It's refreshing to hear a writing advice channel with some testosterone in the content that can get you pumped up that doesn't just reference YA stories and Harry Potter constantly.
Really enjoy this channel. I am never going to write a book, much less a movie script, but these videos are great insight into the process behind creating some of my favorite movies, and how hard it can be to get it right.
19:22 - 19:35 This is a criticism of TLJ that I don't hear often enough. For all its talk of subverting expectations, TLJ failed to seize any of the interesting opportunities it had.
The one of the things that make a good trilogy is something like Raimi Spider-Man trilogy. They keep the theme of “With great power, comes great responsibility.” Spiderman 1: Obtaining power Spiderman 2: Neglecting power Spiderman 3: Abusing power
S1: Learning to use power responsibly. S2: Paying the price of heroism (result of responsible power use). S3: Running out of ideas and making a mess of it.
I found that the trilogy didn't really grow as a story because the need to go back to Uncle Ben. Peter's motivation didn't have to have "Ben's" justification. The character should have grown.
My favorite sequel by far is dune part 2. I love that movie so much. It challenged the characters (mainly Paul tho) in new and interesting ways, and raised the stakes a lot. But aside from that, it just hit me so hard. I love scenes like Paul's monologue where he finally stops denying he's the Lisan Al Gaib
I find the "Making the sequel bigger with more stakes" can backfire sometimes. A lot of sequels, especially the third movies, are so lackluster. Bigger is not always better. I think sequels can have bigger events but working in different or more personal reasons can work better. For me its not so much about having bigger stakes but having new compelling stakes that aren't just the stakes from the last movie but bigger. That's why Empire Strikes Back is so good. Instead of a bigger galaxy changing event they choose more personal stakes. Made the sequel feel more intense without having an even bigger death star or something.
How about the Back to the Future trilogy? The stakes of the first movie: Marty has to get back to 1985 while ensuring that he also doesn’t get erased from existence. Part II: reset the timeline so his family isn’t destroyed. Part III: Get back to 1985 without the proper fuel.
I would like the stakes to be bigger if there is a good fit to the story. If not, I am also ok with making a sequel something like a second episode of a plain old TV series. Give me just a plain old sequel to Return of the Jedi where Luke is out doing low stakes missions, but not in a boring way. He doesn't need to be killing the Emperor and even worse bad guys. There is a mission that Luke needs to do, and he does it. I would watch that. It would not be as good as Empire but nowhere near as bad as TLJ. I also wish they just did more Captain America movies where he just does superhero stuff without this giant progressing storyline where all the stakes just get bigger.
That's funny, only this morning I looked up this channel wondering if you'd done a Good/Bad sequel video and got the 4 tips for writing sequels video. And now here we are.
I’ve only been writing for about 11 months and your videos have helped me so much with figuring out how to make different story elements effective. I cannot thank you enough!
Best Sequel - I am gonna go with Kung Fu Panda 2. Its probably my most favorite animated movie of all time. I love the darker tone, the emotional depth, the themes of letting go of the past and focusing on present choices and its a good sequel because of how it raises the stakes and expands the universe. Then we also got Kung Fu Panda 4 which I know most of the internet considers it painfully mediocre and disappointing and I do think its the weakest movie of the franchise but I think its a worthy addition to the franchise. I think its a good sequel because of how it pushes the arc of Po and takes the franchise in a new direction with Po becoming a mentor and spiritual leader. I also think Zhen was a good addition. She provided a fresh dynamic to the movie and by not having the Furious Five, the franchise avoided becoming formulaic. I don't think its the best sequel but I think it is a very good sequel and pretty over-hated. Worst Sequel - I don't know really have a worst sequel. There are a lot of disappointing sequels but I don't think I have come across any that are straight out bad or terrible. Let's go with Jurassic World: Dominion. I think its a decent 6 or 7/10 movie. I do think it is over-hated but I have the general issues - It wastes the potential of exploring the worldwide dinosaur crisis and goes to an isolated location. The dinosaur sequences felt like they were from a James Bond movie and also lacked genuine suspense and tension. Then the villains were so one-dimensional and cartoonishly evil. There were redeeming qualities like seeing the OG cast interact with the JW cast. Jeff Goldblum had a lot of good jokes and there were some emotional moments between the characters. But overall it was a disappointment. Other recent Good Sequels - Puss in Boots: The Last Wish (9.5/10) , Inside Out 2 (9/10), Across the Spider-Verse (9/10), etc. Other recent Disappointing Sequels - Despicable Me 4 (7/10), Kingdom of Planet of Apes (8/10), Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire (6.5/10), etc. Note that disappointing does not mean necessarily mean that its bad.
Great video again, Brandon! In fact, this video is a sequel in itself to the other Bad vs. Good videos. Consistent, yet original. Since today is Halloween, my worst sequel is Halloween 3: Season of the Witch. Where's Michael Myers? Out trick-or-treating? (Maybe, Michael's agent demanded that Michael get more money for his work in the sequels? Actors!) Anyway, it's no wonder that the 4th Halloween movie is titled "THE RETURN OF MICHAEL MYERS!" What good is a sequel without its main star? It sucks! Donald Pleasance should have six times at this horrible excuse of a sequel! Anyway, keep up the good work Brandon with these videos. Very helpful and entertaining, too.
I love how Escape from LA has Pliskin saying "the more things change, the more they stay the same", which is quite ironic considering that movie is essentially the same as the original, but it tells you how it works for a lotta sequels in general
I have some stuff to unpack about sequels. 1) The Matrix movies. The original is a very "expositional" movie, it does a TON of worldbuilding, but in a very compelling way, AND it has a whole bunch of action amidst all the philosophical talk and exposition. Reloaded does some more world building about the Matrix itself (and not just the reason why it exists), but it doesn't need to do as much as the first movie, and therefore can focus more on action... by multiplying Smith. The third movie kind of has a genre shift where it's more of a war movie of sorts because we're in the real world for a good bit, but we're also at the final confrontation between Neo and Smith, and Neo fulfills his role as a hero by committing the ultimate sacrifice. And then Resurrections poops all over that by giving us Neo back alive (nullifying the impact of his sacrifice), Trinity isn't dead anymore, blah blah blah. 2) Terminator 2. Name a better sequel, lol. The original Terminator wayyy is more of a horror movie than an action movie, and I definitely do prefer T1 to T2 (mostly because I don't like teenage John Connor that much), but T2 is Ahnuld badassery at its best. The whole idea that humans managed to overcome the first terminator in T1, but the new and improved terminator in T2 requires *another Terminator* to be defeated is a great way to raise the stakes IMO. 3) The entire Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. The original movie is one of my favourite movies of all time, I've watched it so many times. But in the original Pirates movie, Jack Sparrow wasn't the main character, he was just a chaotic force making the plot go forward for the main characters just for his own benefit. The main story was about Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley's characters. But Jack Sparrow was so funny that despite him just not being main character material... the producers made him the main character of I don't even know how many of these movies exist anymore. The worst type of sequel though is the sequel an entire fanbase yearns for but doesn't get. Where is our sequel to 2012's Dredd?
