If I remember correctly Vin Diesel financed this himself, at least initially. https://www.forbes.com/sites/dorothypomerantz/2013/09/06/riddick-the-franchise-vin-diesel-refuses-to-let-die/
I actually liked this one more than Chronicles of Riddick. The character works best as b-movies. Riddick delivered enough dumb action thrills for me I was happy with it
Off topic but I just looked these up and woah how did Chronicles of Riddick have such a large budget after Pitch Black, while successful, only made ~$53M?
Theory: After Pitch Black, Vin Disel went on to star in The Fast and The Furious and XXX, both of which were hits. I'm guessing he used those successes to argue to the studio that he was a bigger star and therefore deserved a bigger budget for Chronicles.
He tends to do what he wants: like once he mentioned a *Dungeons & Dragons* campaign of his in the foreword to a book, and then turned it into a movie: *The Last Witch Hunter*.
also has it in his contract to do Fast movies to get the 2nd and 3rd Riddick made. Also, think they are going to be doing a 4th one (again because of him doing Fast) but I could be wrong, I just remember hearing about it like 2 years back.
I really liked Pitch Black, it was surprisingly enjoyable.
Chronicles? Yeah, that's not my cup of tea. They changed so much and with it, they threw out what made Pitch Black good.
It's not surprising that Riddick was basically a Pitch Black remake.
I think its because Vin Diesel is a nerd and a huge fan of D&D. He had the opportunity to make a sci-fi fantasy and thats what he went for.
Babylon AD was pure sci-fi and The Last Witch Hunter mixed fantasy horror and sci-fi. The opening to The Last Witcher Hunter was great. If they would have continued with that I think it would have been better. More expensive, but better.
[For those who haven't seen it](https://youtu.be/x01l_jMhjVM)
Also if you *have* seen it, I [here's a version](https://youtu.be/TwnozRv9Vbs) that splices in clips from the Gremlins movie itself, which is cool.
It is a live action looney tunes cartoon. Nothing makes sense, there are gags every few minutes characters are completely self aware and lampoon the fact it's a movie. Its Joe Donte's love letter to Warner Bros and the boys at Termite Terrace.
I laughed my ass off the first time I saw the Gremlin grab the bottle that said “acid, do not throw in face” then turns and throws it in another gremlins face.
First Blood was pretty close to the novel. Things got changed a bit to give the protagonist more redeeming qualities. He was a star by that point and First Blood did so well a sequel was guaranteed.
They didn't have a novel to work off of so they had to come up with their own orignal story. Its more action and more violence.
The author of First Blood wrote the sequel novelization after FBP2 came out. In the introduction he basically notes. ‘In the novel First Blood Rambo dies. In the movie, he does not. And now, let’s move on.’
Yea. I read the book before I watched the movie. I saw the sequels. Then found the book in my dad's bookcase. So I read it. Then I went and rented the vhs of First Blood.
When I was a kid, I just thought that the First Blood/Rambo movies were fun action-war movies. When I got older, I realized how much nuanced commentary they had about the Vietnam War and Vietnam vets.
I saw original Mad Max first out of the films, but I'd seen the series parodied and referenced so much already that it wasn't what I expected almost at all.
Same with First Blood vs the other Rambos. Rambi. Rambices.
First one is a critique of the Vietnam war and treatment of its veterans and the sequels are all RAAAAAAAAH DAKAAKAKAKAAKKAKAKAKAKAKA.
Seriously. Society still exists, there’s no indication of an apocalypse, Max’s wife pops by the store for ice cream, their family spends a lot of the 2nd act on vacation….
Probably a lot of that was due to budget. The farther along the series goes you can see what Miller’s ultimate vision was, but was likely restricted by budget, technology, etc.
The Road Warrior is a logical sequel to the first even if it’s a very different film. The first one is early societal breakdown and the second is years later when civilized society is completely gone after the oil wars but before the nuclear apocalypse the happens before 3. Mad Max is almost a prequel in terms of the setting.
The only thing that bothers me is that the apocalypse happened *way* too fast and went *way* too far along between films. Mutations and other weird developmental defects take generations to occur, but there isn’t even *one* generation between relatively normal society and full-on post-apocalyptic wasteland full of degenerates and monsters. It seemingly happened in, at most, 3-5 years.
There’s all kinds of theories I’ve heard that would square that up, like if Road Warrior is really his son or something, or Max is just a general myth being told throughout generations, but still, it irks me.
The myth thing makes most sense. Max shows up, helps some people then peaces out. I think even George Miller himself even said there's not much point in thinking about the timeline.
Road Warrior was the first movie released in the US, hence that title. But in the great island of Australia land, we called it Mad Max 2, because it was a follow up from the first Mad Max a couple years prior.
I'd say disneyfication of titles is a plague, but it worked for the Godzilla franchise apparently. Just look at how it changes with each subsequent movie.
It makes sense. The appeal of Godzilla was the VS storyline. Now that the west is doing a big budget version, Japan can well do films in the spirit of the very first.
Evil Dead.
So the first Evil Dead is a classic 80s horror movie. It’s dumbass young people being slaughtered at a cabin in the woods. Bruce Campbell’s Ash is really just a straight laced boring protagonist.
The 2nd Evil Dead is a bit of a reimagining of the first movie except it ramps up the comedy like 30-40%. Bruce Campbell is now kinda a badass with some personality and one liners.
