The Worst Movie Sequels of All Time: Hollywood's Biggest Disappointments
In Hollywood, success tends to beget sequels. When a film is a hit at the box office, studios clamor to milk the success with sequels that guarantee to keep the story going or open up the universe further. Not all sequels are made equal, though. For each "The Godfather Part II" or "The Empire Strikes Back," there are dozens of disappointing sequels that can't recapture the magic of their predecessors. These movies tend to leave viewers asking themselves why they were ever made in the first place. In this detailed investigation, we'll look at some of the most infamous sequels to fall short in film history, studying what went awry and how these films got themselves on the list of the worst sequels ever made.
Why Sequels to Films Typically Fail the Audience
Financial incentive is another large reason for the failure of sequels. The studios will greenlight sequels mainly to make money off the brand name of something already successful instead of because they have an interesting story to tell. This greedy practice normally yields movies that are clichéd and slack. As another Reddit commenter said of "Joe Dirt ," these sorts of sequels tend to be nothing more than "a cast reunion with 'hey remember this joke and or reference to the first movie?'". This cynical filmmaking tactic does not often result in great movies.
Occasionally, the sequels are hurt by an essential misapprehension of what made the original great. They could emphasize the wrong things or stray too far from what people enjoyed about the original film. This misalignment can create sequels that not only fail on their own terms but also retroactively taint the legacy of their predecessors. The practice is so prevalent that it has created its own jargon among movie critics and fans, who call particularly egregious instances "franchise killers."
Sequels That Lack Original Cast Members: A Formula for Failure
No genre of bad sequels is more reliably underwhelming than the ones made in an effort to restart a series without its original cast. What these movies do is mostly attempt to profit from name recognition alone, assuming fans won't notice the lack of the very actors that made the originals hits. This strategy has repeatedly been catastrophic, especially with comedies that are heavy on star power.
"Son of the Mask" is possibly the worst instance of this syndrome. This 2005 follow-up to the 1994 Jim Carrey blockbuster tried to carry on where Carrey had left off, sans his over-the-top intensity and bodily antics. It tried to introduce Jamie Kennedy instead as the hero in a new plot with the magic mask. It was disastrous both at the box office and critically. It was "legitimately one of the worst movies of all time, and is so bad that it has forever tainted the impact (however minor) of the original by merely existing". The fact that the film did not succeed serves to show how some films are irrevocably tied to the stars that made them iconic.
This trend continues with movies such as "Ace Ventura Jr." and "Dumb and Dumberer," both attempts at reviving Jim Carrey franchises without the comedian's participation. As one commenter succinctly put it, "Someone needs to realize that Jim Carrey sequels without Jim Carrey are a terrible idea". Not only do these movies fail as entertainment, but they also tarnish the image of the original works, making studios less willing to revive the franchises in the proper manner in the future.
The problem goes beyond comedies. Action franchises such as "The Bourne Legacy" tried to carry on without Matt Damon, and "Speed 2: Cruise Control" notoriously substituted Keanu Reeves with Jason Patric. In almost every instance, these star-less sequels tank, unable to replicate what fans enjoyed about the originals while at the same time lowering the brand's overall value.
Unnecessary Continuations of Complete Stories
Some of the worst sequels ever made make the cardinal mistake of picking up on stories that were already perfectly finished. These sequels tend to be contrived and forced, inventing plot contrivances to explain their own existence instead of growing naturally out of the original story. The "Jaws" sequels are a prime example of this issue, with each subsequent installment becoming more absurd and disconnected from the tense, character-based thriller that Steven Spielberg originally made.
"The sequels to Jaws only got worse and worse," commented one Reddit user, expressing the general view that the franchise was better left at one film. The original "Jaws" was a standalone movie with a clear-cut ending. The sequels, on the other hand, had to create more and more far-fetched plots to introduce new sharks to Amity Island, ending in the infamous "Jaws: The Revenge," which seemed to give supernatural motives to a shark.
"Highlander II: The Quickening" represents another egregious example of an unnecessary sequel. The original "Highlander" film concluded with the tagline "There Can Be Only One," suggesting a definitively closed narrative. Yet the sequel not only continued the story but radically changed the mythology, revealing that the immortals were actually aliens from the planet Zeist. This bizarre retcon has made "Highlander II" infamous among bad sequel discussions. As another Reddit commenter wrote, "For a movie where the whole premise is 'There Can Be Only One' I'm gonna have to say HIGHLANDER II: THE QUICKENING".