Great stuff, as always. I'd love to see a video on prequels if you haven't done that already (I searched the channel and didn't find one, but that could just be YT struggling with the search function). More specifically, I'm interested to see examples of prequels that avoided the trap of using an already-known outcome as the source of the drama or tension, like "Will Anakin Skywalker become a bad dude? Dun dun dunnn!"
Better Call Saul comes to mind, though it’s both a prequel and a sequel (especially in the final season). What I found most interesting in that show wasn’t Saul per se, but the new characters introduced in the show, particularly Kim, Nacho, and Lalo. The Godfather II is another combined prequel/sequel, but the prequel part of the movie is so good. Sure, it’s a simple rise-to-power tale of Vito, but it’s threaded perfectly with Michael’s steady moral downfall. More recently: Furiosa, since the movie’s primary focus is really just mapping out the relationship between the Citadel, Bullet Farm, and Gas Town.
I might also throw The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly on there as well, but that’s a stretch since all three movies are self-contained and, aside from showing how Eastwood’s character got his signature poncho, have no other connection.
20 Best Sequels of All Time: The Bride of Frankenstein (1935) From Russia with Love (1963) Goldfinger (1964) A Shot in the Dark (1964) The Godfather Part II (1974) The Empire Strikes Back (1980) Superman II (1980) Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) Aliens (1986) Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1997) Toy Story 2 (1999) The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) Spider-Man 2 (2004) Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) The Dark Knight (2008) Toy Story 3 (2010) The Avengers (2012) Top Gun: Maverick (2022)
Across the spider-verse is a my favourite sequel and film Greatly expands on the multiverse and themes introduced in the first film Adds great new characters whilst developing the old ones as well Somehow improves on the already flawless animation Adds more stakes to the theme of believing in yourself and accepting who u are
One sequel I think works well despite being both a copy of the first and a genre change is Evil Dead 2. Evil Dead is a creepy cabin in the woods surrounded by supernatural evil. ED2 rehashes the exact same setting and plot, but this time turns it into a comedy, and it works.
I am pretty sure the top 3 sequals are really straightforward: - Godfather II - Terminator 2 - The Empire strikes back I do not want to make an order between these 3 as they are really top sequels and top movies. What makes them really special is that they are better than the original one (maybe except Godfather II but it is hard to beat the perfect movie).
Ok I'll stick to cinema this time and give only one title for each : Good sequel : Batman Returns (Penguin + Catwoman) Bad sequels : Alien 4. I could name many bad sequels and far fewer good sequels, but I'll stick to those two that come immediately to mind.
Worst: Highlander 2. (Critic's quote: "It looks like it was edited at random.") Best: Objectively, it's Godfather II, but my favorite is Aliens Most Disappointing: Alien 3
My favorite sequel has to be Blade Runner: 2049. It expands the world of the original Blade Runner and takes the story in new directions whilst still grappling with questions posed by the original, like what does it mean to be human and what happens when people lose their humanity.
An even harder type of story to tell than a sequel, IMHO, is the PREquel. Unless it's different enough to be telling almost an entirely new story, the reader/audience already has a pretty good idea of how things will end up, so you either have to have left something vague in the original story, or perhaps even do something to deepen or even change what the audience THINKS they know about the original story (a risky move, but rewarding if you can pull it off.)
A lot of people hate the scene with Luke throwing the lightsaber over his shoulder. I don't. What I hate is the way they carried it on like a joke, trying to be cute. They missed a massive opportunity in my opinion. Don't play it cute, play it brutal. After the lightsaber toss Lukes only word should have been a stern "No." When Rey inevitably pushes after that he could then unload on her. He could point out all that he's been through, all he has lost, and how it feels like it will never end. He's an old man and he's done his part. Seeing a mix of anger and pain could get the point across that he has a severe case of PTSD without directly saying it. This could also be a tie-in to how he tried to kill Ben Solo- Fear of such immense power leaning towards the Darkside. That fear, along with "Not again", would have gone a long way to justifying why he felt Ben needed to be stopped before he could become the next Vader. A few scenes showing Ben as a danger to his fellow students and even challenging Luke a little would really have helped as well. It shouldn't have been a joke, it should have been a badly broken, yet still capable man screaming out "Enough! No more!"
For all that I've seen I completely agree with these analyses with one caveat. There are only THREE Indy movies. No Cardassian will convince me to see a movie that doesn't exist. And if there were one thing I'd change about the Top Gun sequel, it would be to use better music. The original beats it for sound track hands down.
One good tip from James Cameron: A good sequel should be understandable and complete without having to know anything about the original movie. Terminator 2 was great because you didn't need to watch the first to understand anything. The characters, plot, and story don't need any supplementary knowledge from the first movie. Movies based on books or video games also turn bad when they fail the "Does it stand on its own?" test.
One of the best examples of a rehash sequel is 22 Jump Street. The main characters are even told repeatedly “just do what worked last time”. Granted, a comedy like this doesn’t really need to raise the stakes like other sequels, it only needs to deliver laughs (which it excels at).
The worst sequels would probably be those movies that were made long after the original was popular, don't follow up on story beats, and were clearly released by out-of-touch executives. I'm talking about films like American Psycho 2 and Kindergarten Cop 2.
Kinda wish you compared the alien sequel to the predator sequel just to hammer home the whole “horror relies on the unknown” point. I stand by the sentiment “the best predator movie is the one you see first” because once you understand what the predator is capable of all future movies are ruined.
Another thing that sucks in sequels is the inconsistency of plot and characters, lack of a plot because it's practically writers throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks. Transformers 2 is a good example yes you can blame the writers strike but they still managed to write a script. Transformers 4 and 5 is plots being thrown at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Another banger of a video. I think my favorite sequel is Dark Knight. The worst sequel is by far Last Jedi and Rise of Skywalker. Absolute trash. I wonder if you can do a good vs bad on tv series. Since I like to write superhero stories, they are more episodic. I want to know what makes good series vs bad series if you can help 😎
The Mummy 3 has to get a shout out in the "bad" category. Dumb story, slapstick acting from Brenden Frasier, the replacement for Rachel Weisz didn't gel, and a ridiculous CGI monster Scorpion King. Quite a let down from the first couple movies.
The Dragon Age franchise has the problem that every subsequent game after the first one has jumped genres and more or less abandoned what passed for an overarching plot. The latest instalment just came out today and seems to be yet another jarring shift in gameplay, tone and character consistency.
@@blshouse The funny thing is I understood the logic the first time. The Blight wasn't interesting enough to sustain more than a single game - a horde of goblins and orcs led by a dragon where they can't even talk is just too flat and generic for sequels. But then they dropped the mage-templar conflict to focus on elves and I realized they just have a problem with committing to things.