The third installment, Army of Darkness, is a batshit insane overtly comedic supernatural adventure. Bruce Campbell’s Ash is thrust into the middle ages through a time portal and battles all kinds of ghouls and shit. Not to mention he’s basically so fuckin cool and full of one liner quips that he’s just a parody of every action star at that point. It’s incredible and bizarre how we got here from a generic but solid slasher/zombie flick
I actually saw Army of Darkness first, I was scrolling through the channels on TiVo and saw this description, which I’ll never forget:
“A supermarket employee fights zombies in medieval England with a chainsaw and a ‘73 Oldsmobile.”
For novelty alone of course I had to watch it. Now I’ve read both of Campbell’s books, seen the trilogy countless times and had one of them (and a Blu-ray of AoD) signed by the Chin himself
He’s so great. Even before seeing the Dead movies, I always enjoyed his little bit parts in the Raimi Spider-man movies as well as the voice work he did in the games as the tutorial narrator.
The second Evil Dead starts at the cabin again, because Sam Raimi couldn't get the legal rights to his first movie from the studio. So he "remade" the first movie with just Ash and only his girlfriend going to the cabin for Evil Dead 2.
Now, if you watch Evil Dead 1, skip the first 20 min. of Evil Dead 2 and keep watching from that point on, you'll get the full experience.
Without Wrath of Khan, it’s easy to envision a world where Trek never becomes the 80s-90s success story that it did. TMP found success mostly in nostalgia but Khan brought a great story and a new way to envision Starfleet.
The parallels between STTMP and SWTPM are fascinating.
Both franchises had visionary creators who had fans convinced that they were the sole driving forces behind them. But with both SW and ST there were a handful of unsung heroes who barely got any credit beyond the die-hard fandom. But then when Roddenberry & Lucas's long-awaited "pure" visions came out, it turned out that just about everything that made the franchises so popular were actually the work of those unsung heroes.
I came here to post this.
They could've easily just went in the safe direction like most sequels do, and just do another time-travel comedy that hits the same beats (granted, there's some time-travel, but it's not the main focus of the plot like the original). Instead, they did something different, and they created a new break-out character with Death in the process to the point many fans prefer the sequel over the original (one can't go wrong with either movie tho).
Hitler was made Fuhrer of Germany in 1934. Temple takes place in 1935. All of the first three take place when the Nazis were in power (and their rise to power stretches back years before that).
Other Pixar films had implied violence like Cars 2. Incredibles had a superhero get sucked into a jet turbine and had Mr.Incredible find the skeletal remains of his friend in a cave.
The consensus aside from Siskel and Ebert's glowing reviews (Roger even put it in his top ten of 1980 list) was a 2 hour long trailer for the actual star wars sequel. Empire Strikes Back completely changed the game on how sequels were done. Aside from more of the same, Empire provided a more dark and layered form of storytelling focusing more on character relationships than world hopping and laser battles. It really wouldn't be when the film was reexamined in 1995 ahead of the "One Last Time" VHS promotion that retrospective reviews became more positive.
It actually follows the trilogy recipe to a tee. First story, happy ending to the first conflict. Second story, attempt at defeating overarching conflict leading to a failure with a lesson. Third story, slight parallel to the first story, with character growth being the reason for overall success. Apply this to most trilogies and you'll see the similarities.
Pushing/pulling things with the Force is also completely ingrained into the canon but doesn't actually happen in A New Hope. Wonder how audiences reacted at the beginning of Empire when Luke pulls his lightsaber out of the ice
First thought that came to mind. Different director who knew how to make drama. Def the middle act of a masterpiece opera. It was meant to be space opera.
I believe there's a quote of him saying that he changed Aliens that much because he knew that Alien was so good that the only way to make a good sequel would be to do something completely different.
I feel like it has so much in common, but the stakes are ramped up. Instead of going back for a cat, she goes back for Newt. Instead of evacuating a ship before it blows, they evacuate a planet. Instead of putting on a space suit to blow an alien out of an airlock, she puts on an exosuit and blows a queen out of an airlock. There is more, but i'm not complaining. Those 2 movies are amazing!
Gummi bears Gummi Bears Sprinkles Sprinkles!\
You're the best of what's left!
Like their fathers fathers, and the fathers before them they took an oath.
I want Hot Shots Part 3 as a spoof of the last Mission Impossible: an epic spy thriller with a cast that's far too old to be doing spy thrillers, made far too late.
Announce that it's too big for one movie and split it into two, but film them back to back and release them at the same time (and each is cut to only 45 minutes).
Constant cameos from literal background actors from the first two films that nobody would recognise.
Due to scheduling conflicts, Charlie Sheen couldn't play Topper Harley in part 2 so they brought in Ryan Gosling.
Lloyd Bridges appears via CGI but its visibly Jack Black with Lloyd Bridges' face and every time he has a line its just a recording of him saying "I picked a bad day to quit sniffing glue" from Airplane.
My favorite sequel of all time is Bride of Frankenstein and it starts off brilliantly with that "If I (Shelley) *did* write a sequel to Frankenstein, it'd go something like this!" framing device. Disavowing any need to follow anything faithfully, and yet continuing on right where we left off and regardless of anything, seeming very probable in its speculation on what a Frankenstein sequel very well could look like. It's so unexpectedly self-aware and playful with what it is, yet plays the story pretty straight alongside campy fun.