"Independence Day: Resurgence" is a more recent example of this trend. The first "Independence Day" was a standalone story that ended with humanity's clear-cut victory over alien attackers. The 2016 sequel arrived 20 years later, long after the cultural moment of the original had passed. Despite bringing back much of the original cast, the film failed to recapture what made the first movie special. One Reddit commenter captured the mood nicely: "The original Independence Day was a giant moment in movie history from my kid-movie-watcher's point of view, and the nostalgia was strong for this one. But all things considered, it clearly didn't need to exist at all. The aliens were defeated, yes? Let's just leave it at that?".
Horror Franchises: From Frightening to Frightfully Bad
Horror franchises appear to be especially vulnerable to diminishing returns with sequels. What initially is groundbreaking, scary film can quickly descend into formulaic remakes that stress more gore and greater body counts at the expense of real scares or narrative. This trend has infected even the most esteemed horror franchises, and subsequent installments often have little in common with the groundbreaking originals that they have spawned.
The "Halloween" franchise is an example. John Carpenter's first, 1978 movie is a work of suspenseful horror masterwork. Yet as the sequels grew in number, so did their decline in quality. The franchise has been rebooted several times in trying to recapture the magic of the original with mixed success. Specifically off-base entries such as "Halloween: Resurrection" are often named among the worst horror sequels of all time.
Similarly, "The Ring Two" also did not succeed in replicating the atmospheric foreboding of its original, instead resorting to more stereotypical horror motifs. The "Return of the Living Dead" franchise also fell off with every subsequent installment further departing from the successful blend of horror and black comedy that made the original stand out.
These horror follow-up flops usually result from basic misinterpretations of why the originals worked. The originals usually introduced something new to the genre—groundbreaking camera techniques, new monsters, or ironic twists on horror conventions. Their sequels, on the other hand, usually fall back on formula and convention, hoping that repeating elements from the original with slight changes will be enough for audiences.
Comedy Sequels: When the Laughter Stops
Comedy sequels present special challenges. Jokes that work well and surprise in an original movie tend to bomb when repeated or subtly reworked in a sequel. Comedy is so dependent on timing and surprise, and these are hard to repeat in sequels where audiences already know what to expect from the characters and the comedic tone.
"Look Who's Talking Too" illustrates this issue. The first movie made fun of providing a baby with an adult inner dialogue voiced by Bruce Willis. The sequel tried to double down on that idea by introducing a second baby with Roseanne Barr voicing it as well as Mel Brooks voicing a toilet. The end result was a movie that seemed like a last-ditch effort to try and repeat the surprise hit of the first movie with less and less returns. As the Rooftop Film Club review pointed out, "One film of a baby with a bad internal monologue is more than enough".
The same could be said of "Zoolander 2," which came out 15 years after the original cult classic, well past the cultural moment the movie satirized. Though it reunited the original cast, the sequel couldn't capture the freshness and absurdity that made the first one memorable. One Reddit user succinctly stated, "Zoolander 2. Wasn't needed and after watching, wish it wasn't made"1. Another humorously added, "Watched it on a plane. unfortunately we landed safely"1, highlighting how truly disappointing the experience was.
"Caddyshack II" is another infamous comedy sequel bomb. The first "Caddyshack" is a comedy classic with great performances by Bill Murray, Chevy Chase, and Rodney Dangerfield. The sequel, which features none of the original cast and the directing hand of Harold Ramis, couldn't manage to catch even a fraction of the original's humor and charm, and failed miserably as a movie often named on the list of worst sequels ever made1.
The Absolute Worst Offenders: Hall of Shame
While most sequels are a letdown, some are notable for their especially egregious failures in storytelling, cinematic quality, or respect for their antecedents. They are movies that have found special places in the "hall of shame" of bad sequels, consistently making terrible follow-up lists.
"Basic Instinct 2: Risk Addiction" came 14 years after the original, which was so notorious and commercially successful. Even with Sharon Stone reprising her role as Catherine Tramell, the sequel was unable to muster any of the controversy or publicity of the original. Filmed in London instead of San Francisco and without Michael Douglas, the movie seemed a weak imitation of the original, with one critic calling it "a textbook example of how not to make a sequel".
"Staying Alive," the follow-up to "Saturday Night Fever," is one of the most precipitous drops in quality in an original and its sequel. The original film was a realistic, gritty working-class drama that just happened to involve disco dancing, whereas the sequel (which was directed by Sylvester Stallone) became a shallow, flashy tale of Broadway dancing. The sequel discarded most of what was good in the original, such as Tony Manero's rough-around-the-edges and gritty Brooklyn surroundings. As noted in the Rooftop Film Club review, "You can't just keep naming films after Bee Gees songs and expect them to be belters".
