Tropes Media Browse Indexes Forums Videos Ask The Tropers Trope Finder Media Finder Trope Launch Pad Tech Wishlist Reviews Tools
Cut List New Edits Edit Reasons Launches Images List Crowner Activity Un-typed Pages Recent Page Type Changes Changelog
Tips
Creating New Redirects Cross Wicking Tips for Editing Text Formatting Rules Glossary Edit Reasons Handling Spoilers Word Cruft Administrivia FAQ
Tropes HQ
About Us Contact Us Advertise DMCA Notice Privacy Policy Report Bug
Go Ad-Free Changelog
  • Show Spoilers
  • Night Vision
  • Sticky Header
  • Highlight Links
 

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Contested Sequel / Live-Action Films

Go To

  • This shows up a lot in the Alien series:
    • Alien³, is a contested sequel... if anything because it was an attempt to bring the film series back to the claustrophobic monster-in-the-closet tone of the original film after Aliens' thrill ride. Aliens fans dislike it because they feel it undid the ending of the second film, where Ripley ends up with a makeshift family of her own after saving them from the hordes of aliens. By the start of Alien 3, everyone from Aliens is dead but Ripley (bringing her right back to exactly where she was at the end of the first movie emotionally)... including the young child that Ripley saved after the girl's family was killed. It still has its fans, and fans who prefer the original movie over the first sequel are much more forgiving as well. There is also a fandom belief that the studio made the wrong film due to Executive Meddling. There are a number of alternate scripts and rewrites in existence (including one by William Gibson) which offer completely different scenarios.
    • Alien: Resurrection could be seen as contested as well - there are positive reviews for it on IMDb, hardcore Whedonites, of course, won't say anything bad about it as a matter of principle, and no less a figure than James Rolfe has praised it for "succeeding at being entertaining trash after Alien 3 failed at being high art," but overall reaction was decidedly more negative even compared to Alien 3.
    • Fans are divided in regards to Prometheus. Some admire the film for its efforts to break off the formula established in the previous films by downplaying the Xenomorph attacks and instead bring something new by focusing on different aspect of the same universe, while others are critical of the fact that Xenomorph attacks are minimal at best and that the connections to Alien are incredibly small plot-wise note .
    • Next up is Alien: Covenant, which gained both favor and disfavor from fans of both the original films and Prometheus. To some, it has a plot full of thoughtless character decisions and unimpressively retreads familiar territory from the first films. To others, it's a frightening, atmospheric meditation on the nature of creation and the failures and costs of human ambition.
  • Babe is a very well received film from both critics and the general audience and was well liked due to its lighthearted plot and charming farm setting. the sequel, on the other hand, is much darker, including images of a dog being drowned in a lake, and a clown having a heart attack and dying. To some, it's a terrible film that simply doesn't do the original justice because of how dark it is and because it takes Babe off the familiar farm setting. To others, it's a brilliant follow up to an already great film, and some people (including both Siskel & Ebert) thought it was even better than the original.
  • Back to the Future is widely beloved, but there's a massive divide regarding preferring Back to the Future Part II (an overly complicated story dragged down by being too sci-fi, or a darker, more epic and adventurous plot with brisk pacing?) or Part III (is the fact that it's primarily a Western good or bad?).
  • Batman:
    • While Batman Returns did better critically than the first Tim Burton Batman movie, it was far more controversial and popular opinion is, to quote Batman himself, "split right down the middle". The most common criticism was that the film was overly grotesque and freakish for a Batman film, feeling more like a "Tim Burton film"; it was often disliked among comic book fans for making the Penguin The Grotesque instead of a Gentleman Thief; others argued that the change made the character more relatable, and it's noteworthy that Batman: The Animated Series attempted to glue the base back together by combining the two characterizations in their Penguin. Another controversial aspect is Batman's total willingness to kill; one controversial scene features Batman smirking at a circus strongman before blowing him up with a stick of dynamite. Still another criticism was similar to that of the first movie: the villains, all 3 of them, overshadowed Bruce Wayne/Batman to the point that he may as well not have made an appearance. On the other hand, those who consider the film an Even Better Sequel usually see it as a purer interpretation of the Batman mythos by Tim Burton (the first film had some inconsistencies in tone due to Executive Meddling) and an insightful study of the dangers of commercialism and alienation. Burton in one interview even said he had some people approaching him telling him that Batman Returns was a much lighter sequel, and others approached him saying it was a much darker sequel.
    • Batman Forever is either a fun if inferior (mainly for being Lighter and Softer) follow-up to Returns or as bad as the franchise-killing travesty that followed. The film itself attempts to tread both lines; it features some fairly dark scenes recalling Bruce's past and transformation into Batman, but on the other hand, Jim Carrey is the Riddler. Notably, several deleted scenes reveal that the film was originally darker, closer to Burton's films (including an original opening in which Two-Face ties up and gags a guard, writes "The Bat Must Die" on the wall in blood, and escapes from Arkham Asylum), further fueling the flames.
    • In The Dark Knight Trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises. While it got great reviews, the fact that it followed a movie with even better reviews, and is not with its fair share of problems (from a bloated running time to the fact Batman himself hardly appears), has caused disappointment in some fans.
  • Bill & Ted fans are split on the second film, Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey. Most say that, at the very least, it isn't as good as Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, there are those who think it is as good or even better.
  • Birdemic 2: The Resurrection: On one hand this movie has slightly better production values, has self aware jokes, actual (albeit poorly CGIed) visual effects and put slightly more effort into the acting compared to the original. On the other hand, the poor production values, lack of self awareness, clip art birds and the much worse acting was something others feel made the first film fun to watch in the first place.
  • Borat Subsequent Moviefilm is either a significant step down from the first Borat, mostly rehashing the original's gags while overusing gross-out humour and being much more one-sided with its targets, or an Even Better Sequel for its more progressive message, the additional main character adding new dynamics and Character Development, and having less of a Random Events Plot than the original.