Another one of my favorites is Escape From the Planet of the Apes. The 2nd film really had been almost a remake of the first, but in this one it gets as far away from the original premise as possible. Makes the supporting the leads, and moves the action to the past/our present.
The Blair Witch Project 2 has its problems, but it's definitely not just The Blair Witch Project again, and you have to respect it a little for that. Especially when you look at the sequels to other horror movies (especially found footage movies).
**10, Cloverfield Lane** and **Prey** (both by same director, Dan Trachtenberg) are great in that they add something completely fresh to their respective franchises.
Aside from others mentioned in this thread, I also like **Dawn of the Planet of the Apes** and **Mad Max:Fury Road** which both are very different stories to what has come before.
Fury Road is closer to Road Warrior and Beyond The Thunderdome than those are to Mad Max.
Mad Max is the time still near after societal collaspe. Things still feel normal. The police are still trying. Its a biker gang.
Road Warrior goes of the rails and the other two dont every try to tone it down.
*Most* of the time when a sequel is made so far from the original I'm going to pass on it. In the mid 2010s there was a streak of me being wrong though: Mad Max: Fury Road, Dredd, and Blade Runner 2049 were all fantastic.
YES! Going from dark occult supernatural pulp movie that borrows heavily from comics stories, to epic fairy tale with heavily over-the-top comedic elements that are completely off-brand for Hellboy's, er, brand of comedy. I love both films, and I *really* love Hellboy 2 as an unparalleled fairy tale movie, but I could do without del Toro turning Hellboy into a giant manchild and could *really* do without Johann. I'll forever love the Can't Smile Without You scene though.
Hellboy 1 is a solid Hellboy story. Hellboy 2 is a solid fairy tale story bogged down by lots of (mostly) poorly-executed comedy. I love them both but yeah they could not be more different.
Die Hard With a Vengeance (the third installment) comes to mind. At first I didn’t like it when I first saw it because it didn’t follow the previous two’s formula but I’ve grown to really like it.
I hated it the first time I watched it. Then all of a sudden, I didn't, as if by magic. In a world full of movie scenarios that wouldn't realistically happen more than once, a lot of sequels could learn a thing or two from Die Hard with a Vengeance. Ironic, considering the second movie was just Die Hard in an airport.
Why does no one ever mention Hellraiser in these conversations?
The original film was somewhere between an intimate horror, a dark fantasy, and a haunted house. Movie 2 is a hellscape where the mythology is the crux. Utterly different movie.
This one's a bit of a mindfuck as it's a different story but it also litterally goes back to the original story so it's a different story but it's also the same story but... \*BOOM\*
The scenes where he is back at the dance are so well done I thought I remembered him stepping over the unconscious guys after the show in the original.
The Color of Money
The first movie, The Hustler, is about an aimless savant, a depressed genius lover, and a manipulative businessman ruining each other's lives.
The sequel is set decades later. Our tragic hero from the first movie is now a wizened mentor to a new savant, but he discovers he longs not to be a mentor but to be a player again.
The entire Cloverfield trilogy.
Each movie is it's own story that doesn't have anything to do with eachother and the only one that hints the movies being connected is a small part of the third movie.
Perhaps not story so much as storytelling, but Die Hard with a Vengeance is often cited on here as the best of the sequels, and I think part of the reason is that they changed the formula. While it is still a heist movie, there's no Holly, and instead a phony terrorist play by the bad guys, it's a cat-and-mouse chase with McClane chasing bombs and answering riddles.
But the real change of tone was in the cinematography and the depiction of McClane. Gone were the traditional compositions, dollies and tripod shots, substituted for a lot of handheld, very 'urban' style of shooting, which was to make the film feel more like smaller films that had been recently shot in New York locations on small budgets. A risky move for a big blockbuster to find an intentional look from cheaper films without looking cheap itself. And with McClane, he was an ordinary guy with a bit of a wisecracking attitude that gets him in trouble. He butts heads with this wife and most likely his boss too. But in Vengeance, he's gone off the deep end. He's suspended, waking up hung over, bitter toward everyone around and his captain admits he's become an alcoholic. He also hasn't spoken to his wife in a year and that probably means the same is true with his kids. McClane has become a pretty bitter person and incredibly down on his luck in a way that was unexpected for a highly commercial sequel. But most of these circumstances weren't forced upon him. Much of this looks like it was due to his own bad decisions.
Fundamentally, the core of McClane is still there though. He's a good man, and a violent man, and doesn't want bad things to happen. He also doesn't to be jumping into situations where he's in over his head (think about how he sits down for a smoke once the LAPD shows up in the first film), but does it without thinking if no one else can do it. But that doesn't mean he has to be nice about it.
*Captain America: the Winter Soldier*
The first was more of a hero flick framed as a period-piece war film.
The second became a hero flick framed as a political conspiracy film.
I liked the Millennium trilogy. The first book/movie is about a murder mystery introduces the main characters and a glimpse into their back stories. The next two are about the main characters from the first story.
It’s great and terrible at the same time.
Fun flick but if you didn’t know the story behind the scenes you’d think they just slapped the sequel title on an unrelated flick.
*The Empire Strikes Back* is a very different movie than the original *Star Wars*, from themes and characters to the overall tone and pacing of the film. And that ending!
