What is it with follow-up films these days? It's as if most directors are trying to outdo their previous works using all the wrong methods. Perhaps the most tragic and overwhelming approach is just that: a tragic and overwhelming approach. Making a good sequel is difficult. Sammy Hagar admitted this when Chickenfoot released their second studio album appropriately named "Chickenfoot 3." Making a sequel that is better than the first is even tougher. That's why there are so few listed as being better than the original to begin with.

Here's the thing, I believe we can have better sequels. They're well within the realm of possibility to achieve. But in our age of universe building and multi-movie contracts, this can be a real complicated ideal. Think of all the sequels we've had over the years. What are their key advertising points? More iconic comic book moments, more screen time featuring our hero, more bat gadgets, a new costume and more villains. All of this is appropriate. After all, these things keep sequels feeling fresh in the mind of the viewer. I for one, have loved the different Iron Man suits we've gotten to experience. Heck, Marvel has taken one of the corniest Captain America costumes ever and made it appealing. Superheroes need to evolve naturally—that's one of the most important traits that attribute to their humanity. But take a good hard look at the way certain movies and shows have advertised themselves recently.

"Arrow" and "The Flash" have a plethora of characters they've introduced at the beginning of each respective season including two separate Black Canaries, Wally West, Arsenal and Speedy. "Daredevil" promised us not one, but two antiheroes in Elektra and The Punisher. "Spiderman 3" and "The Amazing Spiderman 2" both fed us three villains. More recently, "Batman vs. Superman" brought three heroes and two major villains to the table. Anyone else see a recurring theme? Most of these films/ seasons were far less successful than the film or season before it. I can't blame the whole of their failure on drowning in new characters, but I think that plays a huge factor. There are plenty of good options for making a follow-up movie just as sexy as the first. One thing is for sure, though, the absolute worst way one can go about a follow-up story is adding way too many characters. I believe I've found a few reasons why. Keep in mind that while I'll primarily be using superhero films as examples, this applies to other genres just as much. Every story has a protagonist, an antagonist, a beginning, middle, and end. With that in mind, let's look at why too many new characters can cause a film to crumble.

First, introducing too many new characters means you also have to give them all more screen time. There are only so many hours in a day, and there are only so many hours viewers would like to spend watching a film. With every new character introduced comes a new back story, a new set of introductions in order, and a new set of motivations for that character. Take "Daredevil" for example. I personally love season two. I think it capitalized on so many things the show got right in the first season. But I can't seem to shake the feeling that season two could have been so much better if we were given only one antihero instead of two. Elektra and Frank Castle are two big name characters from the comics. Both could have easily filled one season on their own. Instead, we're forced to switch back and forth constantly between Elektra's sketchy underground work and Frank Castle's trial. Am I the only one who thinks "the trial of the century" was awfully brief? I happen to believe Frank Castle's trial and subsequent escape from prison could have filled an entire season in its own right. I want to see the hard-fought court case! I want the battle of the minds just as much as I want Daredevil beating up ninjas (have I mentioned I really like "Law and Order?"). Elektra coming to Matt for help was a nice story line, but it too could have had its own season to tell her story. For crying out loud, "Daredevil" seasons are only 13 episodes long! There was way too much going on between Elektra and Punisher for us to really have the full story arc we wanted.

Or how about the use of three heroes in "Batman vs. Superman?" The movie is called "Batman vs. Superman" which implies that the film will be about those two. Yet instead we got Lex Luthor, Wonder Woman and Doomsday all thrown into the mix as well when we originally were just told Lex Luthor would serve as an antagonist. The story became completely incoherent and jumbled and didn't know what it wanted. Let's talk about Spiderman. I never thought it possible, but Sam Raimi managed to ruin Venom. How? By giving him less than ten minutes. He gave ten minutes of screen time to one of the most popular villains in all of Spiderman. All because he was pressured into putting three villains in a movie that didn't need them. Casting Topher Grace as Eddie Brock didn't help either. But I digress.