  • The Bourne Legacy and Jason Bourne. Both of them were made after the first three installments of The Bourne Series, and Legacy wasn't directed by Paul Greengrass (instead being directed by Tony Gilroy) and had a separate new protagonist for the movie played by Jeremy Renner. Jason Bourne, despite Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass returning, didn't receive the same amount of praise as the first three movies due to bringing nothing new to the table but is otherwise viewed as a decent installment in the franchise.
  • It's often debated whether the second and third Cube movies were worthy additions, or if it would have been best to let the first movie stand on its own. Even people who believe the first film to be far superior can't agree on whether Hypercube or Cube Zero was the better sequel.
    • Cube 2: Hypercube might have retained the mystery of the Cube, was more serious but far less gory, and had a unique look, but still had some silly characters and Narm scenes. (Sean Hood's original proposal script for Hypercube was on par with Natali's original; better characters, consistently darker mood as the plot goes on and actual, constant danger.)
    • Cube Zero visually retained the industrial look of the first film and was far less serious with more humorous scenes than either previous film, and left little to no mystery at all, but heightened the gore in places and at least attempted continuity with the first film.
  • DC Extended Universe:
  • Die Hard:
    • Live Free or Die Hard is either another solid installment of the series, or a demonstration that the series has become too outlandish (starting by John McClane being Made of Iron). Especially contentious since they ditched the classic terrorism plots in favour of some good old 21st century Hollywood Hacking. Depending on whether or not you're tired of absurd hacking tropes, this movie could be a fresh new take on the series or an awkward attempt at modernizing the franchise.
    • Die Hard 2 is debated, largely because a good number of people see it as little more than a rehash of the first movie in a different location.
  • Divergent:
    • The Divergent Series: Insurgent — for those who liked the first film, is it a step backwards (especially for lots of changes from the book)? For some who disliked the first one, they felt it was an improvement (with more material for Shailene Woodley to work with, increased screen time for Kate Winslet, better pacing). And some felt it was on par with the first one, being as good or bad as they felt it to be.
    • The Divergent Series: Allegiant was panned by most critics, but some felt it was an improvement over the first two films. It doesn't help that the book it's adapting is the most divisive of the three, and some of the many changes made are still up in the air as to whether or not they are improvements.
  • Everyone agrees Dumb and Dumber To is better than the poor excuse for a prequel that was Dumb and Dumberer. Otherwise, some fans of the original view the sequel as a disappointment that relies too much on potty humor, while other fans praised the still intact comedic chemistry between Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels and consider the film a worthy sequel to the original (and the Farrely Brothers' best film since There's Something About Mary).
  • While The Equalizer clung to a "fresh" Rotten Tomatoes rating at a 60%, The Equalizer 2 ended up rotten at 50% note  with criticisms aimed at the film's bloated runtime, muddled script and overall lack of entertainment. Despite this, some action movie fans have been much kinder, with some fans of the first movie considering this to be an Even Better Sequel.
  • Escape from L.A., the first and only sequel to Escape from New York, is often seen as this. Some people think the movie's a piece of garbage, others think it's just as good as Escape From New York, and still others actually think it's better (Rumor has it that last camp includes John Carpenter himself).
  • The Expendables 3. It has its moments but, due to its PG-13 rating, new characters not fitting the casting aesthetic (young actors without the same credentials as the veterans) taking up screen time, and that the movie made #4 at the box office on its opening weekend, it's seen as a misstep in the series. Stallone had since acknowledged that the PG-13 rating was a mistake.
    • Expend4bles. Is it a Surprisingly Improved Sequel to the third movie for going back to its R-rated roots, or is it yet another unnecessary sequel that strays too far from the formula due to its lack of an All-Star Cast with many of its older cast not returning?
  • Firestarter 2: Rekindled is a sequel to the 1984 movie Firestarter. The first movie was a decent portrayal of the Stephen King book it was based on. The sequel was made by people who didn't even pretend to have read the book (or seen the original movie, for that matter). This included having the Big Bad be the same in both movies even though he was killed in the first one. On the other hand, Firestarter 2 has special effects that a movie made in the 80s could not.
  • Virtually no one regards The Fly II as equal to its predecessor, but the responses to it are easily split into two camps: One finds it an interesting continuation that uses its Spin-Offspring protagonist to significantly open up its world and tell a different kind of story as he turns against those who have imprisoned, exploited, and lied to him from childhood, with large-scale action sequences and a plethora of gory deaths along the way. The other finds it to be, especially after its opening childhood stretch, a dumbed-down Generation Xerox retread of the first film (particularly where its romantic subplot is concerned) with generic characters compared to the richly drawn leads of the original.
  • Friday the 13th:
  • Some viewers believe that Grease 2 is superior to the original, despite clearly being an attempt to mimic every little detail about the original with a new cast. (Likewise, there is a small group of fans who love Shock Treatment, but dislike The Rocky Horror Picture Show.)
  • G.I. Joe: Retaliation is either what a real G.I. Joe movie should be, or not taking effort to improve (or match) its predecessor.
  • Ghostbusters:
    • Although Ghostbusters II is said to be inferior to the first, with many accusing it of being a rehash that doesn't bring much of anything new to the table, it still has some fans who argue that even so, it doesn't really represent a drop in quality from the first, and it gives some characters who were previously in side-roles more focus and material.
    • Ghostbusters (2016) is either a fun, campy action flick, a cheesy, cash-grabbing reboot, or anything in between. In particular, the contention that they only swapped the genders of the main cast to profit off the controversy (and, in turn, the belief that liking/hating it makes you a feminist/sexist, regardless of the film's actual merits), as well as the murder of Bill Murray's character which some fans saw as a metaphorical middle finger to the original franchise, did not win the film any favors. And the actual sequel\Un-Reboot Ghostbusters: Afterlife made things worse, leading to heated debates over which one was the better way to modernize the franchise.
    • Ghostbusters: Afterlife itself is contested: some viewers thought that killing off Egon Spengler was too sad, while others thought it was the best way to acknowledge his actor's death. Some thought that Egon running away from his loved ones made him unlikeable and/or out of character (or even that having a kid to begin with was out of character), while others thought he was sympathetic when he did that and if anyone was unsympathetic it was Peter, Ray, and Winston for not believing him. Some thought the film didn't have enough comedy, while others thought having less comedy made sense because it focused on someone's death. Another point of debate is the frequent Continuity Nods — some people like them, while others think they're Pandering to the Base following the divisive reaction to the reboot.