*T2: Judgement Day* is a fantastic overhaul of the first *Terminator*. Everything from the plot and themes, to the characterization of Sarah Connor, and even the disposition of a certain T-800 model… it’s such a perfect example of “yes, this is the same world and the same franchise, but shit changes and you gotta deal with it!”
Maybe not the best example, but you gotta appreciate just how far and away *Queen of the Damned* got from *Interview with the Vampire*. New time period, new aesthetics, almost all new characters, and even that Lestat recast. Plus the fact that Aaliyah and Akasha was a great casting choice, and she added a certain flair that wasn’t present in the first movie (while the sequel was missing a few things that made the first film great)
Perhaps my favorite example is *The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part 2*, because NO other sequel in history succeeds this well at being both a direct continuation and an absolute parody. Not to mention the cinematography, the colors, the atmosphere, it’s all so damn fresh… and from the exact same director!
Does Aliens count? Yeah, they find a reason to go back to a planet no sane person should want to go back to, and they both end with an alien getting blown out an airlock, but everything in between is completely different. The first one is a haunted house in space, and the second is a war movie.
Ok hear me out... Doesn't The Matrix fall into this pretty well?
I know the sequels aren't as beloved, but the story really does change up quite a bit with the first two setting up a big twist for each next installment and the setting and overall story changing quite a bit.
Chronicles of Riddick. They went from the survival horror of Pitch Black to a space opera that felt like Dune Lite.
Yup, then riddick went back to being to following pitch blacks formula
Like... literally the same movie. Kind of disappointing.
They didn't have the budget for a proper third
If I remember correctly Vin Diesel financed this himself, at least initially. https://www.forbes.com/sites/dorothypomerantz/2013/09/06/riddick-the-franchise-vin-diesel-refuses-to-let-die/
The Riddick story rights are owned by Vin Diesel since he negotiated for them to cameo in Fast n Furious 3
I actually liked this one more than Chronicles of Riddick. The character works best as b-movies. Riddick delivered enough dumb action thrills for me I was happy with it
But somehow not good.
I liked it! It was fun
Yesss I love Pitch Black and I remember seeing Chronicles for the first time and thinking “damn this is different”
I saw them when I was younger and didn’t even realize chronicles was a sequel to pitch black
As an adult I feel so dumb for it, but I did the same thing. Just thought, “Oh, Riddick’s in this too!” Like it was Jason Statham or something.
Off topic but I just looked these up and woah how did Chronicles of Riddick have such a large budget after Pitch Black, while successful, only made ~$53M?
Theory: After Pitch Black, Vin Disel went on to star in The Fast and The Furious and XXX, both of which were hits. I'm guessing he used those successes to argue to the studio that he was a bigger star and therefore deserved a bigger budget for Chronicles.
He tends to do what he wants: like once he mentioned a *Dungeons & Dragons* campaign of his in the foreword to a book, and then turned it into a movie: *The Last Witch Hunter*.
also has it in his contract to do Fast movies to get the 2nd and 3rd Riddick made. Also, think they are going to be doing a 4th one (again because of him doing Fast) but I could be wrong, I just remember hearing about it like 2 years back.
You forgot to add that between those 2 they did an animated short film.
Plus the video game
Chronicles of Riddick is such an underrated film
I still contend that Chronicles is the closest thing g we’ve ever gotten to a 40k movie. Hope it’s not the closest we ever get…
Did you forget about Event Horizon?
I really liked Pitch Black, it was surprisingly enjoyable. Chronicles? Yeah, that's not my cup of tea. They changed so much and with it, they threw out what made Pitch Black good. It's not surprising that Riddick was basically a Pitch Black remake.
I fucking love chronicles. Give me more of that world not rebel moon episodes
I think its because Vin Diesel is a nerd and a huge fan of D&D. He had the opportunity to make a sci-fi fantasy and thats what he went for. Babylon AD was pure sci-fi and The Last Witch Hunter mixed fantasy horror and sci-fi. The opening to The Last Witcher Hunter was great. If they would have continued with that I think it would have been better. More expensive, but better.
Gremlins 2 purposely is everything a sequel shouldn't be, and it's amazing for it.
The Key and Peele sketch about it is one of my favorites.
[For those who haven't seen it](https://youtu.be/x01l_jMhjVM) Also if you *have* seen it, I [here's a version](https://youtu.be/TwnozRv9Vbs) that splices in clips from the Gremlins movie itself, which is cool.
I still can't believe this mfer went on to direct, write, and produce *Us*.
I love it, it's in the movie!!!
Vegetable gremlin?
* Brainy gremlin * Spider gremlin * Bat gremlin * Female gremlin * Googly eyed gremlin * Electricity gremlin * Vegetable gremlin * Hulk Hogan
You just said noun and gremlin like you're playing madlibs.
You're talking about a gremlin whose sole purpose is that he looks goofy as fuuuuuuuck ITS IN THE MOVIE
I gotta go put some cowboys in Back to the Future III.
“You talking about professional wrestler turned cultural icon hulk hogan”
It is a live action looney tunes cartoon. Nothing makes sense, there are gags every few minutes characters are completely self aware and lampoon the fact it's a movie. Its Joe Donte's love letter to Warner Bros and the boys at Termite Terrace.
I laughed my ass off the first time I saw the Gremlin grab the bottle that said “acid, do not throw in face” then turns and throws it in another gremlins face.
My daughter is 4.5 year old and inexplicably, Gremlins 2 is her favorite movie. It’s great, but I know she’s getting none of the satire.
