Viewing Thread:
"Film trilogies - is the second film always the best?"

This was a brief discussion I was having last night in a semi-drunken haze so I can't remember all of the ones we came up with. I do remember that we were in agreement that there were very few (if any) occasions where we thought that the second film in a trilogy wasn't the best of the three, regardless of genre.

Star Wars? Empire Stikes Back was our fave...

Alien or Aliens? The more the merrier we say...

Beverly Hills Cop? Number 2 did it for us...

Our list went on (I think).

Even when you look at films with only one sequel it is usually the better of the two. Toy Story 2 and The Lost World both spring to mind.

I'm sure if we thought about it longer we could have proved ourselves wrong but out glasses were growing empty and the bar was calling us once again.....

Over to you guys!

I think it all comes down to personal taste. There is an even amount of evidence (in my point of view) to back up both case of affairs. Sequels are under much more pressure to be better than their predecessor and this sometimes can be their downfall. Look at Star Wars: Phantom Menace, all the hype about it being better than the other 3, then when it came out.....well you know what i mean. Anyway here are a few examples (in MY opinion remember) of films that were better or worse than their predecessor:

Better

Scream 2 was better than Scream 1 (for on it had Sarah M Gellar in it, Swing!!!)

Aliens was better than Alien (more action and killing!!!)

Austin Powers 2 The spy who Sha**ed me (more funny than the first, Yeah BABY YEAH!!!)

Star Trek First Contact was better that Star Trek Generations (i know it’s not a trilogy but they were the first two films to involve the next generation crew)

Terminator 2 was better than Terminator 1 (More Action, more gore, better effects, oster la vista baby BANG!!!)

Die Hard 2:Die Harder was better than Die Hard 1 (It’s a close shave but i think the second was better)

Worse:

Mission Impossible was far superior to Mission Impossible 2 (which was pants!)

Blair Witch Project was better than Blair Witch Project 2 (What the hell were they thinking when they made these films!?!)

Robocop 1 was better than Robocop 2 (the second was really pants!)

Jurassic Park was better than The Lost World (seen it all before and the T-Rex running around in the city was kinda.....well, pants!!!)

I know some of you will disagree but there are a few examples. The thing that really gets me is when they just make the same film over and over and over again (Police Academy, Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, etc) These films should be burned and then the director given a good kicking so he/she is unable to make anymore. Right i'm done, i'm going to lie down now with a big bag or popcorn :D

Darkreaper

Can we PLEASE kill off this thread? OK. I admit it, I was a bit more wrong than I though I was.

I can still think of more examples where the second of three films (not two or four or whatever, as some people have suggested - since when is Police Academy a trilogy?) is better than the others than not, though.

I have to disagree with the creator of this discussion.
Although many films have quality sequels they never live upto the original.

For example:

Die Hard 2 never quite hit the button and as for Karate Kid II, well the one saving grace was the final fight scene.

And, in many cases the sequel is just a re-hash of the original.

Back to the Future 2 was the best in the series.

md

Gremlins 2 was better than the first
"Now thats civilized!" classique

If they made another Ghostbusters movie, making that a trilogy, then I'd have to laugh at the title!
Ghostbuster 2 was terrible!

md

I really wish I'd called this topic 'Film trilogies - is the second film GENERALLY the best?'.

Whilst on some counts I tend to agree, I certainly couldn't generalise to the extent that ALL sequels are better. In theory at least all sequels are actually inferior to their predecessor as they represent ideas and visualisations that were for some reason not included in the original. One should draw a distinction however between those films that are follow ups and those which are part of a pre-determined sequence. For example from the very beginning George Lucas planned a progression of films in the Star Wars trilogy (now expanded to four and soon to become five) whereas in most cases a sequel is a result of the success of the original. Of course there remain the inexplicable such as the Police Academy series. How anybody considered even the original worthy of a sequel is beyond me let alone continuing with five or six more (i'm afraid i'm not totally sure how many there actually are but i know its a lot). Finally I would like to add that although this may appear to have an 'anti-sequel' message, my favourite film of all time is The Godfather PART TWO. It proves my point exactly I think, that you simply can't generalise.

Ild think its a mixed bag as you say, sometimes all the films are great like the Indiana Jones films. However sometimes the sequel is just a money fueled bore like Mission Impossible 2, or great like ToyStory2... its just luck I guess.
I thought "Batman Returns" was better than the original "Batman", although after that it went downhill, the films werent dark enough anymore.

I didn't like the Lost World that much, especially compared to the first film. Aliens was better than Alien in a blockbuster film sense, but had far less tension than the first film and far too many aliens.
Superman 2 was better than the first, but only just, 2001 was a completely different film to 2010 and I wouldn't like to decide between them. Nightmare on Elm St got increasingly worse as it went on until the last one.
I think it's a mixed bag really.