The "Police Academy" series merits separate mention for being so consistent with the creation of poorly-received sequels. Rotten Tomatoes lists several entries in the series with the dubious honor of 0% scores on the Tomatometer, making it one of few franchises to constantly churn out sequels reviled by critics but still produce more.
More than any other recent example of failure in sequels, perhaps the most infamous is the "365 Days" trilogy. According to Rotten Tomatoes, both of the sequels to the already lowly-rated original received 0% scores, making it "the worst-reviewed trilogy ever". This record for consistent critical failure is a testament to how the consistency that can be achieved in sequels is not always a good thing.
Why Studios Keep Making Bad Sequels
Despite the long history of sequel disappointments, studios continue to produce follow-ups to successful films, often with diminishing returns. This persistence stems from several factors related to the business of filmmaking rather than artistic considerations.
The most straightforward incentive is monetary. Sequels to hit movies are lower-risk gambles than new properties. Viewers already exposed to characters and worlds are more likely to buy tickets out of name recognition alone, even if the product does not live up to the original. This risk-reward ratio is why studios keep approving sequels even when the creative rationale is shaky at best.
Marketing is also a factor. Marketing a sequel is generally easier and cheaper than selling a completely new idea to viewers. Studios have the advantage of pre-existing familiarity and good will toward the franchise, minimizing the necessity of introducing the premise or setting up the world from square one. Such marketing economy renders sequels desirable from a commercial standpoint, even when the creative argument is unsound.
The global market also stimulates the making of sequels. Movies that already have established brand names tend to do better abroad, especially in markets where the audience may not be so much interested in subtle storytelling but is more interested in spectacle and recognizable characters. With international box office earnings increasingly being a consideration, the economic motivation to create identifiable sequels has risen.
What Makes a Good Sequel (And Why So Many Fail)
Knowing what makes a good sequel sheds light on why so many of them are not. Good sequels tend to add something to their precursors instead of rehashing them. They open up the world, complicate the characters, or probe new thematic ground while retaining what people liked about the original.
"The Godfather Part II" is still the model by which all sequels are judged, both carrying on Michael Corleone's story and enriching it through parallel narratives on his father's early days. "The Empire Strikes Back" did likewise for the "Star Wars" universe, both increasing the emotional and story stakes of the first film. Both sequels honored what they had before them while discovering fresh tales to explore within their already established universes.
In contrast, failing sequels mistakenly interpret or overlook what made the originals great. They may cling to surface material—catchphrases, set pieces, or visual gags—without holding on to the heart or the essence that captured people's emotions about the original. This shallowness accounts for why comedy and horror sequels so routinely fall short; both genres draw upon surprise and novelty, concepts hard to retain in retreads.
The timing of sequels also impacts their reception. Films rushed into production to capitalize on a hit often suffer from underdeveloped scripts and hasty production. Conversely, sequels that arrive too late (like "Zoolander 2" or "Basic Instinct 2") often feel irrelevant, attempting to revive interest in characters or settings that audiences have moved on from.
Conclusion: Learning from Sequel Failures
The decades-long trail of disappointing sequels presents lessons for studios and filmmakers. Perhaps the greatest is that not all successful movies require or benefit from a sequel. Some are finished stories, and attempts to continue them serve only to dilute their power instead of amplifying it.
When sequels are produced, they need the same artistic attention and thought as original films—maybe even more, considering the demands they are supposed to meet. Mere rearranging of components of a successful movie into slightly new arrangements does not often produce interesting movies. Instead, writers need to come up with valid reasons for returning to these worlds and characters, with fresh stories that make them exist independently of budgetary considerations.
To audiences, the procession of lackluster sequels is a reminder to enter follow-up movies with proper skepticism. Although a few sequels are able to match or better their counterparts, they are still the exception and not the norm. This fact doesn't imply that we dismiss all sequels in toto, but that we rejoice at those exceptional follow-ups that are able to earn their keep through quality storytelling and filmmaking.
In a franchise-happy Hollywood where familiar intellectual property is dominating more and more of the conversation, it matters more than ever to know how to make the best sequels, and which ones fail. The worst of all time serve as cautionary examples—teaching us that even the dearest movies can have unengaging follow-ups when creative possibilities fall behind commerce.
