So Bad It's Even More Horrible
launched as Sequelitis Discussion
: From YKTTW
: Being pedantic again, I know, but can we decide whether probabilities are given in percentage or decimal format? Increasing from fifty to one just looks wrong!
: As long as we're consistent on a given page, I don't think we need a full-on standard (and making one just reeks of needless rules-lawyering). Oh, and I edited this page to make it internally consistent.
: Most of the series listed as "exceptions" aren't really, because they're straightforward examples of the bit about "even if the first sequel is all right, the second one will probably be terrible".
: Changed the Highlander
example back to my original entry, "There should have been only one!" for two reasons: 1, because it's a nice witty turn of the series' tagline, and the replacement was rather blah and generic, and 2, because that particular phrase seems to turn up again and again
whenever the Highlander
sequels are discussed.
: I realize it's a minor note in the theme of the entry, but I was under the impression Superman II
was generally considered superior to Superman
. And that's even with the director change, let alone without it.
Yes, it's minor, as I said, because III and IV are firmly on the "what the hell?" list. But I'm curious—is there consensus that Superman
is better than Superman II
Likewise—do we need references to X-Men 2 and Spider-Man 2 in the counter-examples section, given the entry for Marvel movies in the examples?
: There's gotta be some law there can't be any consensus on quality of a work of fiction... I think you got it right in the beginning: it's a minor note. Superman
and Superman II
were not so widely apart that you'll get people to agree one was clearly better than the other — some people definitely liked II better because, hey, Kryptonian supervillains
and Clark and Lois getting together
? Win! I (and others, presumably) liked that but was put off by the wonky bits in the end
, including the Ret Con
of aforementioned relationship. All in all, it's too close to definitely call. From a narrative point of view, Superman
was the more well-defined of the two (despite the time travel plot hole at the end
), but that's not saying much.
: I don't know about any consensus, but most of the people I know agree that Superman
was better than Superman II
, mostly based on little things about II that were wrong, like Supes' cellophane S of doom. Plus, Wizard gave the first a higher rank than the second in their list of 50 greatest comic book movies of all time, so there you go. Frankly, there never really is consensus on fiction — I myself thought Batman Returns
was better than the original Batman
until I rewatched both a couple of years ago. And, though I think it could have been better, I don't completely Dis Continuity Star Trek V
because it did have some interesting ideas behind it. Art is in the eye of the beholder, and in any discussion of "cool" and "suck", there are going to be two points of view: the wrong one, and mine. :p
: I've seen Superman on "Greatest Movies of All Time" lists and I haven't seen Superman II on them.
: Does Pirates count? IIRC, the second and third movies were made at the same time.
"A few years later they produced Cars, which doesn't exist"
: Umm, what?
: Apparently it wasn't received well by Pixar fans? It's the first time I'd heard of that, though... (I thought it was good, myself.)
: Yeah, I liked Cars
: From what I heard, Cars was
very well received....
: Well, Cars
wasn't bad by any means; it just felt a step down from Pixar's earlier works which were all great. Cars
seemed to be lacking something that would push it from good to great (it felt a bit generic). Pixar's raised the bar so high that some
disappointment is inevitable sooner or later. But it's not really Sequelitis.
: This is a ridiculously subjective entry. >>
: About the Marvel sequels, I'm sure this is a very unorthodox opinion, but God made everything about me unorthodox: I loved the first Spider-man movie, liked the second but not as much, and I think the third is the best of all, one of my favorite movies ever. I also loved both of the Fantastic 4 films.
: Something bugs me about this entry:
- Most superhero film franchises follow the same formula: the first film introduces the characters and usually goes through the origin story. The second film is very good and is considered by some to be better than the original. The third film makes you wonder why they didn't stop at two. Then the fourth film is so bad it makes the third film look like Citizen Kane. Then the series is dead for several years until another sequel is made with massive Ret Con (sometimes to the point of Reboot). However, Batman and Superman are the only two to make it past the third (though a Spider Man 4 has been greenlit.).
If only two series have even gone on long enough to follow the pattern, why's it say "most superhero film franchises"? Hell, I think Batman, Superman, and Spider Man are the only ones who've had more than two movies at all.
: Well, there is also X-Men for going past two (Discontinuity
notwithstanding), but I do agree that they are trying to show a pattern when the sample pool is just too shallow. But then, I am merely a troper, not an admin.
: I removed the poster of Indy 4 from the page. no justification in the examples section, and it comes off as thinly veiled Complaining about Movies you don't Like
: Removed the Sim City
Societies example, because it was only one most recent game in the series, it was a spinoff title, the changes resulted from a different developer more than sequelitis, and overall it doesn't mingle with the appraisal of the main series stated in the section.
Redstar: I tend to see the Sequelitis tag all over, even if there was only one sequel and it was quite good. Should a distinction be made in that there's more than one sequel, or the second one is direct-to-video?