Even with the second sequel to the movie Deep Blue Sea it definitely felt like a rehash and it also felt more like a remake or a reboot of the original movie.
Hello Brandon, can you give tips on how to Write Psychological Horror? I didn't find any sources or videos on this topic, I would be extremely grateful 🙏🏻
Since you mentioned the Alien franchise I have to bring up the Prometheus movies. The third and fourth were bad but the Prometheus movies were completely off the rails. As far as I am concerned they completely ruined the Alien franchise and in my own personal canon they don't exist. The Xenomorph is obviously a bioweapon designed to wipe out whole planets. My own thoughts on this are that the so-called Engineers built this weapon since they were engaged in a war and in the end the weapon destroyed them as we see in the first movie. This may be a bit cliche, but look at the alien; this is something that was designed to kill and keep killing until no one was left. What else could it be but a weapon? I know that Scott wanted to do something different but the truth is, the origin of the Xenomorph didn't need to be explained. It is much more scary and mysterious left open and by trying to come up with an origin story, it ruined the whole franchise.
'Maverick' was a terrible example. I remember reading comment sections and a lot of people were just mindlessly buying multiple tickets to support a film which they falsely believeed had no digital effects in it (which truthfully had tons). The original was superior in every way and even 2005's 'Stealth' had better aerobatic choreography. Plus, it doesn't even come up with a plausible reason why the mission isn't simply conducted by stealth bombers and cruise missile volleys (a plausible reason WAS possible, but they go for the most laughable and unrealistic options in the actual story).
Can you please do a video on writing Lovecraftian horror i.e cosmic horror? I am a big fan of the genre, snd i have wrote one or two works in the genre Gothic horror would be a nice one too
Well done. I really need to buy one of your books. I get caught up in life. But, I love every single video you do. Bad sequels. How do I count the ways. Superman III is my pick. I, as a young boy saw the first two and was blown away. I could definitely see a downward turn in Superman II (and now I know why) but that was nothing compared to - that. It broke my heart in ten places as they turned a brilliant exploration of the character of Superman/Clark and turned it into a Three Stooges movie. The entire red kryptonite bit was just embarrassing and painful to watch. Why was Richard Pryor in this movie in the first place? It was just taking Superman and just turning him into a parody of himself. What a waste of such a talented cast.
Worst sequel has got to be Highlander 2: The Quickening. It has 0% on Rotten Tomatoes whereas its predecessor still has 80% almost 40 yrs later. I honestly can't recall another sequel that failed so epically.
I think One of the worst kind of sequels that mainly is exclusive to live action movies and TV I guess, but it’s when the character actors are replaced with people with minimal or no resemblance to them. Like they expect us to think this is the same character you saw in the previous movie, but they look and sound completely different And in some cases behave differently. The biggest offender for this in my opinion is “Mostly Ghostly 2” it’s about a boy and his ghostly friends that only he can see and interact with having to stop a supernatural entity from returning to power and leading a ghost army to torment people for all eternity. Max Doyle is the main character and was recast for the sequel. I can give him a little bit of a pass in this case, because his character is getting older, but even so they still retained the actor for Tara Roland who also got older. Characters like Nicky Roland were and Collin Doyle were also replaced and with actors that don’t at all represent or look like they could represent the characters for the first “Mostly Ghostly.” Same with the actors who played the parents in both films. The film’s antagonist Phears, also got recasted and the new actor didn’t have the same charisma or personality of the previous. A good example oddly enough comes from 2 movies. One is “George of the Jungle 2” not a great film by any means but not horrible either. George was recasted for this movie but the actor they got not only understood the character but still had some physical traits that made it believable that I’m seeing the same character. They even worked in a funny joke with the narrator talking to the new actor and saying why the original didn’t return. The second film should come as a shock to no one, “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.” Richard Harris sadly passed away after the second film so they had to recast him and the new actor Michael Gambon also understood the character of Dumbledore and gave us his own version of the character while still keeping true to the original actor in some way.
As far as worst sequels go, none are probably worse than Blues Brothers 2000. It's a rehash, goes off the rails in the worst possible way, and was so bad that I couldn't even finish it.
Other criticisms about Disney Star Wars, is because they focus too much in diversity (if you know what I mean), instead of focusing in making great stories, like the Expanded Universe, that existed before Disney rebooted. When they decided to do that, I didn't have the guts to watch The Force Awakens the movies that came after it
I'm not saying that its necessarily terrible or bad but when it comes to the Seed of Chucky it does feel like a bit of a genre jumper simply because despite the fact that Chucky has always been campy at least to some degree Seed of Chucky felt very much like it jumped straight into the deepest end of the pool with the comedic tone when you compare it to the movies which came before it.
Worst sequel? Zoolander 2, I have never felt so violated by a retread until this movie. They use this terribly conceived last action hero style storyline involving magic just to rug pull the arc and mirror some of zoolanders most iconic scenes MULTIPLE TIMES!
My favorite thing about Top Gun - Maverick is how they never said which country the antagonist was because they didn't want to piss off any of the US's enemies. us: "The antagonist is Russia, right?" them: "Well yes, but no."
No, it is obviously psuedo-Iran. Iran still to this day has F-14s from when we sold them to the Shah of Iran; before the Islamic Revolution. Russia doesn't have F-14s. Also, the target was a uranium enrichment facility. Iran has been in the news for decades concerning its uranium enrichment; which Iran claims is for medical, scientific, and other civilian use. But the governments of the US and Israel accuse them of doing this to try to build nukes. Finally, while Iran doesn't have and Russia does not export SU-57s; and these were the final boss fight in this movie, Iran and Russia were in talks over Iran potentially buying an export version of a 5th generation fighter before this movie was filmed.
I had that same thought, and then re-watched the first one, and guess what? They didn't there, either! You'd think the Soviet Union or some Middle Eastern country might be the Bad Guys, but they never specify.
@@Beowulf45 First one was unnamed Libya. There were a number of incidents with their claiming all of the Gulf of Sidra as exclusive, territorial waters. We ran freedom of navigation exercises in direct rejection of the claim. There were a couple of shoot downs of Libyan fighters by US F-14s not all that long before the movie was made.
The antagonist in Maverick is obviously Iran, they are the only country still flying old F-14s. I don't think they cared about pissing off the Iranian government, I think they wanted to be able to say they weren't making warmongering propaganda aimed at a particular country in partnership with the US military and Lockheed Martin while still doing just that.
Best sequel: The Godfather Part II or Dark Knight or even Toy Story 2 or Superman 2 with Christopher Reeves are all really good. Worst sequel: I mean there are too many out there. I am going to go with Transformers 2. It was absolute trash
I'm not a fan of sequels in general. Or prequels. The only one that ever really worked for me was "Godfather II." The original "Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones" films were entertaining, but in my opinion, anything beyond that was unnecessary. I'm grateful there were no sequels to "Nightmare Before Christmas," "Steel Magnolias" or "Forrest Gump."
