Henry Ford got it right.

"Quality means doing it right when no one is looking"

-Henry Ford

Damn right it is. The moment someone puts their eyes on it, the quality is lost because the person who's working on it tries to impress the person whose eyes are on it so then it's called shit.

How many of you notice that the sequels to movies almost always suck compared to Part 1 of the series? Yes I see you nodding in agreement.

Let us look at an example. Charlie's Angels. Good lord, the sequel was absolutely f***ked up. Click here too see a related post

Now Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle was just stupid. I mean after watching that movie I discovered that those girls were REALLY talented. Like wow :| From disguising as sluts, to driving huge-ass trucks these Charlies Angels tackled new frontiers to the extent of human abilities. In addition to the examples I gave above, Charlies Angels could go kung-fu on your ass, drive (fly, steer a ship, you name it), fall on bricks and glass and not get killed by accident (by the way, this really takes the adage "Sticks and stones may break my bones.." up a whole new level: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but guns will never kill me), and speaking of guns, I understand Kevlar, but falling from the top of a building and not breaking at least one bone is ludicrous. Look we know you're tough, but still.. =.=||

But then again, that is not my point. My point is, the sequel was "Throttled" to the point of mediocrity. I guess producers like to add some oomph to the sequels that they produce, thinking that the viewers have the IQ of a child and will sit through such nonsense. People who sit through exceptionally stupid sequels only do it for the eleven bucks they paid to watch it, trust me.

The basis that producers are working on is the fact that the sequel to a movie needs to rock, better than the first part. But sometimes, less is more. :)

Now you may be thinking "Hey! Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers rocked. You suck!" or "I liked Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban!". Let me tell you retards two things:

(a) Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban sucked

(b) These sequels were based on effin books. Your argument is deplorable right there. You've been pwn-ed by the greatest mind of all time: Moi.

Generally, viewers like Part 1s better than the sequels to movies. Why? Simple. Producers tried too hard to make a nice movie, that they spoiled it. Here are a few sequels that sucked, relative to their Part 1s:
No, you know what. They all suck. But somehow, Part 3s rock :)