Movies that should not have had sequels.

[The Burgomaster]

How about sequels that were better than the original?

[Chadzilla]

Sequels that improve upon the source material...

The Bride of Frankenstein
The Godfather, Part II

are routinely offered up as examples of improving on the films they sequelize.

And I still say The Empire Strikes Back is the only Star Wars movie for grown-ups and well worth watching, even if you hate the first one.

Aliens is a solid piece of work.

I think those are the cream of the crop, their might be one or two oversights.

[Luke Bannon]

While I like The Evil Dead I may have to say Evil Dead 2 is superior. I know I am probably gonna get the s**t ripped out of me for saying that but I think that. I would also agree with Empire, even though I liked all of the Star Wars Trilogy. Plus many of the other Star Trek movies were better then the motion picture. Another would be Return of the Killer Tomatoes. I know that last one may be debatable depending on whether you liked the first or not. Some say, as I have documented earlier, they feel Leprechaun 3 was better then the first (not too hard if you ask me.) However I would need to sit down and think a bit before I come up with other replies.

[AndyC]

I thought the Die Hard sequels were at least as good as the original, if not better. With a Vengeance is my favourite of the three.

I think the difference might be in not making just another movie, but in having characters who can be sent on continuing adventures. That's why the Bond movies have worked for years, because they are the continuing adventures of James Bond, and not just Dr. No 2,3,4,5.......  If the movie is too plot-driven, without good characters, or the characters are just not suited for a variety of continuing adventures that are significantly different from the first (with a few similarities of course), a good sequel is not possible.

Any thoughts?

[Luke Bannon]

I agree with your opinions. That and at times if the original sucked on its own.