Here's six high-quality concepts to utilize: dramatic structure, character arcs, literary techniques, thematic underpinnings, color palettes, and relevant world-building. Employ these with expertise and it's difficult to go awry. 💪😎✌️ Marketing, however, is an ENTIRELY different thing. This is only available to those with coin, connections, crews, clout, computer code, control, corporate communities, and opulent opportunities. No exceptions. HAPPY HELLOWEEN! 🎃👻🎃 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind’s journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul’s fate revealed. In time, all points converge, hope’s strength resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe’s endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)
Actually i liked "Dial of Destiny". At least it was better than "Crystal Skull", wich was mostly boring. In "Dial" Indy was more like a mentor for Helena. She was a traumatized girl with an unreliable father, she tried to make a living by what she knew about antiquities, not caring for anybody. But in the end she came to rescue Indy, not just leaving him to die in the past. It was still an Indiana Jones movie with the hunt for clues and an unexpected twist at the end.
I wish more studios would make sequels because someone has a great idea for another movie rather than saying 'the first one made money, make another' and so someone has to come up with something even if there's no good ideas.
Likewise, I wish more studios made remakes because there’s something to improve on rather than just to cash in on what made bank before. (Like Mr. & Mrs. Smith: a just-okay action movie remade into a very compelling and fun TV series.)
I don't consider this to be among the best sequels, or even the best movies, but it represents an example of an extreme turn around in a series that seemed unrecoverable due to the first movie in it. Enola Holmes 2. The movie is almost a point-by-point rebuttal to every relevant criticism that can be leveled at the truly awful first movie in the series. In some cases it offers truly compelling explanations as to why Enola is the way she is. In many other cases the acknowledges the blatant flaws of the first movie by characters blatantly pointing them out as 'that's stupid, we can do better'. And finally, for a few of the elements that were seemingly inexplicable on the first movie, the creators double down on it and prove to the audience that the criticisms were wrong. The movie tries exceptionally hard to to answer the mistake that was the first movie, which intuitively should have made the sequel a bad movie, but somehow it works brilliantly. I'm not going to list all the minutiae but I will specifically mention one element that I thought was excellent. In the first movie, Enola is always one step behind her brother Sherlock, which annoys her, when investigating the _same mystery_. But of course she is, she's less experienced and objectively less skilled and trained, yet somehow the movie ends with her beating her brother to the punch buy a few hours. Which is satisfying to no one, except Enola herself; and ignored by everyone except Enola and Sherlock. The correction in the second movie is to have the two siblings pursuing separate investigations that somehow keep bumping into each other. Sherlock is perfectly suited for his mystery, in Enola is perfectly suited for hers ( the movie reveals they are _differently_ skilled and trained ). When they keep bumping into each other, cuz the two mysteries are connected, the two characters brilliantly have an equal exchange of information that neither one of them would have ever discovered on their own because their tactics are so dissimilar. And when the mystery is finally solved, it turns out it was never about the mystery for Enola. It was always about justice which Enola facilitates not buy figuring out and exposing the villain, but by standing up for what's right and convincing others to do the same; things that Sherlock Holmes absolutely would never give a **** about. The first movie was about Enola attempting to emulate her brother, (and failing spectacularly in my opinion, in spite of the superficially victorious ending ). The second movie was about addressing all of her older brothers flaws and weaknesses. Not in a way that diminishes her older brother, but rather compliments him and distinguishes Enola's strengths.
Die Hard with a Vengeance is worth watching. Fun action movie that's also a great love letter to pre-9/11 NYC. And Rocky Balboa is my personal favorite Rocky movie 🥲
As great as Jeremy Irons can be, his villain doesn’t hold a candle to Rickman’s Hans Gruber (few villains in any movie can). However, Samuel L Jackson injected so much life into the movie by introducing a new dynamic. (Similar to how Sean Connery livened up Last Crusade.)
Typo by me at 13:28... Should be "PAST ITS (no apostrophe) EXPIRATION DATE"
I should have caught that during editing, but I'm washed up like Indy.
@@WriterBrandonMcNulty no body's as washed up as Indy!! Now it's the years and the miles.
Here’s another tip: Don’t turn Harrison ford characters into losers.
Good advice
Or any of our favorite characters!!
You are one of the few UA-camrs I can properly listen to when it comes to Writing and Media Literacy and I thank you for your work!
I never get tired of hearing comments like this. Thanks so much! Happy Halloween!
It's refreshing to hear a writing advice channel with some testosterone in the content that can get you pumped up that doesn't just reference YA stories and Harry Potter constantly.
My favorite part every time is “this sucks because…”
It's probably because whenever he says that, he's right
I don't know man... the phrase doesn't raise the stakes from episode to episode and suffers from diminishing returns😉
Hahah harsh critic
Really enjoy this channel. I am never going to write a book, much less a movie script, but these videos are great insight into the process behind creating some of my favorite movies, and how hard it can be to get it right.
Glad you like them! Thanks!
Me too! Just love the analysis
Ditto!
"Aggressively naked"🤣🤣🤣
19:22 - 19:35 This is a criticism of TLJ that I don't hear often enough. For all its talk of subverting expectations, TLJ failed to seize any of the interesting opportunities it had.
The Bride of Frankenstein. Beyond outstanding. Yes, it's not a modern movie to reference for your audience but I still think it applies.
The one of the things that make a good trilogy is something like Raimi Spider-Man trilogy.
They keep the theme of “With great power, comes great responsibility.”
Spiderman 1: Obtaining power
Spiderman 2: Neglecting power
Spiderman 3: Abusing power
S1: Learning to use power responsibly.
S2: Paying the price of heroism (result of responsible power use).
S3: Running out of ideas and making a mess of it.
I found that the trilogy didn't really grow as a story because the need to go back to Uncle Ben.
Peter's motivation didn't have to have "Ben's" justification. The character should have grown.
My favorite sequel by far is dune part 2. I love that movie so much. It challenged the characters (mainly Paul tho) in new and interesting ways, and raised the stakes a lot. But aside from that, it just hit me so hard. I love scenes like Paul's monologue where he finally stops denying he's the Lisan Al Gaib
Even Kingdom of the Crystal Skull gave Indie a better sendoff than Dial of Disgracery.
I find the "Making the sequel bigger with more stakes" can backfire sometimes. A lot of sequels, especially the third movies, are so lackluster. Bigger is not always better. I think sequels can have bigger events but working in different or more personal reasons can work better. For me its not so much about having bigger stakes but having new compelling stakes that aren't just the stakes from the last movie but bigger. That's why Empire Strikes Back is so good. Instead of a bigger galaxy changing event they choose more personal stakes. Made the sequel feel more intense without having an even bigger death star or something.
