After finding something amazing, the natural instinct is to want more. Whether it’s ice cream, the perfect video game or a good book, the list goes on. Who does not want more good things? 

However, recently, movie production companies forget the point of something amazing, creating sequels. Sales show that creating mediocre or even bad sequels of existing films makes more money than creating completely new ones. According to Variety and The Numbers, the sequel, “Moana 2,” grossed over $1 billion worldwide while the new film, “Raya and the Last Dragon,” earned a less impressive $116.2 million worldwide. Like it or not, sequels are here to stay.

Unfortunately, not all sequels are created equal. Some films fulfill the purpose of a sequel perfectly by taking what works in the original, expanding on it and addressing the flaws of the original. On the other hand, some sequels, in a hopeless attempt to make more money, not only ruin themselves but the original as well. So, what makes a sequel an obvious cash grab and others worth it? Here are the three do’s and don’ts that determine if a sequel is a hit.

A perfect example of a necessary sequel is “Stars Wars: Episode VI – Return of the Jedi.” The fifth episode ended on a massive cliffhanger, which showed that a sequel was built in mind with the fourth movie, allowing the sixth movie to build off the original. When the sequel eventually came out, many people were pleased. According to Rotten Tomatoes, it received a 83% for the Tomatometer, the professional film critic score, and a 94% for the Popcornmeter, the audience score. It built upon the original and gave viewers a satisfying ending.

On the other hand, if you want to completely ruin a movie franchise, one of the easiest ways is to ruin the original film by ignoring it in lieu of more money. This tarnishes its reputation. An infamous example is “Highlanders II: The Quickening.” The original premise of the movie is about a primordial race of immortals that kill each other until there is only one left. 

Right away, this is a red flag for a sequel. What other stories can you tell in this world that would not be a monologue? The sequel tries to solve this issue by resurrecting dead characters but what was the point of the characters dying in the first film? It removes all the stakes in the first film, making it less enjoyable. You know the characters will come back to life so your heart is not pounding.

One of the most innovative movies has to go to “Toy Story 2” which respects the source material. It introduced the concept of Woody as a valuable collector’s item, a new idea that did not contradict the original film. New characters were introduced like Jessie and Bullseye, that expanded Woody’s backstory and added new dynamics. It felt like a natural evolution of the series.

However, a rip-off film, while technically not a sequel, “Piranha,” showcases the fatal flaw of exploiting an original film’s success. The only notable difference in this movie is what if the shark in “Jaws” was actually a swarm of piranhas? If people want to watch a similar film to the original, they will likely watch the original. It feels like you are being scammed when you are watching the same motions and story beats but with a new coat of paint. Probably because you are being scammed. You’re better off watching the actual sequel of “Jaws.”

If it was not already bad, “Piranha” got a sequel, “Piranha 2.” If you are looking to watch a basically carbon copy of another carbon copy but with flying piranhas, this is the movie for you.

To create compelling characters, character arcs are a vital aspect as they keep people from becoming bored with the same repeating formula. Furthermore, seeing the character grow actually helps a film by making it more relatable. People change; they are not static.“Puss in Boots: The Last Wish” was taking notes. They took the original idea of Puss, a cocky cat who sees himself as invincible, and showed how he changes when he is confronted with reality about his mortality. This shows the viewers a relatable side of the character, his anxieties and fears. All of the development of Puss throughout the film comes to a climactic conclusion where Puss battles Death itself and learns to value his life and not take it for granted.

Unfortunately, “Ghostbusters 2” missed the memo. Throughout the original, they were progressively freeing New York City from ghosts and ghouls, eventually facing the big bad, Gozer. Meanwhile, Peter, one of the Ghostbusters, was developing feelings for Dana, their first customer, and the movie ended with them beginning a romantic relationship. It did all the things a great movie needs; compelling plot, relatable characters, and a satisfying ending.

Though in the sequel, it was as if the original never happened and in some cases, even took the sequel a few steps behind the original, with the Ghostbusters disbanded as well as Peter and Dana broken up. This led to people feeling disinterested and disengaged in the movie, which was shown in the ratings, with a 54% Tomatometer score for “Ghostbusters 2” compared to a 95% Tomatometer score for “Ghostbusters.” It felt like nothing that happened in the original film mattered.

With many more sequels on the horizon; notable examples include “Zootopia 2,” “Now You See Me: Now You Don’t” and “Wicked: For Good,” these sequels will hopefully avoid the common mistakes and instead expand their original films into franchises that will be beloved for centuries. If any of you become a movie director, ensure that if you are tasked with creating a sequel, you give it the justice it deserves.