  • The Godfather Part III, released in 1990, is one of the prime examples of a contested sequel, especially one that was nominated for seven Academy Awards. Not only was it made more than 15 years after the previous installment, but it also suffered from Robert Duvall's absence and the casting of Sofia Coppola as Mary Corleone. Sofia's acting abilities were criticized (in subsequent years she would ironically prove more competent as a director in her own right), so her casting in such a pivotal role was perceived as nepotism on Francis Ford Coppola's part.note  Although Michael Corleone remains irredeemable at the end of Part III, his attempt to atone for his sins in this movie can also appear to make him more likable than he should be. A good deal of the problems with this movie come from seeing it as the final part of a trilogy, rather than the distant sequel it was intended to be (the film was originally titled The Death of Michael Corleone but was changed by Executive Meddling, and Francis Ford Coppola has referred to the Godfather series as "two films and an epilogue").
  • The various sequels to the Godzilla franchise fall under this trope. Fans who complained that the American 1998 Godzilla movie was too different are also now complaining that the later Japanese films are too predictable due to Toho "not willing to take any risks." And then came Godzilla: Final Wars, which was neither predictable nor unrisky... but is absolutely unlike any other Godzilla film, and thus is a love-it-or-hate it example.
  • Gremlins 2: The New Batch is so radically different in tone to Gremlins that there's practically an even split between fans who prefer the manic, live-action cartoon vibe of the sequel (including director Joe Dante) and those who would rather have the darkly comic but largely straight-faced angle of the original. Finding someone with an equally positive opinion of both is fairly rare.
  • Grumpier Old Men is either a decent and funny followup to Grumpy Old Men or a needless rehash of the aforementioned film that lacks originality.
  • Halloween:
    • Halloween III: Season of the Witch: A dull travesty to the series that moronically ditched Michael Myers with an annoying jingle played throughout, or is it an underrated gem with great Halloween atmosphere that should be taken on its own terms and be seen in the context it was intended as changing the franchise into an anthology series? Panned when it first came out, but as time has gone on has gotten a bigger and bigger cult following.
    • Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers: A travesty that not only unceremoniously kills off a popular major character at the start but completely ruins the character of Michael Myers by stripping him of any mystique and tying him to the will of an evil cult, or is it an atmospheric and creative attempt at progressing the franchise that fleshed out the character and mythos in interesting new ways? Largely detested by critics and general audiences, but it has several staunch defenders in the hardcore fanbase. Particular the version of the film called the "Producer's Cut" which was thought to have made it a stronger piece that circulated for a long time in bootleg form before finally being released officially in later years. However, despite this cut giving Donald Pleasance more screen time than in the theatrical cut (which was the result of Dimension wanting to make the now grown-up Tommy Doyle a successor to Dr. Loomis), even that cut has been called out for it's notorious third act twist of Michael being the father of Jamie Lloyd's baby and the final scene putting the Thorn tattoo on Loomis' hand, presumably forcing him into being the new cult leader for potential future sequels (despite Donald Pleasance's poor health during production and subsequent death).
    • Halloween H20: Twenty Years Later: Just a mainstream sellout with a glossy Lifetime channel look and few effective scares, or is it one of the very best of the series that got back to the series' more simple roots, provides a strong characterization and arc for returning series veteran Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode that also allowed for satisfactory closure to the series. Well...at least for a while. It actually did get the best reviews, mixed as the consensus wound up being, of the Halloween sequels from critics (again, also for a while) and easily did the best at the box office. Still, a sizable and rather vocal contingent of hardcore fans persist it wasn't the right course of action and hate that it disregarded the last several films in terms of continuity.
    • Halloween Kills. It's either a worthy follow-up to the 2018 streamlining that is fun, brutal and tries to expand the series by giving less focus to Laurie Strode and her family, or a step down that sinks into slasher convention, has too many characters behaving stupidly, and resembles some of the reviled elements of the old sequels (like how again Michael seems like a supernatural force).
  • Harry Potter:
    • There's considerable disagreement among fans about whether the first two movies' (Philosopher's Stone and Chamber of Secrets) faithfulness to the books is their greatest strength or their greatest weakness. People in the first camp are likely to view Prisoner of Azkaban as a horrific plot hole-filled mess, while people in the second camp are likely to see it as when the movies finally started to get it right.
    • There really is very little common ground at all when it comes to fans' opinions of the Harry Potter films. Ask a group of fans to rate the films in order and it's almost certain every film will end up on the top and bottom of someone's list. Even fans that broadly agree tend to still disagree. Fans that prefer the post-Columbus films will argue about which one is best, and David Yates fans can't agree on if Order of the Phoenix or Half-Blood Prince is best, and some will rank one top and one bottom.
    • While the franchise's continuation with Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them had a mostly positive reception, that movie's sequel Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald ended up splitting the fanbase heavily: either it's as fun as the original, or a huge step down due to an overstuffed script with some twists that might be considered contradictory to existing lore. Third part Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore either recovered from some of the previous movie's mistakes, or sunk even further.
  • Highlander has this in spades. Any film after the first is contested, with many recognizing only the first and the TV series. Aside from your occasional maverick that will defend Highlander II: The Renegade Cut, it seems to largely come down to which is the better sequel between Highlander III: The Sorcerer and Highlander: Endgame. Generally a fan picking one or the other, if they decide to choose ANY Highlander sequel that is. With what it seeming to come down to for many is whether or not they were in it for Connor MacLeod himself or if they were a fan of the TV series. Some Connor fans seeing Highlander III as a passable last hurrah for the hero, in spite of how many see it as little more than a beat-for-beat rehash of the first movie with little ingenuity. Fans of the series will generally prefer Endgame as an admirable attempt to merge the series and the original film that works alright as a capstone to the series, whilst other fans felt left cold by its greater emphasis on the TV characters and some even accusing the film of damaging Connor as a character or just not liking the fact that he was killed off. That being said, hardly anyone will argue that either film is any kind of masterpiece that can rival the original.