As was the case in my last article, the second point is an extension of the first. Having more characters to give screen time to often causes character development to suffer. I tried to stand by "Arrow" for a long time. I defended it, praised it and defended it some more. But I can't anymore. Seriously, that show has a plethora of complications and missteps. Perhaps the most prominent is the way the show runners introduced characters. It's kind of funny how the Green Arrow has four other members on his team when he traditionally works alone. It's even funnier when all of them drop into the same room when trying to breach a building with narrow hallways. I'm sure their camera man is underpaid. Seriously, that's been way too many people for a long time. I can appreciate the desire to bring people from the comics into your universe, but bringing them in in bulk feels forced and comes across as a ratings grab. "The Flash" is quickly becoming guilty of this too, with all of its extra characters hogging time that should be given to Barry (go figure, considering he's the main character.) That said, I've already given those two shows more space in this article than I care to.

"The Amazing Spiderman 2" deserves a shout out for Electro. Seriously, I was worried about Jamie Foxx, but he nailed it. Yet in a remarkable case of irony, Mark Webb committed the exact same sin Sam Raimi did with "Spiderman 3" with too many villains. Does anyone else think there might be more to this? I'm sensing a lot of studio pressure on the part of Sony. Anyways, all of this is to say that introducing too many characters suffocates character development. I return once again to "Daredevil." When you look past Foggy Nelson's charm, Karen's good looks, and Daredevil's awesome fight scenes, season two is underwritten. Matt ends up coming across as a total jerk to his friends (he didn't even visit Foggy in the hospital) and a terrible lawyer (treating the witness as hostile) all because there is far too much going on with all of the people in the show. I loved the Wilson Fisk update, he never gets old. But Nelson and Murdock could have survived the challenges they faced on the show. Instead, the whole "Avocados at Law" speech we got at the end of season one was all for nothing. We still know very little about Karen Page's past, and most of Foggy's scenes end up feeling rushed and unpolished because of the need to constantly keep our minds on the two new trouble makers in Hell's Kitchen. It frustrates me when main characters aren't given time to grow because of our short attention spans and demand for more, more and more on the side of villains and extras.

Lastly, the introduction of some characters is plain unnecessary. Gwen Stacy is nothing like the Gwen Stacy of the comics in "Spiderman 3." Why did we even need her? The only purpose she serves is to add tension between Peter and Mary Jane. Any old blonde could have done that. There's no other reason for her to be in the film. Her character ends up falling way short because of the need to keep introducing characters. But why introduce them when you don't know what to do with them anyway? Another addition I thought was pointless Felicia Hardy in the "Amazing Spiderman 2." Felicia Hardy also has a rich character history in the comics. Instead, the film offers us three or four scenes with her serving as secretary/assistant/mysterious stranger to Harry Osborn at Oscorp. She barely says anything and it really ends up feeling more like a forced extended cameo instead of a character that belongs. If you want a nonsuperhero example, look no further than "The Hobbit." Consider the way Legolas, Galadriel, Saruman, and countless other "Lord of the Rings" characters were shoehorned in. They're not even in the book! Half the trilogy is spent giving us exposition and extra scenes we don't need. Just another example of trying to do too much for a pointless addition.

In the end, sequels do have the capacity to be better than their predecessors. There are a lot out there to prove it. However, the way to a good sequel isn't found in smashing us over the head with multiple villains, additional team members, or lame plot twists—I'm talking to you, "Iron Man 3." Character work is important, and they need to grow and develop naturally within the context of the story they're in. This doesn't happen when writers force feed us too many at one time. Nobody wins when the audience is overwhelmed with people and underwhelmed by their lack of depth at the same time. We can't sacrifice good storytelling for the sake of a ratings grab. I hope film studios learn this soon. The whole "look who we got to be in this movie" appeals are getting old.