I'll keep all this in mind, Brandon knows what he's talkin about.
On that note, Brandon should totally do some content about National Novel Writing Month and how to coordinate it.
And here I was, toying with the idea of a possible sequel to my story (Though I *really* don't want to because I think I've successfully tied up all the loose ends and constructed a pretty solid standalone story but I *REALLY* love my characters and want to see more of them) and this shows up. Is the universe trying to tell me something?
Also, GOOD VS. BAD MANIPULATIVE CHARACTERS, boyo! Lemme have it!!
Highlander II is one of the worst movies ever made. I think the actors did a stellar job trying to make the best of a bad story, but in the end it was a disaster.
Tomorrow, November 2, is the 33rd anniversary of when I saw that mess of a movie, which also happens to be the first movie I ever saw with my wife. It was amusing after the movie, since neither of us wanted to be the first to say something negative, but once the ice was broken, we ripped that movie apart.
One thing want to add, is to be careful and reasonable on how you raise the steaks. You don't wan a go from an antagonist who may threaten a few characters, to an antagonist in the sequel that threatens the entire universe. Even if there is a story reason, you want to make the escalation of your threats reasonable within the world the story takes place.
"Finn gets stuck on an optional DLC mission" hahahaa
The Joker did not need a sequel. The studio was only focusing on money. Phoenix knew there was no where to go after the first one but they gave him a ton of money
The problem with doing a sequel was that part of what made the first film compelling was the debate over what was real and what was only in his head. By making a sequel, that mystery has to inherently die. That said, I've seen far worse sequels than Joker 2 even though the musical elements only diminished the film.
6:06 not to mention his wife is entirely absent from the main plot. Her being on one of the planes at risk is entirely incidental. He's only indirectly saving her, whereas in the first film she is directly being held as a hostage, and he has to physically save her right at the end. She may as well not be there, and there is a lack of personal investment as a result. She is just one among many faceless people. There may be more hostages but we are way less invested in these people.
It is not surprising to see Disney giving bad examples for sequels.
Past Its Expiration Date Sequel, bad example: Sin City: A Dame to Kill For.
Halloween Kills/Ends are two of the worst sequels that do all the things you described. Stupid character decisions, going off the rails, etc
Hi Brandon. I really love your videos and I have consistently gotten great value from your insights. But I have to call you out about using the director's cut of Aliens to refer to as a good sequel, and not mention that that's the version you're referencing. The theatrical cut is meaningfully more solid and streamlined, and in my opinion, the director's cut (which includes the backstory of Ripley's daughter and of Newt's family too) gives us more than necessary for Ripley to believably build a connection with Newt and for her intention to keep her safe to feel real.
Ripley's daughter is a retcon. I'm not saying a retcon is necessarily a bad idea. But if it does not add necessary and story-changing new information (like Vader as Luke's father), then it just has a bloating effect.
What I'm saying is that the theatrical cut of Aliens is a better sequel than the director's cut, and the reasons are that it doesn't unnecessarily bloat the character's backstory, and as a genre jumper (I love that naming), it succeeds at organically exhibiting effective emotional stakes that add something brand new to the original's storyline.
One more thing; I think the new Beetlejuice sequel is a way worse offender of being past its expiration date than Indy 5.
To answer both questions, let's talk about the Blade trilogy.
The original set up a strong protagonist, an interesting (but perhaps weak) antagonist, and left us with something to look forward to in the next movie. Blade 2 followed up on the original, raised the stakes and threw in wild cards with a lot of questions on loyalty and motivation. The action and intensity were also mich more engaging.
Blade Trilogy (the movie) was a letdown. While the stakes looked raised and a stronger villain was introduced, the movie suffered from playing it safe and stepping away from the darker tones of the first two movies. While the movie isn't as bad as some sequels we could collectively name, it fails compared to the first two.
A questionable sequal would be "Aladdin; the Return of Jafar". Now, if we can overlook the absence of Robin Williams, people bag this sequal even though it does a lot right. The stakes are raised, Iago becomes the shifting point and the ending is nail-biting. The animation lacks because the movie was also designed to be broken down into episodes for the TV show that followed it, and the animation styles are consistent with each other. This introduced the (still much better) sequal of "Aladdin and the King of Thieves", which nailed it as one of the few successful Disney sequals.