How about the Back to the Future trilogy? The stakes of the first movie: Marty has to get back to 1985 while ensuring that he also doesn’t get erased from existence. Part II: reset the timeline so his family isn’t destroyed. Part III: Get back to 1985 without the proper fuel.
I would like the stakes to be bigger if there is a good fit to the story. If not, I am also ok with making a sequel something like a second episode of a plain old TV series. Give me just a plain old sequel to Return of the Jedi where Luke is out doing low stakes missions, but not in a boring way. He doesn't need to be killing the Emperor and even worse bad guys. There is a mission that Luke needs to do, and he does it. I would watch that. It would not be as good as Empire but nowhere near as bad as TLJ. I also wish they just did more Captain America movies where he just does superhero stuff without this giant progressing storyline where all the stakes just get bigger.
Brandon's channel is the best!
Thanks! And Happy Halloween!
Finn gets an optional DLC sequence... lmfao
That's funny, only this morning I looked up this channel wondering if you'd done a Good/Bad sequel video and got the 4 tips for writing sequels video. And now here we are.
I’ve only been writing for about 11 months and your videos have helped me so much with figuring out how to make different story elements effective. I cannot thank you enough!
Lower stakes are one reason Toy Story 4 didn't land for me.
Same here. Such a letdown after TS3.
Two of these movies I’m doing an observational study on rn, thanks!
Best Sequel - I am gonna go with Kung Fu Panda 2. Its probably my most favorite animated movie of all time. I love the darker tone, the emotional depth, the themes of letting go of the past and focusing on present choices and its a good sequel because of how it raises the stakes and expands the universe. Then we also got Kung Fu Panda 4 which I know most of the internet considers it painfully mediocre and disappointing and I do think its the weakest movie of the franchise but I think its a worthy addition to the franchise. I think its a good sequel because of how it pushes the arc of Po and takes the franchise in a new direction with Po becoming a mentor and spiritual leader. I also think Zhen was a good addition. She provided a fresh dynamic to the movie and by not having the Furious Five, the franchise avoided becoming formulaic. I don't think its the best sequel but I think it is a very good sequel and pretty over-hated.
Worst Sequel - I don't know really have a worst sequel. There are a lot of disappointing sequels but I don't think I have come across any that are straight out bad or terrible. Let's go with Jurassic World: Dominion. I think its a decent 6 or 7/10 movie. I do think it is over-hated but I have the general issues - It wastes the potential of exploring the worldwide dinosaur crisis and goes to an isolated location. The dinosaur sequences felt like they were from a James Bond movie and also lacked genuine suspense and tension. Then the villains were so one-dimensional and cartoonishly evil. There were redeeming qualities like seeing the OG cast interact with the JW cast. Jeff Goldblum had a lot of good jokes and there were some emotional moments between the characters. But overall it was a disappointment.
Other recent Good Sequels - Puss in Boots: The Last Wish (9.5/10) , Inside Out 2 (9/10), Across the Spider-Verse (9/10), etc.
Other recent Disappointing Sequels - Despicable Me 4 (7/10), Kingdom of Planet of Apes (8/10), Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire (6.5/10), etc.
Note that disappointing does not mean necessarily mean that its bad.
13:49, Crystal Skull would have made the same point
What a grand discovery of your channel I have made as an aspiring writer
Great video again, Brandon! In fact, this video is a sequel in itself to the other Bad vs. Good videos. Consistent, yet original. Since today is Halloween, my worst sequel is Halloween 3: Season of the Witch. Where's Michael Myers? Out trick-or-treating? (Maybe, Michael's agent demanded that Michael get more money for his work in the sequels? Actors!) Anyway, it's no wonder that the 4th Halloween movie is titled "THE RETURN OF MICHAEL MYERS!" What good is a sequel without its main star? It sucks! Donald Pleasance should have six times at this horrible excuse of a sequel! Anyway, keep up the good work Brandon with these videos. Very helpful and entertaining, too.
Hey thanks! And happy Halloween!
I love how Escape from LA has Pliskin saying "the more things change, the more they stay the same", which is quite ironic considering that movie is essentially the same as the original, but it tells you how it works for a lotta sequels in general
I have some stuff to unpack about sequels.
1) The Matrix movies. The original is a very "expositional" movie, it does a TON of worldbuilding, but in a very compelling way, AND it has a whole bunch of action amidst all the philosophical talk and exposition. Reloaded does some more world building about the Matrix itself (and not just the reason why it exists), but it doesn't need to do as much as the first movie, and therefore can focus more on action... by multiplying Smith. The third movie kind of has a genre shift where it's more of a war movie of sorts because we're in the real world for a good bit, but we're also at the final confrontation between Neo and Smith, and Neo fulfills his role as a hero by committing the ultimate sacrifice. And then Resurrections poops all over that by giving us Neo back alive (nullifying the impact of his sacrifice), Trinity isn't dead anymore, blah blah blah.
2) Terminator 2. Name a better sequel, lol. The original Terminator wayyy is more of a horror movie than an action movie, and I definitely do prefer T1 to T2 (mostly because I don't like teenage John Connor that much), but T2 is Ahnuld badassery at its best. The whole idea that humans managed to overcome the first terminator in T1, but the new and improved terminator in T2 requires *another Terminator* to be defeated is a great way to raise the stakes IMO.
3) The entire Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. The original movie is one of my favourite movies of all time, I've watched it so many times. But in the original Pirates movie, Jack Sparrow wasn't the main character, he was just a chaotic force making the plot go forward for the main characters just for his own benefit. The main story was about Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley's characters. But Jack Sparrow was so funny that despite him just not being main character material... the producers made him the main character of I don't even know how many of these movies exist anymore.
The worst type of sequel though is the sequel an entire fanbase yearns for but doesn't get. Where is our sequel to 2012's Dredd?
Great stuff, as always.
I'd love to see a video on prequels if you haven't done that already (I searched the channel and didn't find one, but that could just be YT struggling with the search function). More specifically, I'm interested to see examples of prequels that avoided the trap of using an already-known outcome as the source of the drama or tension, like "Will Anakin Skywalker become a bad dude? Dun dun dunnn!"
Better Call Saul comes to mind, though it’s both a prequel and a sequel (especially in the final season). What I found most interesting in that show wasn’t Saul per se, but the new characters introduced in the show, particularly Kim, Nacho, and Lalo.
The Godfather II is another combined prequel/sequel, but the prequel part of the movie is so good. Sure, it’s a simple rise-to-power tale of Vito, but it’s threaded perfectly with Michael’s steady moral downfall.
More recently: Furiosa, since the movie’s primary focus is really just mapping out the relationship between the Citadel, Bullet Farm, and Gas Town.
I might also throw The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly on there as well, but that’s a stretch since all three movies are self-contained and, aside from showing how Eastwood’s character got his signature poncho, have no other connection.
