Open Forum Friday: Are Comic Book Sequels Always Better Than Their Predecessors?
For as long as I can remember, the general rule of thumb amongst movie fans has been that sequels are always inferior to the original, except in the case of a pre-conceived trilogy. It seems to make a bit of sense — after all, if a sequel is tacked on after the fact as a mere cash grab, there’s a good chance that the story will not flow nicely from the previous film. Plus, there is usually more money involved in the production of a sequel, and that means more emphasis on special effects and less emphasis on story. However, as of late I have noticed a different trend starting to emerge: when it comes to comic book movies, the second installment is almost always better than the original.
Hellboy II and The Dark Knight are two examples coming out within the next two weeks alone, but look at all the other movies that support this new theory: Spider-Man 2, X2: X-Men United, Blade II, and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. Granted, most of these do end up becoming trilogies, but the stories are usually pretty independent of each other. It’s also interesting to note that the third installment is usually considered the worst of the three (X-Men: The Last Stand, Spider-Man 3, Blade: Trinity). What I want to know is, why do you think comic book movies are able to produce such great sequels, while most other franchises can’t? Is it because they aren’t weighed down by the origin story? Is the theory that “all sequels suck” no longer applicable? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.
Comments (13)
I really think that comic book movies are held back by the origin story. You have to waste so much time setting up the hero (of which most people should know the origin anyway) before you get to the real story. The sequel usually starts out without any of that dead weight to hold the film down.
I can think of at least one sequel that was not better than the original though… Batman Returns. It was nowhere near as good as the first of that series of Batman flicks.
Posted by Paul on July 11th, 2008Im probably in the minority, but I liked X Men 3 and Spiderman 3. Spider man 1 was terrific and part two was even better. I love Batman Begins and think its the best of the comic book films. (Have not seen Dark Knight yet) I really liked Iron Man but I do think the sequel can be better! This may not be saying much but I actually liked the 1st Fantastic Four. It was better than the sequel.
Posted by entertainmenttodayandbeyond on July 11th, 2008Hmm, I think it’s because there is so much more story to draw from, from the original source material, that the sequel doesn’t end up sucking, because it surpasses lowered expectations it is viewed as a better film.
Posted by Matt on July 11th, 2008Although I don’t neccessarily agree that X2: X-Men United and Blade II are better than their originals.
Please could we not include The FF in this discussion…it started out badly and ended badly. If Fox is smart they’ll let this franchise die and Reinvent it in another 4-10 years.
As for why comic sequels do better…well character introductions really aren’t necessary anymore (Origins in most cases) and the creative reins and budgets tend to be a lot bigger for the sequel…which in comic movies help since the characters are really reliant on FX. Not to say character development isn’t necessary but people want action and they expect it from comic movies.
Posted by 1138 on July 11th, 2008I meant to say I liked the 1st Fantastic Four movie better than the sequel, but they should not be mentioned in the same breath as Batman and Spiderman films!
Posted by entertainmenttodayandbeyond on July 11th, 2008I do agree that all the latest comic book sequels have been better. It’s not just making it an origins story that weighs it down. I think there are more factors involved.
X-Men, for example, wasn’t an origins film. It was much more subtle film with more suspenseful and dialogue driven moments. With X2 and all the $$$ they were able to put into the movie made a fantastic action oriented film.
Several key differences between Blade and Blade 2. Blade, first of all, is THE key film in redefining the comic book film genre. People were finally saying that they could take them seriously and it was a film that did. Blade 2 was better, not only because of Del Toro’s direction, but because of the villian. Nomak is probably the only villian, more than any comic book film to date, that I actually was afraid of and he stole the show everytime he was onscreen.
But I think this trend is all coincidental because I really liked Spiderman 3 and I could care less what the critics think as a whole.
Posted by Primal on July 11th, 2008X2 was better than X-Men. Spiderman 2 and Spiderman are neck in neck in my opinion. Blade II was pretty much crap, but I liked the first one. Batman Returns was pretty bad, but I never liked the original Batman either. I dunno. Doesn’t seem like the debate falls on one side or the other as far as I’m concerned.
Posted by Rian on July 11th, 2008You’re generally right Sean. I’d say with trilogies of all genres the third one is the worst (or the one in third place). The reason why sequels to comic book movies are usually better as you said has to do with the budget and no origin story to deal with.
I feel Blade 2 and Batman Returns weren’t as good as the first and that X-Men: The Last Stand was the best but I’m otherwise agreed with that formula stretching to every comic book film I can think of…
Posted by Ryan M. on July 12th, 2008superman 2 and batman returns ruled. Then again they were REAL movies with out CGI.
Posted by Bob The Slob on July 13th, 2008Batman Returns definitely had it’s moments. Keaton kinda took a backseat as he shared screetime with 3 villians. My absolute favorite scene in the film was when Pheiffer goes crazy in her apartment and creates her suit.
Posted by Primal on July 13th, 2008To love Batman Returns (Which I Did) you have to love the world of Tim Burton, as Returns is more Burton’s world than it is Batman’s.
Posted by entertainmenttodayandbeyond on July 13th, 2008Hey Bob, are you saying that Spiderman 2 had no CGI in it? I thought at least half of every special effects shot in Spideman 2 was created with CGI.
Posted by Matt on July 14th, 2008I am newboy on http://www.filmjunk.com .Let’s gets acquainted!
Posted by agokids on October 16th, 2008Leave a Reply