  • Home Alone 3. Some hate it due to the different characters and further straining suspension of disbelief (a young boy defeats four spies with Rube Goldberg-style traps?!), while others (like Roger Ebert) actually like it better than the previous two for reasons like better traps and a more plausible reason for being home alone (being sick from school rather than being mistakenly left behind while his family is on vacation at some point).
  • Independence Day: Resurgence. It's either a good movie with its moments that can hold out on its own, or it just doesn't live up to its predecessor.
  • Indiana Jones:
    • Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is this on multiple counts:
      • Is the fact that Indy is now old and Shia LaBeouf's daddy tainting your beloved childhood memories? Does the revelation that the antagonists are actually aliens... sort of go against the spirit of the series? Or do you disagree with all that and think it's fun?
      • It's worth noting that while the original Indiana Jones were based on adventure serials from the 20s and 30s which were liable to feature temples and ancient gods, the 4th movie was intentionally based on 50s films, which were liable to feature communists and aliens. Given that it was released decades after the first movies and the timeframe changed to match, this idea may more sense than you might initially think.
      • A main complaint was that the film broke people's Willing Suspension of Disbelief with a nuclear-powered sledgehammer far too early on, instead of easing people into the Nazi-face-melting like the earlier films did.
      • The abundance of CGI shots (the very first shot is a CGI molehill) didn't go over well either. Things like armies of killer ants and gigantic temples were forgivable, but many other cases just felt out-of-place in an Indy movie.
    • Long before that, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom also divided fans: a successful variation on the Indy concept, or just too dark and squicky to be enjoyable?
    • While Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is generally held to be a good movie, some fans even rate it higher than Raiders of the Lost Ark for its more character-driven story and the strength of Harrison Ford's and Sean Connery's performances as Indy and his estranged father. It helps that a number of lines from this movie have become memes.
    • Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny - A course correction from Kingdom Of the Crystal Skull that fits the tone of the original trilogy or a retread of the previous films' highlights that strains suspension of disbelief even further?
  • Inspector Gadget 2 was critically panned like its predecessor, but viewers are divided. Some like it for being more faithful to the original cartoon than the first film (Gadget and Claw are no longer referred to by their civilian names from the first film, Gadget is more bumbling with Penny having to essentially do his job for him and Claw speaks with a gravelly voice and hides his face under a hat.) and others hate it for those same reasons along with its recasting of every character except the Gadgetmobile and weaker special effects. Then there are those who hate it, but still think it's better than the first film.
  • James Bond:
    • On Her Majesty's Secret Service is perhaps one of if not the most polarizing of Bond films. Often appearing on both "Best of" and "Worst of" Bond film lists. Whilst its contemporary reviews were quite scathing, with the following film being envisioned as a "back to formula" film to try and Win Back the Crowd by doing things including bringing back Connery no matter the cost, it's been getting stronger reviews over time. To some it is a boring follow-up to Connery's films, with the biggest criticism going to the performance of the one time Bond George Lazenby who is often said to be the worst of the lot and wooden in his performance. To others however, it was a well done stripped-down back to basics sort of film that is often applauded for its level of faithfulness to Ian Fleming's novel, especially in comparison to most other Bond films, as well as having a strong emotional core in its story with the relationship between Bond and his ill-fated wife Countess Tracy di Vicenzo. Though Lazenby's performance itself remains a point of contention even among the film's supporters. Some feeling that he is the one glaring weakness that holds it back and claim that it would have been stronger had Sean Connery reprised the role, whilst others will tell you he was more faithful to the Bond of the books and brought a more human touch to the character as well as bringing a great physicality to it.
    • Diamonds Are Forever was that film meant to Win Back the Crowd and has had a mixed reception since release though nowadays its critical reception leans towards positive. Among fans it's really divisive. Sean Connery coming back is seen as a plus, but others would say he's just phoning it in. Whilst some can appreciate the more over-the-top/campy approach, that foreshadowed what would come with the next actor, many others don't. Ironically a major point of contention now is how it seems to only pay lip-service to the pervious film at the start with Bond seemingly on the warpath for vengeance against Blofeld for unstated reasons, but largely seems to ignore it. Which hurts it for some, especially now that On Her Majesty's Secret Service has been getting better respected with time.
    • The Roger Moore Movies. Either silly romps that embraced the goofy nature of the Bond concept or cartoonishly overblown betrayals of the suave Connery era that ruined the character's credit.
    • Never Say Never Again is this to the extreme that a good number of Bond fans refuse to acknowledge it as a true James Bond film, due to it not being produced by EON and lacking many of the series' trademarks (Bond Gun Barrel, Maurice Binder style credits sequence, John Barry score), presenting portrayals of regular characters (M, Q, Moneypenny) quite different to the EON ones and not played by the same actors, and being an inferior rehash of Thunderball. Other fans appreciate it for having Sean Connery back in the role in remarkable form and seemingly enjoying being there this time around unlike his previous attempt, having enjoyable villains in Largo and Fatima Blush, and being better paced and more focused than Thunderball.
    • The Timothy Dalton Movies. Either solid darker returns to the original Ian Fleming ideal of what Bond should be that were canned too early or cheap 80s crime show knock-offs that were limited to two films for a reason.
    • The Daniel Craig movies. Either one loves the return to the series' roots, or wants every old cliché back, though there are those who like the older films too. (to the point Skyfall became the series' biggest hit for "bridging" both old and new, while things didn't go so well for Quantum of Solace, which went too far from Bond, and Spectre, which was indecisive).
    • No Time to Die has critical and public opinions ranging from "It's excellent" to "It's good, but the ending..." to "It sucks/worst Bond movie ever", the latter two stemming from the stunning conclusion in which Bond is killed, but also other elements, such as him NOT bedding every woman he meets and having fathered a child. Ironically, these are the same reasons that fans of the film LIKE it as opposed to hating it.
