February 27, 2018: Sequels

posted in: Bears, Blackhawks, Bulls, Cubs, White Sox | 5

Sequels are never better than the original, agreed?

Never is a tough word.  Never say never.  Kind of like always.  There has to be one that goes against the grain of a theory either way.  I’m trying to think of one.

I’ve thought about if before.  I started thinking about it again watching Karate Kid II.  Very underrated flick in my opinion.  As I watched it, I thought about how I really liked this movie.  It was a nice sequel to the original Danielson.

Going back to Okinawa.  The romances for both Mr Miyagi and Daniel.  The training.  The fight scenes where Danielson was pushed around.  The scenes like the breaking of the ice where he showed that promise again.  The storm scene, and of course the end.  Love how he tried to do that crane kick and the dude threw him to the ground, saying that ain’t working in this movie.  But Danielson got his man, and we got our happy ending again.  Still, even how much I like this movie and its ending, it’s not better than the original.  And don’t even mention the remake ok?

Yes, it’s tough to beat the original.  Godfather 2…awesome, but I don’t rank it ahead of the first.  Can we count Empire Strikes Back as a sequel?  If so, again, great, great movie, but not better than Star Wars in my opinion.  Beverly Hills Cop 2?  Very good, but again not up to that original level.  Still thinking about a sequel that can top the original…

It’s the same in sports.  We never got the sequel for the Bears and the Sox championships.  It’s still early enough for that Cubs sequel; here’s hoping on that one, but come on…honestly, if the Cubs claimed another or two, it would be awesome, but better than the first?  Never.

We have plenty of sequels to debate for the Hawks and Bulls.  Maybe you like the 2013 or 2015 Hawks better than the 2010 version?  I don’t.  Love the Boston series and the 17 seconds, but…seeing the Hawks raise the Cup for the first time in my life in 2010 could not be topped.  Then there’s the 90s Bulls…

If we’re counting all five of the titles after 1991 as sequels, we may have found one.  The 72-10 year…better than the first?  I’d hear you if you said so, but I wouldn’t.   Seeing MJ cry with that trophy…after the Bulls finally got past the Pistons…that first Grant Park party…  It was all so new.  It was all so good.   I’d take it over all the others.  Yes, even over that last beautiful shot over the Jazz by his Airness.  Still looking for that sequel that is better than the original…

I would never classify any of the championship sequels laughable like many of those types of movies.  Ghostbusters 2?  Maybe I need to watch it again.  I did watch Another 48 hours again.  That wasn’t as bad as I remembered it.  The Lethal Weapons were solid.  I don’t know…help me here.

Give me a worthy debate.  I’m hoping the Cubs do this year, but I already know…  You can’t top the originals…

5 Responses

  1. MK

    Hard to argue with you on this one. I cannot think of any sequel that is better than the original. There are sequels that you can argue are as good as the original, but none that come to mind as being better. Karate Kid 1 and 2 qualify here. Both are great movies but no way is 2 better than 1. Same goes for Godfather, Star Wars, Toy Story, Terminator…the list can go on. I have to agree that the original titles that we have been alive for are the best. Others may be equal to the original, but I would not rank them as better. No way would I consider any of them laughable, either, like some move sequels can be. Would love to see more sequels from each of our Chicago sports teams, starting with the Cubs. 2016 will always be #1, though, but I sure as hell would like something to compare it to! GO CUBS GO!!!

  2. bullwinkle

    How ’bout the Die Hard grouping? All pretty good. Or (before your time) the Beach Blanket Bingo movies with Annette and Frankie. All good, and all basically the same, just some different ‘jigglers’ from one to the next. But the story was always consistent. Or the ‘SAW’ movies? Haven’t seen any of them, but there was a bunch of them. Or the Friday the 13th? Again, a bunch of them, but all pretty much just ‘MOTS’. There are many more movies in multiple releases, too many for me to remember, but all of them redeeming in some way.
    Is the 1st one the best because the characters and the story lines, etc are all new in the 1st one of any series. Or is it because the subsequent follow-ups just suck?

    • JEFFK

      I like all the Die Hards, but can’t rank any of them ahead of the first. I do like other sequels of movies, but none of them really top the first of that series. So I don’t think the follow ups suck, well in some cases they do, but maybe because everything was brand new in the first movie, where we fell in love with it.

  3. Mo

    Its hard to compare sequels and we should not limit it to sports and movies. We could go on and on about this, like is you 2nd kid less fun than the 1st? Is the first beer better than the last one? Second slice of pizza less appetizing then the 1st?

    The Bulls winning six is a perfect example. Each time they won it all, it was a different memory, from Jordan hitting six 3 pointers, to the 72-10 season, even stuffing Karl Malone 2 straight years is a fond memory. Point is, when the CUBS win it all again, it will create a different feeling than the first. No better, no worse, just different.

    Movies try to recreate the same moments as in the first, that’s why sequels will never rise above the originals.

Leave a Reply