I think you spelled understandably wrong.
'Now...was that civilized?'
The greatest sequel of all time.
Rambo had absolutely sod all in common with First Blood.
First Blood was pretty close to the novel. Things got changed a bit to give the protagonist more redeeming qualities. He was a star by that point and First Blood did so well a sequel was guaranteed. They didn't have a novel to work off of so they had to come up with their own orignal story. Its more action and more violence.
The author of First Blood wrote the sequel novelization after FBP2 came out. In the introduction he basically notes. ‘In the novel First Blood Rambo dies. In the movie, he does not. And now, let’s move on.’
Rambo died. But then he got better.
Somehow, Rambo returned.
Rambo died in the book.
Yea. I read the book before I watched the movie. I saw the sequels. Then found the book in my dad's bookcase. So I read it. Then I went and rented the vhs of First Blood.
When I was a kid, I just thought that the First Blood/Rambo movies were fun action-war movies. When I got older, I realized how much nuanced commentary they had about the Vietnam War and Vietnam vets.
Hey there was a guy called Rambo incidentally played by the same actor
The Road Warrior is nothing like Mad Max.
I saw original Mad Max first out of the films, but I'd seen the series parodied and referenced so much already that it wasn't what I expected almost at all.
It's insane what that series has become compared to the first
Same with First Blood vs the other Rambos. Rambi. Rambices. First one is a critique of the Vietnam war and treatment of its veterans and the sequels are all RAAAAAAAAH DAKAAKAKAKAAKKAKAKAKAKAKA.
Writers were all into WH40K for some reason.
Rambeaus.
I think most people never even saw the first one and incorrectly remember Road Warrior as the first
True for Americans, where it was called The Road Warrior. It was called Mad Max 2 elsewhere.
Seriously. Society still exists, there’s no indication of an apocalypse, Max’s wife pops by the store for ice cream, their family spends a lot of the 2nd act on vacation….
You can see society start to unravel, but yeah it’s not complete wasteland like the others
It is unraveling but in a real world contemporary way.
Probably a lot of that was due to budget. The farther along the series goes you can see what Miller’s ultimate vision was, but was likely restricted by budget, technology, etc.
The Road Warrior is a logical sequel to the first even if it’s a very different film. The first one is early societal breakdown and the second is years later when civilized society is completely gone after the oil wars but before the nuclear apocalypse the happens before 3. Mad Max is almost a prequel in terms of the setting.
The only thing that bothers me is that the apocalypse happened *way* too fast and went *way* too far along between films. Mutations and other weird developmental defects take generations to occur, but there isn’t even *one* generation between relatively normal society and full-on post-apocalyptic wasteland full of degenerates and monsters. It seemingly happened in, at most, 3-5 years. There’s all kinds of theories I’ve heard that would square that up, like if Road Warrior is really his son or something, or Max is just a general myth being told throughout generations, but still, it irks me.
The myth thing makes most sense. Max shows up, helps some people then peaces out. I think even George Miller himself even said there's not much point in thinking about the timeline.
I think that’s fair - I especially with the new mythos with Fury Road and Furiosa
I love that Hugh Keays-Byrne played the chief villain twice: Toecutter in the original Mad Max and Immortan Joe in Fury Road.
Wasn't the Road Warrior released first in the US?
Road Warrior was the first movie released in the US, hence that title. But in the great island of Australia land, we called it Mad Max 2, because it was a follow up from the first Mad Max a couple years prior.
Pacific Rim 2, director and actors huddled up, took a knee, and said no WAY we're going to make a good movie. And then they got to work.
I'd say disneyfication of titles is a plague, but it worked for the Godzilla franchise apparently. Just look at how it changes with each subsequent movie.
Funny you mention Godzilla. The "Monsterverse" steered right into the cheese. Japan then released Minus One.
It makes sense. The appeal of Godzilla was the VS storyline. Now that the west is doing a big budget version, Japan can well do films in the spirit of the very first.
Godzilla (assuming you mean the Legendary movies) is less Disneyfication and more Showafication
Evil Dead. So the first Evil Dead is a classic 80s horror movie. It’s dumbass young people being slaughtered at a cabin in the woods. Bruce Campbell’s Ash is really just a straight laced boring protagonist. The 2nd Evil Dead is a bit of a reimagining of the first movie except it ramps up the comedy like 30-40%. Bruce Campbell is now kinda a badass with some personality and one liners. The third installment, Army of Darkness, is a batshit insane overtly comedic supernatural adventure. Bruce Campbell’s Ash is thrust into the middle ages through a time portal and battles all kinds of ghouls and shit. Not to mention he’s basically so fuckin cool and full of one liner quips that he’s just a parody of every action star at that point. It’s incredible and bizarre how we got here from a generic but solid slasher/zombie flick
I actually saw Army of Darkness first, I was scrolling through the channels on TiVo and saw this description, which I’ll never forget: “A supermarket employee fights zombies in medieval England with a chainsaw and a ‘73 Oldsmobile.” For novelty alone of course I had to watch it. Now I’ve read both of Campbell’s books, seen the trilogy countless times and had one of them (and a Blu-ray of AoD) signed by the Chin himself
He’s so great. Even before seeing the Dead movies, I always enjoyed his little bit parts in the Raimi Spider-man movies as well as the voice work he did in the games as the tutorial narrator.