  • Jurassic Park
    • There is an ever on-gong internet debate raging between whether The Lost World: Jurassic Park or Jurassic Park III is the better sequel. While neither is considered a great movie or as good as the original Jurassic Park, both have been given points in terms of their action sequences and special effects. The Lost World is either a bloated, sluggishly paced, and overly-preachy follow-up, or a worthy enough sequel that ambitiously and organically expands on the story/scope of the original film. Jurassic Park III is either an uninspired and silly follow-up with too thin of a story, or a fun "roller coaster ride" that benefits from a back-to-basics approach. Each film's veteran leading man from the original film, Jeff Goldblum in The Lost World and Sam Neill in Jurassic Park III, are also used as points of praise to their respective movies.
    • Then came Jurassic World, which is either a Surprisingly Improved Sequel who is second to only the original, or an overly dumb feature that shows a franchise out of ideas.
    • Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom is either praised for changing the status quo and offering a unique Gothic Horror vibe or is criticized for having underdeveloped subplots, taking too many scientific liberties, and just feeling like a barely-altered rehash of The Lost World in the eyes of some. The only thing anyone can agree on is that the Indoraptor is a pretty cool hybrid dinosaur who has a unique design and a memorable personality (in contrast to the Base-Breaking Character status of its predecessor Indominus rex).
    • Jurassic World Dominion is either the apex of the Sequelitis that even manages to sideline the dinosaurs, or a passable closure helped by reuniting the original movie's trio.
  • There's some debate over whether The Kissing Booth 2 is better, worse or on par with the first movie. Some people like that it removes the more problematic elements of the first film, particularly Noah's aggresive and controlling behavior, while others criticize the sequel for having a bloated run-time and Elle coming off as Unintentionally Unsympathetic.
  • Whilst the first two Lethal Weapon movies are by and large considered buddy-cop/action classics, Lethal Weapon 3 and Lethal Weapon 4 are much more divisive. To some they are installments that have reached the point of self-parody in terms of their level of goofiness with things like the continued presence and pushing into center stage of the Leo Getz character as well as not having as strong of scripts after the departure of Shane Black. Whilst to others they while not as good as the first two are solid entries that continue to show off the great chemistry between its leads, match if not up the ante in at least some of the action scenes, and rounds off the story-arcs of its characters well. Particularly Riggs who finishes his progression from a crazed suicidal man to a more down to earth and at peace guy who can move on with his life and allow himself to be happy.
  • Life During Wartime is either seen as a worthy sequel to Happiness or a complete disaster of a follow-up with none of the original's actors returning, with no middle ground.
  • Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome whilst getting generally positive reviews from critics is starkly divisive among fans. It is generally either considered too much of a toned down sell-out or a worthy though not quite as strong successor to its preceding films that at least successfully enough both expanded the world and progressed the character of Max Rockatansky.
  • Marvel Cinematic Universe:
    • Although Iron Man is hailed as one of the strongest films in the MCU, Iron Man 2 and Iron Man 3 are both contested. 2 was plagued with too many subplots compared to the rather simple original and had another villain that was "Iron Man, but evil", and the reveal that the Mandarin was not the comic character many were expecting in 3 often send them to rather low rankings; however, both films have their defenders.
    • The fans of Edward Norton in The Incredible Hulk (2008) will complain about his replacement by Mark Ruffalo beginning in The Avengers (2012), claiming that Norton was the better Banner and that the recasting of one of the six original Avengers was a poor move note . Given the relative unpopularity of the film with fans (most casual observers won't even realize it was a part of the MCU to begin with, despite multiple characters crossing between them), Ruffalo is generally seen as the superior Hulk.
    • Avengers: Age of Ultron was considered a disappointment by many fans who found Ultron too quippy and the Hulk-Black Widow subplot unrealistic and uncharismatic. The largest criticism was that, despite the heroes trying to mitigate damage and death even more than The Avengers, the total damage was far larger than the original (property damage to Manhattan vs. the complete destruction of a small Eastern European country). Again, there are fans who see it as a worthy successor to the original.
    • A case regarding preference rather than quality is whether Avengers: Infinity War or Avengers: Endgame is the better one. Standout points being the former's bleak ending and whether the latter's too reliant on Fanservice.
    • Doctor Strange (2016): Trippy visual masterpiece with cinematography and fight choreography like nothing seen before in a Marvel movie? Or Iron Man with magic? Fans will argue both sides.
    • Captain Marvel (2019) has many who like it, and a very vocal opposition who bring it as the MCU's worst movie. It ultimately boils down to the opinion on the protagonist, as Carol is either a fun badass or boring and unemotive.
    • Eternals: an overly ambitious project that ultimately fell short or a misunderstood work of genius that people only hated for being different.
    • Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness: This film is the most divisive in terms of fan reception since Iron Man 3, and it might be the most truly contested sequel in terms of people finding it better or worse than its direct predecessor in the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe. Those who find it better will praise its creativity and bold direction from Sam Raimi, who fans say gives the film a visual edge, strong horror-influenced action and further exploring the mysticism and dark arts many felt were lacking in the previous film. Those who find the original film better will say this film suffers from a weaker and more scattershot script than the first, as well as seemingly sidelining the cast of the previous film in favor of focusing on Wanda, who even then is seen as distant, when not retreading, from her story in WandaVision.
    • Thor: Love and Thunder: another fun installment like Thor: Ragnarok was, or a retread of that movie's formula with very disappointing results?
  • The Matrix:
    • The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions are both for the most part considered lesser to the original film. But there is often disagreement and debate over whether or not they are sub-par follow-ups that turned the story into a convoluted and incoherent mess that relied too much on special effects or if they were actually solid sequels that satisfactorily complete the trilogy by doing things like interestingly expand the mythology, creatively subvert certain tropes, and up the ante in terms of their action sequences.
    • Once Trilogy Creep hit with The Matrix Resurrections, it was either a Surprisingly Improved Sequel better made than Revolutions, or a wholly unnecessary addition.
  • Meet the Fockers: better than Meet the Parents, not as good but still hilarious, or a severe regression?
  • Men In Black 2 is rather divisive for being a formulaic follow-up. Some don't like it for that and doing things like pulling back in Agent K, whilst others find it to be a serviceable enough sequel that benefitted from reuniting the buddy duo from the original. The major consensus regardless however, is that it is inferior to the original.