20 Best Sequels of All Time:
The Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
From Russia with Love (1963)
Goldfinger (1964)
A Shot in the Dark (1964)
The Godfather Part II (1974)
The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
Superman II (1980)
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Aliens (1986)
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1997)
Toy Story 2 (1999)
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
The Dark Knight (2008)
Toy Story 3 (2010)
The Avengers (2012)
Top Gun: Maverick (2022)
The best explanation of what a sequel should be is schafrillas rules in the Shrek 2 review
Across the spider-verse is a my favourite sequel and film
Greatly expands on the multiverse and themes introduced in the first film
Adds great new characters whilst developing the old ones as well
Somehow improves on the already flawless animation
Adds more stakes to the theme of believing in yourself and accepting who u are
Now I want to rewatch the Indiana Jones trilogy :)
I love how often the last jedi is a bad example of everything. Fuck that movie
One sequel I think works well despite being both a copy of the first and a genre change is Evil Dead 2.
Evil Dead is a creepy cabin in the woods surrounded by supernatural evil. ED2 rehashes the exact same setting and plot, but this time turns it into a comedy, and it works.
Ypu literally just posted this as I opened UA-cam to watch your videos
Nice, we're on the same wavelength today. Happy Halloween btw!
I am pretty sure the top 3 sequals are really straightforward:
- Godfather II
- Terminator 2
- The Empire strikes back
I do not want to make an order between these 3 as they are really top sequels and top movies. What makes them really special is that they are better than the original one (maybe except Godfather II but it is hard to beat the perfect movie).
I'd add The Dark Knight and make it the Mount Rushmore of sequels
It is not surprising to see Disney giving bad examples for sequels.
Often seeds of lingering consequences outside of the first storys main conflict are great fuel for sequels.
Ok I'll stick to cinema this time and give only one title for each :
Good sequel : Batman Returns (Penguin + Catwoman)
Bad sequels : Alien 4.
I could name many bad sequels and far fewer good sequels, but I'll stick to those two that come immediately to mind.
I'm surprised you didn't talk about the greatest Horror sequel ever created: Tremors 2.
I thought Maverick was actually following the rules from getting chewed out when Goose died. That's why he wasn't court-martialed.
Best sequel: Terminator 2.
I would go for Empire but would in no way argue your call here. I can argue for Empire, but not against T2. Just iconic.
Worst sequel? Best sequel? Let us know!
We're all thinking of the same thing
Hahaha
Worst: Highlander 2. (Critic's quote: "It looks like it was edited at random.")
Best: Objectively, it's Godfather II, but my favorite is Aliens
Most Disappointing: Alien 3
Troll 2 counts as both, right?
@@wadegolden3589 Highlander 2 was so bad, I stopped liking the first one.
My favorite sequel has to be Blade Runner: 2049. It expands the world of the original Blade Runner and takes the story in new directions whilst still grappling with questions posed by the original, like what does it mean to be human and what happens when people lose their humanity.
An even harder type of story to tell than a sequel, IMHO, is the PREquel. Unless it's different enough to be telling almost an entirely new story, the reader/audience already has a pretty good idea of how things will end up, so you either have to have left something vague in the original story, or perhaps even do something to deepen or even change what the audience THINKS they know about the original story (a risky move, but rewarding if you can pull it off.)
A lot of people hate the scene with Luke throwing the lightsaber over his shoulder. I don't. What I hate is the way they carried it on like a joke, trying to be cute. They missed a massive opportunity in my opinion. Don't play it cute, play it brutal. After the lightsaber toss Lukes only word should have been a stern "No." When Rey inevitably pushes after that he could then unload on her. He could point out all that he's been through, all he has lost, and how it feels like it will never end. He's an old man and he's done his part. Seeing a mix of anger and pain could get the point across that he has a severe case of PTSD without directly saying it. This could also be a tie-in to how he tried to kill Ben Solo- Fear of such immense power leaning towards the Darkside. That fear, along with "Not again", would have gone a long way to justifying why he felt Ben needed to be stopped before he could become the next Vader. A few scenes showing Ben as a danger to his fellow students and even challenging Luke a little would really have helped as well. It shouldn't have been a joke, it should have been a badly broken, yet still capable man screaming out "Enough! No more!"
For all that I've seen I completely agree with these analyses with one caveat. There are only THREE Indy movies. No Cardassian will convince me to see a movie that doesn't exist. And if there were one thing I'd change about the Top Gun sequel, it would be to use better music. The original beats it for sound track hands down.
One good tip from James Cameron: A good sequel should be understandable and complete without having to know anything about the original movie. Terminator 2 was great because you didn't need to watch the first to understand anything. The characters, plot, and story don't need any supplementary knowledge from the first movie. Movies based on books or video games also turn bad when they fail the "Does it stand on its own?" test.
If the greatest sequel ever isn't Aliens, then it is Terminator 2. I think it checks off every one of Brandon's boxes for a great sequel.
Highlander 2 was the first time I ever felt betrayed by a movie
If you think about it Star Wars Sequel Trilogy has all of these issues
One of the best examples of a rehash sequel is 22 Jump Street. The main characters are even told repeatedly “just do what worked last time”. Granted, a comedy like this doesn’t really need to raise the stakes like other sequels, it only needs to deliver laughs (which it excels at).
Great stuff, thanks. Best sequel: Terminator 2.
Halloween Kills/Ends are two of the worst sequels that do all the things you described. Stupid character decisions, going off the rails, etc
The worst sequels would probably be those movies that were made long after the original was popular, don't follow up on story beats, and were clearly released by out-of-touch executives. I'm talking about films like American Psycho 2 and Kindergarten Cop 2.
15:05 - someone else pointed that that was a hell of a punch - the guy only wakes after travel thru time, the atlantic and finally being put in bed.
Don't think about it too hard. The people who made the movie obviously didn't; at any point.
Kinda wish you compared the alien sequel to the predator sequel just to hammer home the whole “horror relies on the unknown” point. I stand by the sentiment “the best predator movie is the one you see first” because once you understand what the predator is capable of all future movies are ruined.
Yup, SW: TLJ made Rise of Skywalker impossible. I saw people shitting a lot on JJ Abrams, but Rian Johnson sabotaged him.
Another thing that sucks in sequels is the inconsistency of plot and characters,
lack of a plot because it's practically writers throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Transformers 2 is a good example yes you can blame the writers strike but they still managed to write a script.
Transformers 4 and 5 is plots being thrown at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Another banger of a video. I think my favorite sequel is Dark Knight. The worst sequel is by far Last Jedi and Rise of Skywalker. Absolute trash. I wonder if you can do a good vs bad on tv series. Since I like to write superhero stories, they are more episodic. I want to know what makes good series vs bad series if you can help 😎
The Mummy 3 has to get a shout out in the "bad" category. Dumb story, slapstick acting from Brenden Frasier, the replacement for Rachel Weisz didn't gel, and a ridiculous CGI monster Scorpion King. Quite a let down from the first couple movies.