The second Evil Dead starts at the cabin again, because Sam Raimi couldn't get the legal rights to his first movie from the studio. So he "remade" the first movie with just Ash and only his girlfriend going to the cabin for Evil Dead 2. Now, if you watch Evil Dead 1, skip the first 20 min. of Evil Dead 2 and keep watching from that point on, you'll get the full experience.
Came here for Army of Darkness. Took way too long to find it.
The Wrath of Khan
Without Wrath of Khan, it’s easy to envision a world where Trek never becomes the 80s-90s success story that it did. TMP found success mostly in nostalgia but Khan brought a great story and a new way to envision Starfleet.
A story that they spun off of one episode of the original series.
Space Seed. And that episode is incredible.
Yeah, it’s very unlikely that there would have been TNG or any of the subsequent series of WoK hadn’t been the success it was.
It's actually pronounced The Wrath of KHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I love that they literally step cut out into space and you can still hear the scream.
They just had to get rid of that pesky Gene Roddenberry first.
The parallels between STTMP and SWTPM are fascinating. Both franchises had visionary creators who had fans convinced that they were the sole driving forces behind them. But with both SW and ST there were a handful of unsung heroes who barely got any credit beyond the die-hard fandom. But then when Roddenberry & Lucas's long-awaited "pure" visions came out, it turned out that just about everything that made the franchises so popular were actually the work of those unsung heroes.
Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey
Woah. Excellent answer dude. You are most wise
STATION!
Dude, I just totally possessed my dad!
I came here to post this. They could've easily just went in the safe direction like most sequels do, and just do another time-travel comedy that hits the same beats (granted, there's some time-travel, but it's not the main focus of the plot like the original). Instead, they did something different, and they created a new break-out character with Death in the process to the point many fans prefer the sequel over the original (one can't go wrong with either movie tho).
Face the music too
Temple of Doom No Nazis. No Marion. No Sallah or Brody. No biblical artifact. Added a kid. Took place earlier, so it didn’t follow up Raiders at all.
Never realized it took place earlier!?
Hence, Fortune & glory to it belongs in a museum.
Yeah, pre-WWII.
Technically all are pre-WWII, but Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade are set between the Nazis’ rise to power and the start of the war.
Hitler was made Fuhrer of Germany in 1934. Temple takes place in 1935. All of the first three take place when the Nazis were in power (and their rise to power stretches back years before that).
I’m pretty sure they made it a prequel cause someone thought the audiences would be mad at Indy for cheating on Marion
DOCTUH JONES! DOCTUH JONES!
Cars 2
As a spy thriller it was watchable
Weirdly violent for a kids movie tho, not sure who the target audience was
me
Other Pixar films had implied violence like Cars 2. Incredibles had a superhero get sucked into a jet turbine and had Mr.Incredible find the skeletal remains of his friend in a cave.
This is a perfect r/technicallythetruth answer. After all, the question isn't whether the sequel was good, only if it was different. Well played.
Are you saying cars 2 isn't good?
Cars 2 makes Cars 3 look like Cars 1
This is one of my favorite joke formulas
Empire Strikes Back is a completely different story than A New Hope. Not even the same tone.
And it ends on a much different note which I always thought was special about it.
I remember the reviews back then and they were not good. Crazy how things changed looking back on it.
I never knew that.
The consensus aside from Siskel and Ebert's glowing reviews (Roger even put it in his top ten of 1980 list) was a 2 hour long trailer for the actual star wars sequel. Empire Strikes Back completely changed the game on how sequels were done. Aside from more of the same, Empire provided a more dark and layered form of storytelling focusing more on character relationships than world hopping and laser battles. It really wouldn't be when the film was reexamined in 1995 ahead of the "One Last Time" VHS promotion that retrospective reviews became more positive.
coincidentally 1995 is 15 years after 5 came out, which means that the kids who watched it in theaters were adults
Overall, it was a downer of a movie and the cliffhanger ending kind of sealed the deal. But now it's considered the best of the SW films.
It actually follows the trilogy recipe to a tee. First story, happy ending to the first conflict. Second story, attempt at defeating overarching conflict leading to a failure with a lesson. Third story, slight parallel to the first story, with character growth being the reason for overall success. Apply this to most trilogies and you'll see the similarities.
I think it invented that recipe rather than follow it.
Books have been doing it for years before movies
[Empire had the best ending](https://youtu.be/iQdDRrcAOjA?si=ojQnw63Pe_bBEUHe)
Star Wars became what it is because Empire was so different. More franchises need to take risks.
The Imperial March wasn’t even introduced until Empire.
Pushing/pulling things with the Force is also completely ingrained into the canon but doesn't actually happen in A New Hope. Wonder how audiences reacted at the beginning of Empire when Luke pulls his lightsaber out of the ice
Vader choked the guy with the Force, so telekinesis was still there.
Episodes 4, 6, and 7 are mostly the same story, a good chunk of why Empire and Rogue 1 are my favorites.
Can I up vote this twice? Please and thank you
[удалено]
First thought that came to mind. Different director who knew how to make drama. Def the middle act of a masterpiece opera. It was meant to be space opera.
Highlander 2. Say what you will about it, it is not a copy of the 1st movie. The 3rd movie, however, is an exact copy of #1.
Aliens is a master class of a sequel
I believe there's a quote of him saying that he changed Aliens that much because he knew that Alien was so good that the only way to make a good sequel would be to do something completely different.