  • Mission: Impossible II: a good film, a bad film, or a good action film but a bad Mission: Impossible film.
  • The Mummy Returns overall has gotten a quite divided reception. Most agreeing that it was a step down from the first film. However, the disagreement is to what degree. There are those who find it to be an overloaded sequel that relied too much on CGI, and some criticizing a perceived lightening in tone including the introduction of a kid as a leading character. And then there are others who find it to be a satisfactory follow-up that successfully expands upon the scale and mythos, as well as matching if not upping the ante in the action department. Less contested is the reception of the third film The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor which leans more towards the negative direction but appears to have its defenders. At least if stuff like the 5.2/10 rating on IMDB is something to go by.
  • A Nightmare on Elm Street:
    • A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge: A rushed cash grab of a sequel that missed the original point of Freddy's MO and is filled with both hilarious failed attempts at horror and laughable homoerotic imagery and overtones, or is it actually one of the better sequels that tried something different and managed to maintain a really dark, ferocious, and truly terrifying Freddy Krueger? It was largely panned when it first came out, but over time has been getting a bigger and bigger cult following, with some people attributing homophobia against its Homoerotic Subtext as being one of the reasons for its initial poor reception.
    • A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master: The film where it all went downhill by going even further to make Freddy comical to the point that he is little more than a one-liner spewing joke on top of unceremoniously killing off the leads of the more popular previous installment or is it a well directed fun, creative, and flashy entry that knows what it is and embraces it with one or two good scares along the way and an above average slasher sequel heroine? It actually did okay with critics, polarizing reviews for a slasher sequel qualifies as such, and seems to be enjoyed by many fans whilst others see it as the beginning of the end or the end itself.
  • Orphan: First Kill is either a lurid and quite fun thriller or a stupid attempt at an origin story (a good dealbreaker is whether how the viewer accepts that 13 years have passed yet the lead actress is still supposed to still be mistaken for a child).
  • Pirates of the Caribbean:
    • The first two sequels, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. Many praised them for their great special effects and actors doing a great job, while others thought they were too fantasy-like instead of a standard action adventure. At World's End caught extra flack for its confusing storyline, as well as the way they dispatched the Kraken.
    • The fourth film, On Stranger Tides, has the series showing shades of Franchise Zombie, especially with how it killed off regular supporting characters Pintel and Ragetti, Marty, Cotton, and Cotton's parrot with a few lines of dialogue from Barbossa and stuck the Black Pearl in a bottle. However, many people also loved the film for its more realistic tone and simpler storyline, and considered it a return to the series roots.
    • And then Dead Men Tell No Tales showed up. Some have panned it as the worst, for being out of fresh story ideas and for continuity errors with previous installments. Others believe it is not so bad, and that it actually does have some creative elements, and also like how it returned to the story-arcs of the original trilogy.
  • Out of the Planet of the Apes (1968) sequels, everyone agrees the second is a step down, the third improved on that, and the fifth is outright terrible. This leaves Conquest of the Planet of the Apes in the middle ground, with just as many people who like it as there are people who hate it. It is universally agreed, however, that Rise of the Planet of the Apes did a much better job telling the same story.
  • All the Predator sequels faced this. Everyone has a favorite out of Predator 2, Predators or The Predator, and hardly anyone likes all three the same.
  • Rambo: First Blood Part II and Rambo III. There are those who don't like either of them for going into a more over-the-top action hero route in comparison to the more grounded and intimate original First Blood and there are those who enjoy one or both of them as well-crafted action films that successfully up the ante. Rambo IV is largely derided overall, as not only it goes the brainless action route but is Bloodier and Gorier. Then came Rambo: Last Blood, which is either a satisfying and action-packed killfest that serves as a great finale to the Rambo franchise, an entertaining film but not as good as the last movie nor the great sendoff that a legend like John Rambo deserved, or a terrible movie that lacks character and substance and should have ended with the last film. Fans are also divided on whether the film's similarities to Taken, Home Alone, and Man on Fire are a good or bad thing.
  • While nearly all fans agree that RoboCop 2 is not nearly as good as the first RoboCop (1987), many argue that it is a flawed, yet entertaining sequel. Others express little but disdain for it, as many do for RoboCop 3 which is perceived as a straight case of Sequelitis.
  • Rocky has two big cases, which adequately are directly tied to each other. Rocky IV is either filled with Narm Charm heightened by the emotional story of Rocky avenging Apollo's death at Ivan Drago's hands, and the training montages and soundtrack, or shameful for taking an understated series and making it borderline cartoonish, especially with the jingoism in doing an allegory for the Cold War in a boxing ring. Creed II, which is also Rocky IV Part II for bringing in Drago's son to face Apollo's own, is either a worthy follow-up to Creed that even developed the fairly generic Ivan, or a step too reliant on retreading the usual tropes of past Rocky films.
  • Saw III. It amps up the gore and the Squick considerably from the first two, to levels that are not seen elsewhere in the Saw series. There is much debate over whether or not this is a good thing. Much debate. It didn't stop there. Even after Saw III, four more sequels were made, all of which contain more horrific imagery that either drove fans away or gained more Nightmare Fetishists. Some people still love the series from start to finish, while others immediately stopped watching after the third film, for obvious reasons.
  • The sequels in the Scary Movie series are very contested. You can hear nearly every type of opinion on the sequels, as well as on the original movie. Some say that the first two installments in the series directed by the Wayans Brothers are leagues better than the third and fourth installments, while others like the Zucker-style sequels better. Though you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone who likes the fifth film.
  • The Scream trilogy has been quite contested as well. None of the fans seem to agree on which movie was the best or the worst. Some say that the third was the weakest of the series. Others say it was an improvement over the second, but both pale in comparison to the first. Then there are some who say that the second was better than the first, and so on and so forth... and whether the fourth gets the series back into shape or falls flat is also disputed.
