It seems to me our primary difference is that you have a more optimistic outlook in that you assume that most of the people involved in making a sequel want to do just as good a job on that movie as they did on the original. And I'm sure there are examples where some or even most of the people involved actually try to do as well or better than the original film.
Ah, ok. In that case then, let me clarify: my view isn't quite as wide-eyed Pollyanna as you're assuming. I think people are looking at sequels as an opportunity to make more money by expanding an established enterprise. It is a business, after all. My point is that they don't go into it thinking they can piddle their way through a sequel (which has been suggested in this thread) without consequence.
If not for the many successful and valuable sequels that have been listed in this thread and threads like it, there would be no bank in making a sequel at all, right? For that reason, the fatalistic and dismissive 'tude that is set in the opening post seems narrow-minded to me. I balk at easy cynicism, so in that regard you are right: I am an optimist.
However, there are many examples, too, of people who just sort of walk through their parts in films, whether sequels or not. A prime example is one of the greatest actors ever, Marlon Brando, who once said that at the start of a new film, he'd show the director two different ways of playing his first scene, then ask which the director preferred. One, according to Brando, was the "right" way while the other was all "wrong." If the director made the "right" choice, Brando said he'd then do his best for the film. But if the director made the "wrong" selection, Brando didn't take him seriously and just loafed through the film. And certainly he made some stinkers in his day, as did Lawrence Olivier and Michael Caine, both of whom frequently took movie roles just for the pay check.
Sure. But there was a time when Brando wasn't entirely bankable. Resting on his laurels undercut the perception of him as an artist. I'll be honest with you, as an actor, I read that story and see a lazy, limited actor. He could only do things his way, and it if that wasn't on the agenda, he didn't try. There is always more than one way to do a thing. I am guessing from your use of quotes in that story that we're in agreement there.
What I'm really objecting to is the beancounter attitude of, "Hey, let's make another Die Hard (or whatever, Young Guns; I don't mean to pick on Die Hard)," not because there is something to be said or further explored in the sequel but simply because the original did so well at the box-office and the sequel may or may not do as well but likely will still be profitable. That's the sort of monkey-see attitude that put tailfins on all the cars decades ago in the late 1950s.
I see your point here. I am mainly objecting to the suggestion that the majority of sequels are completely careless of the quality of the sequel.
I've never been so foolish to claim "all" good films were made "in decades past." I wouldn't even say most were. I think in any decade there are more bad to mediocre movies made than good ones, which is why the good ones stand out in our memories. Unfortunately, our age difference is such that some films that I think of as modern and up to date are to you merely "decades old." For instance, I wonder when in your timeframe did the indies "prove the popularity of thoughtful film." From my ancient viewpoint, I would say that happened back when the major studios lost their chokehold on cinema and people like Cassavettes started making movies. To me, The Man With the Golden Arm is a thoughtful film independently made and distributed without the official stamp of Hollywood's moral code.
You know what Tony Randall said about making assumptions, right?
I do believe that the big studios and the independents both stopped making films aimed at my demographic group years ago and now target younger audiences with different tastes, different interests, different backgrounds, different humor, and so young that most simply have not lived long enough to acquire the education, experience, and sophistication of my generation. Doesn't make us better and them worse--just different. One example of this is that Pearl Harbor was watered down in an effort to appeal to Japanese as well as US audiences. Was that a good business decision? Yes, if the sole aim was to broaden the film's market and bring in more bucks. Was it good cinema? No.
Well, that's one way to look at it. Another way is that the propaganda machines of the last century polluted the Melting Pot. Labeling one group of people as less human than our group doesn't benefit anyone once the war is over, right? So even there, there is more to be considered than the size of the cash cow.
I can't comment on your example because I've never seen (nor, I think, even heard of) Superbad. However, I've also never seen Animal House all the way through (just a few clips while flipping TV channels). John Belushi (hope I got the spelling right) just never did much for me, although parts of the Blues Brothers were better than I had expected but not good enough that I'd care to see it again. Not saying AH was a bad film--I've got no reason to judge it. It's just that college campus comedies have never had much appeal for me, not even decades ago with Debbie Reynolds and Peter Lawford were making them.
For what it's worth, I liked Belushi's brother in Thief and some other decades-old films that seem like only yesterday to me.
My examples were of similarly sophomoric humored films, but the newer one had a little more going on philosophically than the older one.
Edit to Add: while I mostly disagree with the tenor of the opening post, I have to say: I'm really enjoying the discussion in this thread. I'm glad to find conversations of this level going on anywhere on the internet, but especially happy to find them here in my own back yard (virtually speaking).
Reply to Topic
