Bridget Jone's Diary?

It's the classic sequel syndrome:

1. A movie is very successful. People love its tone, characters, humour, and usually has a few memorable moments that people talk about afterwards.

2. The studio realises they have the potential for easy money - so they make another!! People who saw the first one will come back, and people who didn't see the first will go and see the second because they've heard good things from their friends.

3. The result is usually a very disappointing movie.

4. Why is this? Because they try to re-create what made the first so special. The inauthenticity of such an obvious rip-off of its own source material is usually a big turn off.

5. Also, a sequel rarely has the same crew return - just the same actors. The director and screenwriter will often forgo the chance to make a sequel, because they don't want to retread old ground.

6. The people who replace them will often totally miss the point of the original, and just try to do the same thing again but with different situations.

5. For example: Kick-*** (2010) was a great film. It was funny, had sympathetic characters, a very witty sense of humour, and was essentially a self-aware parody of the superhero genre. It included cartoonish ultra-violence and a little girl saying c.u.n.t. It was pushing boundaries to see how the audience would react.

6. Kick-*** 2 (2013) came out this year. It has a different director and a different writer. They've missed the point of the original. They watched the first movie and thought, 'OK, so we need more violence and the girl has to swear again.'

7. The result is sequel that is a carbon copy of the original with none of the tongue-in-cheek wit. They repeat or reference moments that fans enjoyed in the original. It feels inauthentic as a result, and just turns people off.

This problem can be applied to almost any sequel, including Bridget Jones. But some sequels "get-it" - they realise that repeating what they've done before never works. The best sequels have the same characters, but change the situation entirely and make it feel fresh and original at the same time.

For example, Terminator (1984) had Arnold Schwarzenegger as the killer robot. They wanted to make another, especially with how popular The Terminator character was - despite being the bad guy - but realised they would be rehashing the film. So what did they do to mix things up? They brought back Schwarzenegger as the android, but this time made him the good guy. So simple, yet genius.

Yeah, the sequel to BJD was such a disappointment. These movies too:

1. Back to The Future 2 and 3

2. Silence of the Lambs should have retired Hannibel at the end of the first one

3. Stayin' Alive was sooo awful, but Sat Night Fever was iconic

4. Grease 2 .. Didn't see it but it looked tres fromagie

5. Hangover 2 .. Not as funny :-(

i don't think the second bridget jones was as funny as the first but i still liked it. i think with movies where they should have stopped, they should have never ever made 5 bring it on movies. i mean 5? relly? the first was gone but the rest, no. people say that mean girls two was bad, but i watched it with my friend and we both liked it. i will admit though it wasn't as good as the first. i think that movies go bad on the second because they are so popular the first time that the people making the movie can't make it as good for the second time and then it really just isn't popular.

Mean Girls 1- big success

Mean Girls 2.. don't even get me started, if you haven't heard of the second coming out, its because it was so bad it didn't make theatres and just -.- I know what you mean! Like it wasn't horrible, just compared to the first it was a disaster!

I loved the first Monsters Inc... the second was a bit of a let down.