  • Space Jam: A New Legacy is either a Surprisingly Improved Sequel for fixing flaws from the original (giving more purpose for the characters and offering better acting from the human leads) or a step down for drowning what worked in the original with excessive Sequel Escalation (biggest ones being appearances of every property owned by Warner Bros instead of just Looney Tunes, and replacing regular basketball with a video game filled with Pinball Scoring and such).
  • Spider-Man:
    • Spider-Man 3 was a highly-anticipated sequel riding off the wave of critical and commercial acclaim its previous films had garnered, and was the highest-grossing of the three films when it was released (a position it held until 2019 when it was outgrossed by Spider-Man: Far From Home). However, critical response was evenly split between general audiences who enjoyed the story and the new characters, and comic book fans (and some long-time fans of the films) who felt that the third film was a betrayal of all the plot threads that had been set up in the prior two films. It didn't help that 3 was subject to Venom, who wound up getting the short shift in terms of screen time. There is very little middle ground when it comes to opinion on the film. With the dust having died down, the general consensus is that it is the weakest of Raimi's trilogy, but there's still debate over whether or not it's a bad movie on it's own.
    • Whilst the first The Amazing Spider-Man movie was not without its debates, its sequel The Amazing Spider-Man 2 had it even more so. Some fans will tell you that it is the worst Spider-Man film to date that is a bloated mess, has a "hipster" Peter Parker, and is nothing but a cashgrab by Sony. Other will tell you that it, often along with its predecessor, is the most reverent silver screen representation of the character to date with showing things like Spider-Man in all his joke-spewing glory in action scenes and will also cite the strong chemistry and relationship between him and Gwen Stacy's character that serves as the beating heart of the film. Still other fans and most critics feel that it is neither the best nor worst iteration of the character.
  • Due to the fickle nature of its respective fanbase, the Star Trek films have had to deal with this. Most fans tend to agree that Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek: First Contact are the best TOS and Next Generation films, respectively, and the even-numbered movies are good, but anything besides that (barring Star Trek V: The Final Frontier) tends to become this:
    • Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. Successfully-executed thematic sequel to The Wrath Of Khan, or massively disappointing follow-up to the same?
    • Star Trek: Generations: A good transitional film between the "old guard" and the Next Gen crew, or a feature-length episode of the television series that dispenses with the franchise's original defining main character in a hamfisted way?
    • Star Trek: First Contact: A great action film that finally allowed the TNG crew to have a good adventure without the lingering baggage of The Original Series, or a poorly written summer action flick that changed the Borg from a mysterious and unstoppable force of nature into a boring Punch-Clock Villain?
    • Star Trek: Insurrection: A fun ride with the TNG crew that was thematically consistent with all things Trek, or a two-hour long episode of the series and (another) poor attempt at a summer action flick?
    • Star Trek: Nemesis: A decent (if not exactly amazing) conclusion for the Next Gen crew, a mediocre episode padded to two hours with a tacked-on character death and inoffensive subplot resolution to imbue false significance, or a botched attempt to remake Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan rather than create an original plot?
    • Star Trek (2009) is the highest-grossing in the franchise, and proved to be one of the few rebooted films that received critical and commercial acclaim by using time-travel to change the focus to an alternate-universe version of the original series crew. Yet, there still exists a segment of the fanbase that believes the film destroyed the history of the franchise and irrevocably altered the plot lines of future films by having the crew attend Starfleet Academy together. Some also think that the more action filled tone deviates too much from the original point of the franchise being exploration.
    • There's a lot of debate amongst the fandom over Star Trek Into Darkness borrowing elements from the older Star Trek films, Khan being the main villain and now white (something that reeived an explanation in ancilliary material), and Kirk's 5-minute death.
    • Star Trek Beyond is either an entertaining sequel which feels more like the old series than the previous two films, or underwhelming and (for hardcore Trekkers) just too action packed to count as Star Trek in the first place.
  • Star Wars:
    • Back in its day Return of the Jedi garnered some considerable debate and still does today, over things like whether or not it went into a too kid-oriented direction with things like the Ewoks, making Han too goofy or straight-laced, over rehashing certain plot beats like using another Death Star for the Rebels' central conflict or doing another plot twist revealing an established character as a member of the Skywalker family, rushing the story to its finish, or even making Darth Vader who was considered one of the baddest/coolest bad guys of his era into a sullen servant who ultimately redeems himself. Many others will say that it is just as entertaining as what came before and threads like Vader's redemption holding much emotional resonance. Nowadays opinions are generally positive though there is still a wide range from it being considered a more than worthy companion to the other two films in its trilogy, a solid conclusion but a step down from its predecessors, and some still who will call it an overall disappointment.
    • The Star Wars prequels. Are they flawed movies with Plot Hole-ridden stories, undeveloped characters, flawed dialog, too many CGI effects and a back story that ruined the series' lore? Or are they a great expansion on the mythos that makes the backstory behind the original trilogy even more tragic? In turn, the most debated of these prequels was Revenge of the Sith, with many fans finding it to be a Surprisingly Improved Sequel with better acting, a better story and more emotional impact than the previous two movies. Others hated it and complained a lot about Hayden Christensen's performance as the lead role, Anakin Skywalker. Today the consensus is towards the side of it being a solid movie, even as good as the original trilogy, and the blame for any poor acting performances was placed on the director rather than the actors themselves, but there is a contingent of fans who still dislike it and usually hate all three prequels equally.
    • The Force Awakens became one within a single weekend of its release. While considered by some a step up from the prequels, the arguments are still raging over whether it's a great return to classic Star Wars or if Disney just rehashed A New Hope and not including enough original material to make it good. Add in the people who are already unhappy with the EU being made non-canon...
    • Rogue One: A refreshing change of pace for focusing on Muggles Do It Better, showing the brutality of the early Rebellion, going Gray-and-Gray Morality, and addressing many of David Brin's and Chris Avellone's criticisms of the franchise, or a joyless slog with an underbaked cast of characters, some hamhanded attempts to shoehorn Oscar Bait tropes into a Star Wars film, and an "Everybody Dies" Ending that subverts the whole Muggles Do It Better concept so that the cast really are nothing more than Red Shirts?
