There is a reason most sequels suck -- they stick too closely to the design of the original. Some of the well-known counter-examples, where #2 was as good as the #1 weren't true sequels. Superman #1 & #2, Godfather #1 & #2, were written at the same time, and filmed at the same time, with the same cast, crew and director. The Charlton Heston 3 Musketeers/4 Musketeers was originally to be a single film -- but there was sufficient excellent footage to make two films.
Alien and Aliens provide a different kind of counter-example. Cameron switched genres. I wished they'd switched genres for the subsequent films.
Sequels that don't try to be too much like the originals are better risks.
Poltergeist three was one of the worst films I have ever seen -- so awful it was actually interesting to watch. The little girl, the little medium lady, and the creepy ghost preacher are the only returning characters. It looked like it cost about a small fraction of the original.
The rule of thumb used to be that a sequel might earn about 2/3 what the original earned. So, if you wanted to make money, you should only budget a fraction as much making it. And the threequel would earn a fraction of the sequel, so its budget should be a fraction of the sequels.
Highlander 2 is another interesting disaster. They ran out of money. But some of the locations were already booked. So they stretched out those scenes. The dreadfully long subway hijacking, and the dreadfully long scene where Sean Connery buys a new suit of clothes were filmed when the location had already been booked.
reply
share