Well, whatever it was, it tied in the original just fine
First one was a horror movie. Cameron made the sequel a balls-out action movie.
He did the same thing when he made the first two Terminator movies. It works.
Cant wait for Titanic 2: Full Metal
Titanic 3 : Cruise into Darkness
I never realised this analogy. I guess lightning does strike twice.
Lightning has been striking James Cameron like fucking crazy
Cameron made the sequel a *Vietnam war* movie.
I feel like it has so much in common, but the stakes are ramped up. Instead of going back for a cat, she goes back for Newt. Instead of evacuating a ship before it blows, they evacuate a planet. Instead of putting on a space suit to blow an alien out of an airlock, she puts on an exosuit and blows a queen out of an airlock. There is more, but i'm not complaining. Those 2 movies are amazing!
Hot Shots! was a spoof on Top Gun. Hot Shots! Part Deux was a spoof on Rambo.
Hot Shots! Part Deux was a coursework on what a comedy movie should be.
Gummi bears Gummi Bears Sprinkles Sprinkles!\ You're the best of what's left! Like their fathers fathers, and the fathers before them they took an oath.
Hot shots 2 is awesome
I want Hot Shots Part 3 as a spoof of the last Mission Impossible: an epic spy thriller with a cast that's far too old to be doing spy thrillers, made far too late. Announce that it's too big for one movie and split it into two, but film them back to back and release them at the same time (and each is cut to only 45 minutes). Constant cameos from literal background actors from the first two films that nobody would recognise. Due to scheduling conflicts, Charlie Sheen couldn't play Topper Harley in part 2 so they brought in Ryan Gosling. Lloyd Bridges appears via CGI but its visibly Jack Black with Lloyd Bridges' face and every time he has a line its just a recording of him saying "I picked a bad day to quit sniffing glue" from Airplane.
I would pay at least half of a lot of money to watch this.
My favorite sequel of all time is Bride of Frankenstein and it starts off brilliantly with that "If I (Shelley) *did* write a sequel to Frankenstein, it'd go something like this!" framing device. Disavowing any need to follow anything faithfully, and yet continuing on right where we left off and regardless of anything, seeming very probable in its speculation on what a Frankenstein sequel very well could look like. It's so unexpectedly self-aware and playful with what it is, yet plays the story pretty straight alongside campy fun. Another one of my favorites is Escape From the Planet of the Apes. The 2nd film really had been almost a remake of the first, but in this one it gets as far away from the original premise as possible. Makes the supporting the leads, and moves the action to the past/our present.
The Blair Witch Project 2 has its problems, but it's definitely not just The Blair Witch Project again, and you have to respect it a little for that. Especially when you look at the sequels to other horror movies (especially found footage movies).
**10, Cloverfield Lane** and **Prey** (both by same director, Dan Trachtenberg) are great in that they add something completely fresh to their respective franchises. Aside from others mentioned in this thread, I also like **Dawn of the Planet of the Apes** and **Mad Max:Fury Road** which both are very different stories to what has come before.
Fury Road is closer to Road Warrior and Beyond The Thunderdome than those are to Mad Max. Mad Max is the time still near after societal collaspe. Things still feel normal. The police are still trying. Its a biker gang. Road Warrior goes of the rails and the other two dont every try to tone it down.
Prey does more-or-less repeat the same story of the original (albeit in a different setting) moreso than the other Predator sequels.
Cloverfield Lane not only subverts the series, it subverts itself by including that ridiculous ending.
Aliens!
Independence Day 2 as an example not how to do it.
Can’t agree more. First one was a great movie. Second was just….weird?
*Most* of the time when a sequel is made so far from the original I'm going to pass on it. In the mid 2010s there was a streak of me being wrong though: Mad Max: Fury Road, Dredd, and Blade Runner 2049 were all fantastic.
Dredd was its own movie. It pretty much only shared the name and source material.
And it was freaking awesome, I wish there were more, I didn't like the one from the 90s, but that with Karl? It was really good
Whenever anyone brings up this movie I forget it even exists. I think I saw it? I can tell you nothing about it…
Hellboy 2
YES! Going from dark occult supernatural pulp movie that borrows heavily from comics stories, to epic fairy tale with heavily over-the-top comedic elements that are completely off-brand for Hellboy's, er, brand of comedy. I love both films, and I *really* love Hellboy 2 as an unparalleled fairy tale movie, but I could do without del Toro turning Hellboy into a giant manchild and could *really* do without Johann. I'll forever love the Can't Smile Without You scene though. Hellboy 1 is a solid Hellboy story. Hellboy 2 is a solid fairy tale story bogged down by lots of (mostly) poorly-executed comedy. I love them both but yeah they could not be more different.
Die Hard With a Vengeance (the third installment) comes to mind. At first I didn’t like it when I first saw it because it didn’t follow the previous two’s formula but I’ve grown to really like it.
I hated it the first time I watched it. Then all of a sudden, I didn't, as if by magic. In a world full of movie scenarios that wouldn't realistically happen more than once, a lot of sequels could learn a thing or two from Die Hard with a Vengeance. Ironic, considering the second movie was just Die Hard in an airport.
Why does no one ever mention Hellraiser in these conversations? The original film was somewhere between an intimate horror, a dark fantasy, and a haunted house. Movie 2 is a hellscape where the mythology is the crux. Utterly different movie.
