About ten years ago, I could go to Movie Part 2 confident about what I’d get. A slightly tired, watered-down version of the original. It wouldn’t be quite as funny or violent or shocking, but it would entertain me for a couple of hours. These days, things have changed.
This week I saw both Spiderman 2 and Harry Potter and the Hooded Pants Thief of Al Qaeda, or whatever it’s called. Spiderman 2 was great–it had just the right combination of action, plot and humour. This is high praise indeed, but its spirit evoked Raiders of the Lost Ark for me. The acting was great (excepting James Franco as Harry–the Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria were less wooden) and the story wasn’t Byzantine in its complexity, a common problem in action movies these days. In short, it was a great summer blockbuster.
The latest Harry Potter effort was also a striking improvement. Alfonso Cuarón seemed to get a strong grip on the special effects team, so that the film wasn’t entirely about flying cars and three-headed dogs. It was a darker film, both literally and thematically. Sure, it’s still pretty formulaic (Hogwarts really ought to screen its professors better) and J.K. Rowling gets far more credit than she deserves for plundering mythology left, right and centre, but it’s a pretty entertaining film. The actors are older, and feel much more comfortable in their skins. The Quidditch game is mercifully brief. Because it’s Alfonso Cuarón (director of the excellent and kinky Y tu mamá también), I hoped that Ron and Harry would make the beast with two backs in the old Hogwarts bathroom. No such luck.
I still haven’t seen Kill Bill: Volume 2, but it was generally reviewed more positively than the original. Additionally, I think Return of the King was the best of the three Lord of the Rings films. X-men 2 was at least as good as the original.
Of course, there are plenty examples of crappy sequels. The Matrix films immediately come to mind. I’m not sure how prequels fit in, so we’ll leave those dodgy Star Wars films out of this discussion.
My point is that while I used to depend on a sequel being lousier than the original, that’s no longer the case. But why? I’m not sure. One obvious reason is that sequels don’t have to deal with the creation myth and character introductions that the original must cover. Of course, that hasn’t changed in recent years. In the case of Harry Potter, I think it’s the more mature actors and a different director. Otherwise, I’m not really sure. Any thoughts? Or maybe everyone thinks I’m on crack for not preferring Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stones…er…Stone.
A final note about Spiderman 2. The opening credits of films did that rarest of things–it reviewed the events of the first film. Using a very graceful technique drawing on the comic book tradition, it reminded us of key moments from the first film. Not only did this refresh our memories, but it evoked the emotions we felt at those moments in the first film. In every sense, it set us up for the events that followed.
DarrenBarefoot.com 
Well, it helps that Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter aren’t adapting sequels but serials. In the case of the Lord of the Rings, the three tomes were written as a single work, and so build off from one another. Translating that to film, while still a challenge, allows Return of the King to build off the strengths of the third book, which was actually a closing chapter of a trilogy rather than an add-on to a tired franchise (see Superman 4).
Likewise, Harry Potter is being built as a seven-part book serial, and J.K. Rowling herself is showing some good signs that she’s plotting the whole thing out properly. The movies easily build on this strength. Rather than sequels, you are getting additional chapters developing the story of a single movie.
The opening credit recap in the film was rather good, wasn’t it? It featured art by the always excellent Alex Ross.
I wonder if somebody didn’t take the studios to task for completely ruining two very profitable comic book franchises (Superman and Batman – remember the cringe inducing fourth installments of each???). While the philosophy would seem to have been “try and repeat the success of the first movie by basically repeating it”, I think audiences got wise. Now studios recognize that effort to make each film as good or better than the last (creative story, good script, good direction/acting etc.) could conceivably keep a franchise (ergo – profits) going forever.
I’m afraid for the next Harry Potter, though – with Mike Newell directing, I fear for the series.