The Dragon Age franchise has the problem that every subsequent game after the first one has jumped genres and more or less abandoned what passed for an overarching plot. The latest instalment just came out today and seems to be yet another jarring shift in gameplay, tone and character consistency.
so... its on brand, from a Jedi's point of view. ;-)
@@blshouse The funny thing is I understood the logic the first time. The Blight wasn't interesting enough to sustain more than a single game - a horde of goblins and orcs led by a dragon where they can't even talk is just too flat and generic for sequels. But then they dropped the mage-templar conflict to focus on elves and I realized they just have a problem with committing to things.
Even with the second sequel to the movie Deep Blue Sea it definitely felt like a rehash and it also felt more like a remake or a reboot of the original movie.
Hello Brandon, can you give tips on how to Write Psychological Horror? I didn't find any sources or videos on this topic, I would be extremely grateful 🙏🏻
That's one I haven't covered yet. Hopefully in the future
@@WriterBrandonMcNulty believe me, You are the best Writing content creator in the whole platform, i became a decent writer all because of you. Thanks
Since you mentioned the Alien franchise I have to bring up the Prometheus movies. The third and fourth were bad but the Prometheus movies were completely off the rails. As far as I am concerned they completely ruined the Alien franchise and in my own personal canon they don't exist. The Xenomorph is obviously a bioweapon designed to wipe out whole planets. My own thoughts on this are that the so-called Engineers built this weapon since they were engaged in a war and in the end the weapon destroyed them as we see in the first movie. This may be a bit cliche, but look at the alien; this is something that was designed to kill and keep killing until no one was left. What else could it be but a weapon? I know that Scott wanted to do something different but the truth is, the origin of the Xenomorph didn't need to be explained. It is much more scary and mysterious left open and by trying to come up with an origin story, it ruined the whole franchise.
'Maverick' was a terrible example. I remember reading comment sections and a lot of people were just mindlessly buying multiple tickets to support a film which they falsely believeed had no digital effects in it (which truthfully had tons).
The original was superior in every way and even 2005's 'Stealth' had better aerobatic choreography. Plus, it doesn't even come up with a plausible reason why the mission isn't simply conducted by stealth bombers and cruise missile volleys (a plausible reason WAS possible, but they go for the most laughable and unrealistic options in the actual story).
Can you please do a video on writing Lovecraftian horror i.e cosmic horror? I am a big fan of the genre, snd i have wrote one or two works in the genre
Gothic horror would be a nice one too
Way ahead of you on Cosmic: ua-cam.com/video/dtW_mlUW8xI/v-deo.html
Brandon “for-a-good-example-lets-look-at-the-Dark-Knight” McNulty
Hahah I wanted to include TDK but couldn't come up with something to pair it with
@@WriterBrandonMcNulty Don’t wanna mess with a winning formula!
Well done. I really need to buy one of your books. I get caught up in life. But, I love every single video you do.
Bad sequels. How do I count the ways. Superman III is my pick. I, as a young boy saw the first two and was blown away. I could definitely see a downward turn in Superman II (and now I know why) but that was nothing compared to - that. It broke my heart in ten places as they turned a brilliant exploration of the character of Superman/Clark and turned it into a Three Stooges movie. The entire red kryptonite bit was just embarrassing and painful to watch. Why was Richard Pryor in this movie in the first place? It was just taking Superman and just turning him into a parody of himself. What a waste of such a talented cast.
Hey thanks! If you end up checking out one of my books, I hope you enjoy it
To quote Scream 2, because I watched it today: Star Wars wasn't a sequel. It was a trilogy. It was planned.
Hey Brandon, would you ever consider writing a series, or do you prefer writing standalone stories? Just curious!
Hoping to turn Entry Wounds into a trilogy. Working on a sequel now
Worst sequel has got to be Highlander 2: The Quickening. It has 0% on Rotten Tomatoes whereas its predecessor still has 80% almost 40 yrs later. I honestly can't recall another sequel that failed so epically.
I think One of the worst kind of sequels that mainly is exclusive to live action movies and TV I guess, but it’s when the character actors are replaced with people with minimal or no resemblance to them. Like they expect us to think this is the same character you saw in the previous movie, but they look and sound completely different And in some cases behave differently. The biggest offender for this in my opinion is “Mostly Ghostly 2” it’s about a boy and his ghostly friends that only he can see and interact with having to stop a supernatural entity from returning to power and leading a ghost army to torment people for all eternity. Max Doyle is the main character and was recast for the sequel. I can give him a little bit of a pass in this case, because his character is getting older, but even so they still retained the actor for Tara Roland who also got older. Characters like Nicky Roland were and Collin Doyle were also replaced and with actors that don’t at all represent or look like they could represent the characters for the first “Mostly Ghostly.” Same with the actors who played the parents in both films. The film’s antagonist Phears, also got recasted and the new actor didn’t have the same charisma or personality of the previous.
A good example oddly enough comes from 2 movies. One is “George of the Jungle 2” not a great film by any means but not horrible either. George was recasted for this movie but the actor they got not only understood the character but still had some physical traits that made it believable that I’m seeing the same character. They even worked in a funny joke with the narrator talking to the new actor and saying why the original didn’t return.
The second film should come as a shock to no one, “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.” Richard Harris sadly passed away after the second film so they had to recast him and the new actor Michael Gambon also understood the character of Dumbledore and gave us his own version of the character while still keeping true to the original actor in some way.
As far as worst sequels go, none are probably worse than Blues Brothers 2000. It's a rehash, goes off the rails in the worst possible way, and was so bad that I couldn't even finish it.
Other criticisms about Disney Star Wars, is because they focus too much in diversity (if you know what I mean), instead of focusing in making great stories, like the Expanded Universe, that existed before Disney rebooted. When they decided to do that, I didn't have the guts to watch The Force Awakens the movies that came after it
I'm not saying that its necessarily terrible or bad but when it comes to the Seed of Chucky it does feel like a bit of a genre jumper simply because despite the fact that Chucky has always been campy at least to some degree Seed of Chucky felt very much like it jumped straight into the deepest end of the pool with the comedic tone when you compare it to the movies which came before it.
Horror movies in general tend to veer towards comedy and/or outer space on a long enough timeline.
Rush Hour 2 🔥
"No wonder you mad!"
Oh man, that incorrect its/it’s usage at 13:32 is painful to look at for a channel about writing!
Oof. Good catch.
Will there ever be an Entry Wounds sequel called Exit Wounds?
Aiming for next year
Don't forget "Staying Wounds" to make a trilogy out of it, place that one second.
Worst sequel is easily Highlander: The Source. It took the smoldering corpse of the franchise, defecated on it, and threw it into a wood chipper.
For worst, i would say Starship Troopers 2
Speed 2 : Cruise Control
Smile 2 could have been an example of bad sequel
I cannot believe they ruined Luke Skywalker. It is incredibly sad.