Best sequel(s): Aliens, Terminator 2, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, Empire Strikes Back
Worst sequel: Rise of Skywalker. Still the only Star Wars movie I will never watch again. My hate for it is only rivaled by my hate for Alien 3.
I feel like a sequel doesn't necessarily have to raise the external stakes as long as it does a good job raising the personal stakes for the characters. Guardians of the Galaxy 3, for instance, doesn't have external stakes as high as "Ego overwriting a huge chunk of the galaxy to become expansions of him" like GotG2 had, but it has tremendous personal stakes involving Rocket and the other Guardians trying to save him as well as Rocket coming to terms with his past, and GotG3 is a fantastic movie AND sequel that gave closure to all the characters stories in a satisfying way (thank god Gunn didn't have New Gamora end up with Quill, that would have been so forced and wrong and ruined the movie).
I think One of the worst kind of sequels that mainly is exclusive to live action movies and TV I guess, but it’s when the character actors are replaced with people with minimal or no resemblance to them. Like they expect us to think this is the same character you saw in the previous movie, but they look and sound completely different And in some cases behave differently. The biggest offender for this in my opinion is “Mostly Ghostly 2” it’s about a boy and his ghostly friends that only he can see and interact with having to stop a supernatural entity from returning to power and leading a ghost army to torment people for all eternity. Max Doyle is the main character and was recast for the sequel. I can give him a little bit of a pass in this case, because his character is getting older, but even so they still retained the actor for Tara Roland who also got older. Characters like Nicky Roland were and Collin Doyle were also replaced and with actors that don’t at all represent or look like they could represent the characters for the first “Mostly Ghostly.” Same with the actors who played the parents in both films. The film’s antagonist Phears, also got recasted and the new actor didn’t have the same charisma or personality of the previous.
A good example oddly enough comes from 2 movies. One is “George of the Jungle 2” not a great film by any means but not horrible either. George was recasted for this movie but the actor they got not only understood the character but still had some physical traits that made it believable that I’m seeing the same character. They even worked in a funny joke with the narrator talking to the new actor and saying why the original didn’t return.
The second film should come as a shock to no one, “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.” Richard Harris sadly passed away after the second film so they had to recast him and the new actor Michael Gambon also understood the character of Dumbledore and gave us his own version of the character while still keeping true to the original actor in some way.
Shrek 2 is my all time favourite.
Since you mentioned the Alien franchise I have to bring up the Prometheus movies. The third and fourth were bad but the Prometheus movies were completely off the rails. As far as I am concerned they completely ruined the Alien franchise and in my own personal canon they don't exist. The Xenomorph is obviously a bioweapon designed to wipe out whole planets. My own thoughts on this are that the so-called Engineers built this weapon since they were engaged in a war and in the end the weapon destroyed them as we see in the first movie. This may be a bit cliche, but look at the alien; this is something that was designed to kill and keep killing until no one was left. What else could it be but a weapon? I know that Scott wanted to do something different but the truth is, the origin of the Xenomorph didn't need to be explained. It is much more scary and mysterious left open and by trying to come up with an origin story, it ruined the whole franchise.
My headcanon is Alien 3 was just a nightmare Ripley had in hypersleep and she, Newt, Hicks and Bishop lived happily ever after because 30 years later I'm STILL pissed at Alien 3 especially when the Dark Horse comics did a way better job of following the second movie up.
@@ShinGallon I like that.
'Maverick' was a terrible example. I remember reading comment sections and a lot of people were just mindlessly buying multiple tickets to support a film which they falsely believeed had no digital effects in it (which truthfully had tons).
The original was superior in every way and even 2005's 'Stealth' had better aerobatic choreography. Plus, it doesn't even come up with a plausible reason why the mission isn't simply conducted by stealth bombers and cruise missile volleys (a plausible reason WAS possible, but they go for the most laughable and unrealistic options in the actual story).
The problem with the modern sequels today is that writers do the same plot thing over and over again look at Jurassic World, Star Wars Force Awakens the Death Star again but bigger and it gets easily beaten.
I thought Maverick was actually following the rules from getting chewed out when Goose died. That's why he wasn't court-martialed.
"Aggressively naked" 😁 brandishing his "weapon" like that...