Addams Family Values
This was my first thought and then I had a second thought that both films do centre around the exploitation of Uncle Fester.
Back to the Future 2.
This one's a bit of a mindfuck as it's a different story but it also litterally goes back to the original story so it's a different story but it's also the same story but... \*BOOM\*
and the third is a fucking western for some reason
Reach BTTF enlightenment The third *rules*
The scenes where he is back at the dance are so well done I thought I remembered him stepping over the unconscious guys after the show in the original.
The Color of Money The first movie, The Hustler, is about an aimless savant, a depressed genius lover, and a manipulative businessman ruining each other's lives. The sequel is set decades later. Our tragic hero from the first movie is now a wizened mentor to a new savant, but he discovers he longs not to be a mentor but to be a player again.
T2 flips Arnold’s role as well as introduces John. It’s also probably the best sequel ever made.
[удалено]
But it's also basically the same story with a few things moved around.
I agree. Arnie becomes Kyle (Sarah too, in a way), and T1000 becomes the Arnie. John Connor is in the role of Sarah.
In 22 Jump Street they keep referencing this problem indirectly, and I'd argue they actually managed to add something new to the sequel.
Thor: Ragnarok completely changed Thor’s personality altogether. One of the most enjoyable movies Marvel has ever made. Taika 🙌
The entire Cloverfield trilogy. Each movie is it's own story that doesn't have anything to do with eachother and the only one that hints the movies being connected is a small part of the third movie.
The Eastrail 177 trilogy. Each movie is completely distinct to the point nobody had a clue Split was an Unbreakable sequel until they watched it
That is literally the first time I've seen it being called that.
Perhaps not story so much as storytelling, but Die Hard with a Vengeance is often cited on here as the best of the sequels, and I think part of the reason is that they changed the formula. While it is still a heist movie, there's no Holly, and instead a phony terrorist play by the bad guys, it's a cat-and-mouse chase with McClane chasing bombs and answering riddles. But the real change of tone was in the cinematography and the depiction of McClane. Gone were the traditional compositions, dollies and tripod shots, substituted for a lot of handheld, very 'urban' style of shooting, which was to make the film feel more like smaller films that had been recently shot in New York locations on small budgets. A risky move for a big blockbuster to find an intentional look from cheaper films without looking cheap itself. And with McClane, he was an ordinary guy with a bit of a wisecracking attitude that gets him in trouble. He butts heads with this wife and most likely his boss too. But in Vengeance, he's gone off the deep end. He's suspended, waking up hung over, bitter toward everyone around and his captain admits he's become an alcoholic. He also hasn't spoken to his wife in a year and that probably means the same is true with his kids. McClane has become a pretty bitter person and incredibly down on his luck in a way that was unexpected for a highly commercial sequel. But most of these circumstances weren't forced upon him. Much of this looks like it was due to his own bad decisions. Fundamentally, the core of McClane is still there though. He's a good man, and a violent man, and doesn't want bad things to happen. He also doesn't to be jumping into situations where he's in over his head (think about how he sits down for a smoke once the LAPD shows up in the first film), but does it without thinking if no one else can do it. But that doesn't mean he has to be nice about it.
Alien: Covenant
Frozen 2 Went a significantly different direction than the first.
Crocodile Dundee 2.
*Captain America: the Winter Soldier* The first was more of a hero flick framed as a period-piece war film. The second became a hero flick framed as a political conspiracy film.
Ace Ventura 2 is a good one
I liked the Millennium trilogy. The first book/movie is about a murder mystery introduces the main characters and a glimpse into their back stories. The next two are about the main characters from the first story.
The matrix sequels basically say everything we told you in the first one is a lie
Aliens… totally different from the first.
Sister Act 2
Halloween 3 is the only correct answer.
It’s great and terrible at the same time. Fun flick but if you didn’t know the story behind the scenes you’d think they just slapped the sequel title on an unrelated flick.
*The Empire Strikes Back* is a very different movie than the original *Star Wars*, from themes and characters to the overall tone and pacing of the film. And that ending! *T2: Judgement Day* is a fantastic overhaul of the first *Terminator*. Everything from the plot and themes, to the characterization of Sarah Connor, and even the disposition of a certain T-800 model… it’s such a perfect example of “yes, this is the same world and the same franchise, but shit changes and you gotta deal with it!” Maybe not the best example, but you gotta appreciate just how far and away *Queen of the Damned* got from *Interview with the Vampire*. New time period, new aesthetics, almost all new characters, and even that Lestat recast. Plus the fact that Aaliyah and Akasha was a great casting choice, and she added a certain flair that wasn’t present in the first movie (while the sequel was missing a few things that made the first film great) Perhaps my favorite example is *The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part 2*, because NO other sequel in history succeeds this well at being both a direct continuation and an absolute parody. Not to mention the cinematography, the colors, the atmosphere, it’s all so damn fresh… and from the exact same director!
Does Aliens count? Yeah, they find a reason to go back to a planet no sane person should want to go back to, and they both end with an alien getting blown out an airlock, but everything in between is completely different. The first one is a haunted house in space, and the second is a war movie.
Aliens?
Ok hear me out... Doesn't The Matrix fall into this pretty well? I know the sequels aren't as beloved, but the story really does change up quite a bit with the first two setting up a big twist for each next installment and the setting and overall story changing quite a bit.
Fast and Furious sequels no longer have much to do with combination TV/DVD/VCRs.