h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

...So I thought I'd chip in.


Apart from Coppola's second Godfather film, can you think of any sequels that surpassed the originals?

Many people consider 'Aliens' to be the superior film to 'Alien'. It's an excellent film, thrilling, scary and containing moments of wonderful tension... But it's an entirely different style of film. Far more 'popcorn' than the first (unusually, that's not a criticism) and concentrates more on action, whereas the first film is slow and claustraphobic. An equal of the first rather than a film that surpasses it.

Others consider Terminator 2 the superior film to the first. The first film is dark, scary and, like the Terminator itself, relentless. A nihilistic piece of 80's tech-horror. The 2nd film, Linda Hamilton's fantastic performance aside, is a loud pop-video made for teenage boys with some (now) very dated looking effects. The third film could've been titled 'Carry On Terminator'.






Is the recent trend of reinventing a franchise (ie: James Bond, Star Trek) a valid way to pump new blood into a series?

Continuing with the above, I use the example of Terminator Salvation. Which was total crap. Poorly scripted, huge holes in plot, boringly paced, mediocre acting and far too demographic-orientated, focus-group-consulted boringly 'safe'. Utter, utter arse!

The Bond re-boot with Daniel Craig? Dull. Tries and fails to create the edege and excitement created in the Bourne films (now THERE'S a trilogy where each film was as good as the last!) And (I'm probably in the minority here) but I find Daniel Craig's acting in, well, everything to be completely void of personality.

Star Trek? A buch of pretty 25yr olds give it some emo flannel for ages, the film ends. Toilet.

The horror genre is particually rife with re-boots/imaginings and such like. Normally terrible - Rob Zombie's Halloween, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Friday The Thirteenth - and occasionally good - Andre Aja's The Hills Have Eyes... Actually, I think that's the only good one. There's apparently plans to remake The Thing which is, I promise, going to be complete arse gravy, esp. when compared to the brilliance of the original.






What's the earliest example of an artist producing a sequel?

??? What a question! You're probably looking at cave paintings for that one.







Do sequels ultimately devalue the wonder and magic of the original work?

That's a genuinely good and tricky question. Whilst the original works, be they book, films or whatever should stand on there own merits, my heart did break a little when watching 'Escape From L.A.' and 'An American Werewolf In Paris'...

Sorry for waffling on,
Cheers.
Perkin.

That's a point about the earliest sequel. I can't remember a time when SOMETHING didn't have a continuation of some sort.
I mean, depending on how you look at it, a number of religions have multiple holy books. I'm not sure that's entirely the same thing, I might be being overly simplistic there. Then there's composers producing their nth symphonies, they must go a ways back.

There must have been, in cinema at least, a number of reels along the lines of "bathing beauties 2" or somesuch. Video games have been doing sequels since the second Mario (or the first one if you consider Donkey Kong to be the first real Mario) and probably before that.

It's an interesting topic to think on. Might bring it up at the pub tonight...

I agree with your oppinion about the Terminator films, but I have to respectfully disagree with your point about Daniel Craig's Bond. The last 2 movies have had an intensity and a darkness to them which has, in my opinion, been missing from the Bond films for a long time, especially in the Pierce Brosnan films, and I think that the new, darker films are more gripping than the ones before them.

The whole series peaked with the cartoonish Roger Moore films for me. Total camp silliness, normally involving flying cars and crocodiles

Perkin, I'd have to agree with you on a lot of that. Especially the stuff about Daniel Craig (my own beef is that Bond is a naval man and therefore shouldn't slouch...)but a good Bond should make you laugh and say 'Oh for goodness sakes' at least once, what's the point in watching it otherwise? As you say, flying cars and crocodiles...

Oh, and I know for a fact Shakespeare did sequels, but I doubt he was the first.