14:09 as someone who has always maintained that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is not as bad as everyone says, and in fact can be quite enjoyable still (OG trilogy is still the goat, don't get me wrong), it pleases me no end that it is no longer considered the worst Indiana Jones movie. None of you knew how good you had it.
It was fun! Nowhere near as good at the original 3, but at least Crystal Skull was entertaining. I still can't believe how bored I was by Dial.
Man, that indiana jones stuff must have been personal
I don't know how many people have seen Doctor Sleep but I think its one of the top tier examples of a really great sequel. The original Shining movie by Stanley Kubrick had set a high bar yet Doctor Sleep was able to connect with jts predecessor well. The dialogues were great, cinematography was great, actors were great. Overall a perfect sequel
Spike Lee's Inside Man was a brilliant heist thriller combo - giving the genre a fresh new take which I found utterly compelling. Great characters, great actors and a great script, One of my all time favourites.
Then they made the sequel which not only was a cheap re-hash of the first, but also tore down and destroyed the protagonist from the first film - Clive Owen's Dalton Russell, by claiming that he was only a stooge for the sequel's much cleverer and smarter protagonist - his sister, of course.
We learn of course that SHE masterminded the events of the first film and then monotonously has to do the same thing again, while a bound and gagged Dalton is cheaply killed off by the bad guys to show their resolve.
I genuinely felt dirty after watching that garbage and threw the movie in the trash.
I have some stuff to unpack about sequels.
1) The Matrix movies. The original is a very "expositional" movie, it does a TON of worldbuilding, but in a very compelling way, AND it has a whole bunch of action amidst all the philosophical talk and exposition. Reloaded does some more world building about the Matrix itself (and not just the reason why it exists), but it doesn't need to do as much as the first movie, and therefore can focus more on action... by multiplying Smith. The third movie kind of has a genre shift where it's more of a war movie of sorts because we're in the real world for a good bit, but we're also at the final confrontation between Neo and Smith, and Neo fulfills his role as a hero by committing the ultimate sacrifice. And then Resurrections poops all over that by giving us Neo back alive (nullifying the impact of his sacrifice), Trinity isn't dead anymore, blah blah blah.
2) Terminator 2. Name a better sequel, lol. The original Terminator wayyy is more of a horror movie than an action movie, and I definitely do prefer T1 to T2 (mostly because I don't like teenage John Connor that much), but T2 is Ahnuld badassery at its best. The whole idea that humans managed to overcome the first terminator in T1, but the new and improved terminator in T2 requires *another Terminator* to be defeated is a great way to raise the stakes IMO.
3) The entire Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. The original movie is one of my favourite movies of all time, I've watched it so many times. But in the original Pirates movie, Jack Sparrow wasn't the main character, he was just a chaotic force making the plot go forward for the main characters just for his own benefit. The main story was about Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley's characters. But Jack Sparrow was so funny that despite him just not being main character material... the producers made him the main character of I don't even know how many of these movies exist anymore.
The worst type of sequel though is the sequel an entire fanbase yearns for but doesn't get. Where is our sequel to 2012's Dredd?
I feel like I'm in the minority of people who liked Edward Furlong's John Connor. But that might be because I was a kid when I watched it and could imagine being in his place a lot better. But he is a good, well written character, who has a fair amount of agency despite being mostly a child in distress.
There are five Pirate movies because I think they put a pause on them after Depp's and Amber's hearings. The third movie actually made me a much bigger Barbosa fan because honestly, I want the pirate captain that bravely helps power us through a storm rather than the one who would instruct us to sail through the storm before abandoning ship to save himself.
No no, it is far better to want a sequel and never get it, than get something mediocre. At least you cannot be disappointed.
@@intergalactic92 Fair point!
Matrix Reloaded goes in the bad sequel category.
@@joegill9081 I think it's alright. It's nowhere near as good as the first movie IMO but it's a fun watch
Dude, I was eating when you said Harley Gaga. I nearly choked lol. 😂😂💀
15:05 - someone else pointed that that was a hell of a punch - the guy only wakes after travel thru time, the atlantic and finally being put in bed.
Don't think about it too hard. The people who made the movie obviously didn't; at any point.
To be fair he is like 85, they probably had to restart his heart
would of been funny if instead of joker and Darth Vader the thumbnail had Palpatine and Palpatine.
some might disagree with me, but I think Bladerunner 2048 (or whichever year it is) is a good sequel. it tells a new story, answers some questions left behind by the first movie, and the Phil Decker character isn't a whimp. though it might be a bit tough to catch up what's going on without knowing the first movie. thus, it's not perfect.
