Sequels that are better than the first ones.

And I second the vote for the Bond films.

How about the Benji movies?

And damn, now I'm craving a sushi dinner followed by a viewing of Lethal Weapon II.

They have a different sequence for the TV version.

Toy Story 2 seconded, as is Drunken Master II.

They better hurry up before 1984 ends. Oh.

SUPERMAN II

my man. poster of it in my bathroom.
u hear about the 'green' edition anthony? some hardcore '..2' fans are putting together a version without dick lester's scenes, extra footage they found etc.

heh he probably doesn't even come on this board anynore.

other votes:

'lethal wepaon 2' yes agreed.
'empire strikes back' obviously
'naked gun 2' also.

"Admit you love Superman II, inhabitants of planet Houston, and I will alow you to live."

Here's a graph that shows how much better or worse sequels were as compared to the original:

http://www.saasta.fi/saasta/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/sequel-map-1-4.png

I don't get the idea on this thread that Babe: Pig In The City is superior. Maybe if what you like in a movie is wacky set design and the potential for drinking games based on 'spot the background goth' it is the better movie.

After the Thin Man

I don't get the idea on this thread that Babe: Pig In The City is superior. Maybe if what you like in a movie is wacky set design and the potential for drinking games based on 'spot the background goth' it is the better movie.

― Publicidad de Sexo (Abbbottt), Sunday, April 3, 2011 1:44 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark

otm! this opinion has always bugged me. i mean, it's nice to look at, but it just doesnt have the ~*HeArT*~ of the original

I hear The Substitute 2 is even better than The Substitute!

Saw this thread and came to post Gremlins 2 only to see that was what prompted the thing to begin with. Anyway Gremlins 2 for all time. The Gremlins musical number of NY, NY at the end is a thing of beauty.

one time I was on a road trip and someone in the car spent like an hour summarizing babe: pig in the city

Okay, here's what I got!

Wrath of Khan, and actually, every subsequent film in the franchise, isn't a Star Trek film at all. Only ST: The Motion Picture really captures the sort of sixties era Sci-Fi that the original series offered, and despite its interminable masturbatory drydock sequence, is the only ST with any sense of wonder. Also the best soundtrack, by far.

Generally agree, but including Exorcist 2 is an op of the most chall variety.

I think Kael is a fan too.

Agree ST:II is Moby Dick in space, but Star Trek IV is the Star Trekkiest (and is about saving literal whales rather than hunting metaphorical ones)!

Surprised nobody mentioned Romero's 'Dawn of the Dead'

They are all star treks tho any other position is extremely silly

Alfred, why do you think Temple of Doom is superior to Raiders? I'm genuinely interested why you'd think so.
(I certainly don't think it's a bad film but I would side with the general perception that Raiders & Last Crusade are the better movies.)

Some great superhero sequels:
Captain America: The Winter Soldier; Raimi's Spider-Man 2 and X2 are three of my favourite superhero movies/movies in general.
Third Cap (Civil War) is also up there.
And I'm also quite in awe of the second Avengers (Age of Ultron) & the (more divisive) third Iron Man.

Because it's vulgar and abhorred by the PCSJW crowd?

I like Temple, and it coincides right with Spielberg's Poltergeist/Gremlins mean streak, but the only case I could make for it being better than Raiders is that it's so loud and garish it stands out as a novelty. Musical intro is peak 'Berg, though.

I've never enjoyed Godfather 2 - flashback aside, it doesn't do much more than restate the last fifteen minutes of the first movie, with slightly more depressing totality. And the Lansky analogue is boring.

Iron Man 3 is much more fun the first two, how did it get to be divisive? Is it the Kingsley stuff?

the final sequence of killings in Godfather 2 very deliberately plays on the contrast with the first movie

I mean, how? He kills people who are closer to him, sure. But it feels like Michael changes a lot less over the course of 2 than 1 - in the first movie it's surprising, in the second movie it's predictable.

I don't deny it's a sad, beautiful movie! But I always feel like shrugging at the end.

I think in the first movie the killings are almost necessary or inevitable - we believe Michael believes he is doing this to protect the family, to begin a move towards legitimacy - that he has to kill or be killed. obviously this also marks the beginning of his corruption but there is a brutal nobility about it. by the end of 2 we're in no doubt that the darkness has swallowed him up, and that none of the killings are really justifiable, they're petty, they're acts of tyrannical vengeance.

Alfred, why do you think Temple of Doom is superior to Raiders? I'm genuinely interested why you'd think so.

I don't dislike Raiders. Temple is closer to the spirit of those Saturday afternoon specials that Spielberg loved as a kid.

Also, I may be the only human being who likes Kate Capshaw's idiot, and in some way Spielberg's treatment of her is more honest than Karen Allen's spunk in ROTLA; I mean, he turns Marion into another INDYYYY-yelling willow.

*than how he treated Karen Allen's, etc

So having Kate Capshaw a screaming idiot from the start is an improvement? That's one way to look at it.

The second one is the best iirc

I've never seen any of the Problem Child films (and probably never will), but the episode of Gilbert Gottfried's podcast with the writers of those films (Scott Alexander and
Larry Karaszewski--who would go on to write Ed Wood and The People vs. Larry Flynt) has some great behinds-the-scenes stuff on how the second film in that series, in particular, came to be.

gremlins 2

yes for real even though Gremlins 1 is a classic Gremlins 2 is so good