Obvious, but worst by far is Last Jedi, best maybe not by as far is Empire.
Worst sequel? Zoolander 2, I have never felt so violated by a retread until this movie. They use this terribly conceived last action hero style storyline involving magic just to rug pull the arc and mirror some of zoolanders most iconic scenes MULTIPLE TIMES!
Rian Johnson almost single-handedly destroyed Star Wars.
My favorite thing about Top Gun - Maverick is how they never said which country the antagonist was because they didn't want to piss off any of the US's enemies.
us: "The antagonist is Russia, right?"
them: "Well yes, but no."
No, it is obviously psuedo-Iran.
Iran still to this day has F-14s from when we sold them to the Shah of Iran; before the Islamic Revolution. Russia doesn't have F-14s.
Also, the target was a uranium enrichment facility. Iran has been in the news for decades concerning its uranium enrichment; which Iran claims is for medical, scientific, and other civilian use. But the governments of the US and Israel accuse them of doing this to try to build nukes.
Finally, while Iran doesn't have and Russia does not export SU-57s; and these were the final boss fight in this movie, Iran and Russia were in talks over Iran potentially buying an export version of a 5th generation fighter before this movie was filmed.
I had that same thought, and then re-watched the first one, and guess what? They didn't there, either! You'd think the Soviet Union or some Middle Eastern country might be the Bad Guys, but they never specify.
@@Beowulf45 First one was unnamed Libya. There were a number of incidents with their claiming all of the Gulf of Sidra as exclusive, territorial waters. We ran freedom of navigation exercises in direct rejection of the claim. There were a couple of shoot downs of Libyan fighters by US F-14s not all that long before the movie was made.
The antagonist in Maverick is obviously Iran, they are the only country still flying old F-14s. I don't think they cared about pissing off the Iranian government, I think they wanted to be able to say they weren't making warmongering propaganda aimed at a particular country in partnership with the US military and Lockheed Martin while still doing just that.
Best sequel: The Godfather Part II or Dark Knight or even Toy Story 2 or Superman 2 with Christopher Reeves are all really good.
Worst sequel: I mean there are too many out there. I am going to go with Transformers 2. It was absolute trash
Best sequel = mad max 2
I'm not a fan of sequels in general. Or prequels. The only one that ever really worked for me was "Godfather II." The original "Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones" films were entertaining, but in my opinion, anything beyond that was unnecessary. I'm grateful there were no sequels to "Nightmare Before Christmas," "Steel Magnolias" or "Forrest Gump."
Here's six high-quality concepts to utilize: dramatic structure, character arcs, literary techniques, thematic underpinnings, color palettes, and relevant world-building. Employ these with expertise and it's difficult to go awry. 💪😎✌️
Marketing, however, is an ENTIRELY different thing. This is only available to those with coin, connections, crews, clout, computer code, control, corporate communities, and opulent opportunities. No exceptions. HAPPY HELLOWEEN! 🎃👻🎃
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
"Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind’s journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul’s fate revealed. In time, all points converge, hope’s strength resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe’s endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again."
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
--Diamond Dragons (series)
all disney sequel movies are trash. TFA is just as shit as TLJ and ROS, stop giving it a pass.
Terminator 2 is top 10.
Worst... i could have list of 100 movies.
Actually i liked "Dial of Destiny". At least it was better than "Crystal Skull", wich was mostly boring. In "Dial" Indy was more like a mentor for Helena. She was a traumatized girl with an unreliable father, she tried to make a living by what she knew about antiquities, not caring for anybody. But in the end she came to rescue Indy, not just leaving him to die in the past. It was still an Indiana Jones movie with the hunt for clues and an unexpected twist at the end.
I wish more studios would make sequels because someone has a great idea for another movie rather than saying 'the first one made money, make another' and so someone has to come up with something even if there's no good ideas.
Likewise, I wish more studios made remakes because there’s something to improve on rather than just to cash in on what made bank before. (Like Mr. & Mrs. Smith: a just-okay action movie remade into a very compelling and fun TV series.)
😃👍
Worst Star Wars Last Jedi. I have for the Best Godfather II
There’s nothing you can say to convince me that Last Crusade doesn’t suck.
Terminator 2, Aliens, Godfather II, and The Empire Strikes, and The Dark Knight are my top 5 favourite sequels (in no order).
I don't consider this to be among the best sequels, or even the best movies, but it represents an example of an extreme turn around in a series that seemed unrecoverable due to the first movie in it. Enola Holmes 2. The movie is almost a point-by-point rebuttal to every relevant criticism that can be leveled at the truly awful first movie in the series. In some cases it offers truly compelling explanations as to why Enola is the way she is. In many other cases the acknowledges the blatant flaws of the first movie by characters blatantly pointing them out as 'that's stupid, we can do better'. And finally, for a few of the elements that were seemingly inexplicable on the first movie, the creators double down on it and prove to the audience that the criticisms were wrong. The movie tries exceptionally hard to to answer the mistake that was the first movie, which intuitively should have made the sequel a bad movie, but somehow it works brilliantly. I'm not going to list all the minutiae but I will specifically mention one element that I thought was excellent. In the first movie, Enola is always one step behind her brother Sherlock, which annoys her, when investigating the _same mystery_. But of course she is, she's less experienced and objectively less skilled and trained, yet somehow the movie ends with her beating her brother to the punch buy a few hours. Which is satisfying to no one, except Enola herself; and ignored by everyone except Enola and Sherlock. The correction in the second movie is to have the two siblings pursuing separate investigations that somehow keep bumping into each other. Sherlock is perfectly suited for his mystery, in Enola is perfectly suited for hers ( the movie reveals they are _differently_ skilled and trained ). When they keep bumping into each other, cuz the two mysteries are connected, the two characters brilliantly have an equal exchange of information that neither one of them would have ever discovered on their own because their tactics are so dissimilar. And when the mystery is finally solved, it turns out it was never about the mystery for Enola. It was always about justice which Enola facilitates not buy figuring out and exposing the villain, but by standing up for what's right and convincing others to do the same; things that Sherlock Holmes absolutely would never give a **** about. The first movie was about Enola attempting to emulate her brother, (and failing spectacularly in my opinion, in spite of the superficially victorious ending ). The second movie was about addressing all of her older brothers flaws and weaknesses. Not in a way that diminishes her older brother, but rather compliments him and distinguishes Enola's strengths.
Die Hard with a Vengeance is worth watching. Fun action movie that's also a great love letter to pre-9/11 NYC.
And Rocky Balboa is my personal favorite Rocky movie 🥲
As great as Jeremy Irons can be, his villain doesn’t hold a candle to Rickman’s Hans Gruber (few villains in any movie can). However, Samuel L Jackson injected so much life into the movie by introducing a new dynamic. (Similar to how Sean Connery livened up Last Crusade.)