One of my favourite sequals is Blade Runner 2049. I adored Blade Runner, it's my joint favourite movie of all time along with the original Ghost in the Shell. I was genuinely furious when they announced the sequal because Blade Runner didn't need a sequal at all. But I decided, as with the live action Ghost in the Shell, to go and see it and make up my own mind and I genuinely cried three times in that theatre. It's a beautiful film that builds on the themes of the original without rehashing it - it goes deeper into what the replicants are and people's relationship with them and when Dekkard is brought back, it gives him a meaningful character arc that builds on the original movie, without making usurp K as the main character of this story. I literally applauded at the end of the movie, in the theatre and if I ever get the chance I want to shake Dennis Villeneuve's hand for doing what I thought was impossible.
I would like to see a video on reboots by now. Especially why the original Mortal Kombat movie worked (it's so cheesy, but still so good) while the far less cheesy reboot feels really off. And that's not only because literal plot armor 😂
I’d add a sequel category around expanding the mythos from standalone into trilogy/franchise. The first instalment is a great movie on its own, whereas the sequel intentionally sets up further installments. There are many examples of good and bad here.
rogue one is a great sequel / prequel that checks all the boxes...
How did Highlander 2 not get a mention for the worst tone-shift sequel? It undid all the world building, all the mystery, the somber world-weariness, all the stakes of the first and somehow had worse action scenes to boot. I guess that it could go under the line of "but it doesn't exist," but it does. It's still somehow better than The Source...
3:56 I'm kinda already plotting out my series sequel... its kinda a little bit of a rehash... but somewhat undoes some of the beats of the first one... but it teaches the protagonist to hone in on his anger for the antagonist after he roughs the villain in the past... so would this make for a lazy sequel pr would it make for a good one?
The Rehash sequel reminded me of the Avatar sequel where they connect with nature, then protect nature from the same resurrected evil humans who did the same thing in the first movie.
Okay but I think an even better example of a rehash sequel would be Incredibles 2. The Supers are illegal once again. Mr. Incredible wants to do illegal superhero stuff while Helen wants to protect her family. They get approached by a corporate billionaire who offers them a chance to carry out superhero stuff and get paid for it. Instead of Mr. Incredible, we have Elastagirl do it. She discovers who the villain is and her schemes and gets captured. Mr. Incredible has to rescue her like Helen had to rescue Bob in the first film. Both get captured and the kids have to help them. So the plot structure is so similar. Even Syndrome and Screenslaver are very similar villains. What's worse is that Elastagirl does not have a significant character arc despite being the main protagonist and Bob's character arc in the first movie is kind of retconned. However, I do think Incredibles 2 is a fun thrill-ride and pretty over-hated.
With Avatar 2, there were some compelling new elements like Loak wanting his father's love and affection. Throughout the movie, this conflict gets challenged again and again. Loak fights with the Chief's Son and this angers Jake. Then he gets lost and takes the blame for himself. He bonds with the outcast creature and that further angers Jake the Chief. Finally, in the climax, Netayam's death further fuels the conflict and at last Loak uses his newfound way of the water skills to save the family with the help of Kiri of course and he finally gets his father's love and affection.
Best sequels of all time:
Empire Strikes Back
Terminator 2
Aliens
2/3 from James Cameron who actually uses similar formulas in both.
The blueprints are there and somehow filmmakers fail ever after to achieve what has already been achieved
Great video as usual. However I disagree with what you said about Goose's death. It had nothing to do with Maverick's recklessness, it was purely an accident that had nothing to do with Maverick's behavior.
Die Hard 5 is a truly abysmal sequel.
It may not be a major thing but one of the main plot changes that annoys me in movies is when the hero and love interest spend the entire movie in a will they/won't they scenario. By the end they get together after resolving all their issues and doubts. Then in the sequel they've broken up. It's usually the woman who does so which is even more annoying. Examples of this are Hellboy (2004), (HB and Liz) and Jurassic World 2, (Owen and Claire). I didn't see HB2 but in JP2 they didn't reconcile.
It's funny as soon as you said genre change done well, I immediately thought Aliens