LogFAQs > #984755533

Unlike with video games, where improving technology and lessons learned have made numerous sequels superior, and TV shows, where the first season is often a search for identity (and thus varies wildly in quality vs. later seasons), movie sequels often struggle to capture what made the first one so great. What are some times where the second movie (or even the third) was better than the first one?

This does count Star Wars - where ESB is commonly regarded as the best of them, since its bigger budget, introduction of Yoda, and more thorough plot add up to an even better product than the first - and James Bond, where From Russia With Love built upon Dr. No's foundation in every way imaginable. But I'm more thinking about times when there were only two or three movies total, and those weren't just released as two parts of one extra-long movie like Kill Bill or the new Dune.

One I was thinking of when making this topic was Bourne. Identity was very hard to believe due to its portrayal of the USA as authoritarian communists, but Supremacy rectified the issues that movie caused (in part through retconning the size of the operation hunting Bourne) and still managed to be an enjoyable ride itself. I can also see an argument for Back to the Future Part II, since that one understands how time travel can affect the course of events better than the first, but the first still has charm that the second one doesn't.