    • The Last Jedi is easily the Star Wars episode that fits in this trope the most comfortably. To many people The Last Jedi is the best Star Wars film, but to an equal number it’s the worst. Most professional critics were pleased with The Last Jedi addressing the criticisms over the "formulaic" nature of The Force Awakens by challenging the formula. Fans remain heavily divided on whether or not it succeeded in its objectives. Supporters believe the film to be an Even Better Sequel to The Force Awakens, taking the strengths of that film and improving on it with a more original plot, stronger themes, better Character Development, excellent performances, beautiful visuals, and expansion of the universe. Detractors feel it's weighed down by pacing issues, a bleak tone, excessive political overtones, overuse of trope subversion, abandonment of plot points established in The Force Awakens, and poor handling of Finn and Poe's respective subplots. The direction of Luke Skywalker's character has also been extremely controversial, with some feeling Luke's actions in the film are out of character and the movie did a disservice to the original hero of Star Wars, while others believe the nuanced take is perfectly in line with Luke’s characterization from the Original Trilogy and fits well with the movie's theme of overcoming failure.
    • The Rise of Skywalker suffered a lot with this, specially in trying to address all the disliked things in The Last Jedi: those who disliked that movie liked the retcons, those who liked it were negative to discarding elements to appease the haters. There were also clear attempts at compromise made in order to satisfy the warring factions of the fanbase, to varying degrees of success. Otherwise, it's either a fan-pleasing closure, a uncreative and at times nonsensical mess, or - bringing the contested-ness full circle, a repeat of Return of the Jedi which one might like or dislike depending on their thoughts on that movie.
  • Ted 2 has both fans who approved of the funny shout outs, subtle comedy and likeable Love Interest, and dissers who disliked the Random Events Plot that discarded all character development from the original, as well as focusing too much on Ted himself.
  • Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles:
    • Whilst the original film is largely lauded by fans and the third despised, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze gets a much more polarizing response. There are those that consider it a fun, if goofier, sequel that expanded the mythos well whilst others dislike it for the fact that it is toned down in areas, such as how the Turtles notably no longer really use their weapons or swear, from the darker original that is considered to have done a better job at remaining faithful to the original Mirage comics. Whether for better or for worse, it is often said to be closer to the popular cartoon from the 80's in terms of tone and style. It also can't be denied that The Secret of the Ooze just rehashes the plot of the original (Shredder hates the Turtles and tries to kill them) but gives the Turtles a (less-than-satisfying) origin story and makes things Denser and Wackier.
    • Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows: an actual good movie that by Pandering to the Base does what its predecessor couldn't and actually feel like a genuine TMNT adaptation, or a still terrible movie that wastes many fan favorite characters?
  • Terminator:
  • The Thing (2011). A well-written film with surprising attention to detail that does a really good job paying homage to Carpenter's film while being something different? A great prequel that does a good job connecting to the Carpenter film, a cheesy monster film? A cheesy generic monster movie that fails to capture everything of the Carpenter film? A thinly-veiled remake of the Carpenter film?
  • As you might expect from follow-ups to an already divisive first entry, the Transformers films have this big time, particularly with the third and fourth installments. Though the second movie is widely agreed to be a step backward and the fifth manages to be even worse, Dark of the Moon and Age of Extinction really have no popular consensus. In general, critics preferred the third film but fans favored the fourth.
  • 28 Days Later is widely considered to be one of the greatest zombie horror movies of all time. Its sequel 28 Weeks Later, despite receiving pretty good reviews, was also a much darker film that ended on a miserable note, killing all of the main characters and having the virus spreading to the mainland. Fans of the original movie, which ended hopefully, were not pleased, and a third film has been trapped in Development Hell for years.
  • 2010: The Year We Make Contact. Detractors complained that it didn't live up to the brilliant and unusual film making of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Fans argued that it was right not to try, as it never could have succeeded at that, but did work as a more conventional film which actually answered some of the questions in the first movie. Detractors responded by saying they didn't want those answers.
  • Venom: Let There Be Carnage is either a Surprisingly Improved Sequel for embracing the comedy that was the most liked aspect of the first movie, or somewhat disappointing for those with a more serious bent, who particularly complain about the film not featuring the gore someone would expect from a very vicious villain literally called Carnage.
  • X-Men Film Series:
    • X-Men: The Last Stand is either a bad representation of the Phoenix Saga and a total cop-out as far as the role of Cyclops goes, and being "The Wolverine and Jean Show" and devoid of all other character development... or it is an adequate adaptation of the Phoenix Saga that does away with plot elements that would have been out of place in the established movie canon, and a sweet action movie in which all hell breaks loose and Wolverine owns the show. Take your pick.
    • X-Men Origins: Wolverine is equally contested. For many it is a Narm-fest which flies in the face of the other movies' continuity (particularly rewriting a lot of back story from X2, the franchise's peak), ruins both Gambit and Deadpool, allows a lot of characters to make stupid decisions in the name of advancing the plot, and all for the sake of making another movie centered on Wolverine when the first 3 were essentially his show anyway. For others, the continuity wasn't all that important, Sabretooth was finally given his due with some decent character development, the incorporation of some new mutants was interesting, and the whole thing is a fun action film.
    • X-Men: Apocalypse: Many critics and fans debate whether or not it is a worthy successor to its predecessors, with some saying it's very good, some passable, while others a step backwards, with some even comparing it to the much maligned X-Men: The Last Stand.
    • Logan: The issue here isn't one of quality - nearly everyone agrees it's an amazing film. What divides fans is whether or not Logan should chronologically take place after Days of Future Past. If it does, than the entire franchise is rendered a massive Shoot the Shaggy Dog story in the eyes of many. And a number of plot points raised in the film call the continuity into question.
    • Deadpool 2. Nearly everyone likes the movie. But while some find it an Even Better Sequel, others did not find it as entertaining as the original.

Previous

Index

Next

  • Show Spoilers
  • Night Vision
  • Sticky Header
  • Wide Load

Important Links

Ask The Tropers Trope Finder Media Finder Trope Launch Pad Tech Wishlist Reviews Go Ad Free!
Crucial Browsing
Resources
Top