Has there ever been a successful movie sequel made without the original actors? I was thinking about it while watching a commercial for Daddy Day Camp. Thus far in the box office bomb sequel without the original is

Caddyshack 2
Speed 2
XXX: State of the Union
Evan Almighty
Son of the Mask
Smokey and the Bandit 3
Aquaman 2

Predator 2 I'm not sure about it may have been a hit.

It works very rarely. The only ones that are decent that I can think of are the Bond series and Batman series.

28 months later is almost as good as the 1st.

There's an Aquaman 2? Wait, there's an aquaman 1?

Though I've never seen either movie, The Fast and The Furious lost vin Diesel as well, right?

Aquaman 2

Not only did WB replace Vinny Chase, but they also subbed in Michael Bay and Kevin Smith for James Cameron and Andrew Kevin Walker. Idiots!

is it better than 28 Weeks Later?

Well, many horror sequels don't feature the original actors. Since the monster(s) are the stars, that's generally all that's needed. A specific example is Romero's "Dawn of the Dead" ... a movie that made more money than the 1st one, and many people consider to be better.

I enjoyed Hannibal and if I recall, that was relatively successful gross-wise. Sure, they didn't replace Hopkins, but Jodie was nowhere to be found. James Bond was also pretty successful.

And as much as people won't admit...

Batman
Batman Returns
Batman Forever
Batman & Robin

all made a healthy chunk of change for WB. OP, you said "successful" not "good".

It's great! Okay, I'm an idiot. I was going to look it up, then I thought "Of course I have the title right."

I second 28 weeks later. It was a kick ass sequel.

Hopkins replaced Brian Cox.

Sorry I don't really consider the James Bond movies as sequels. They're just installments of stories about the same character thats why they work so well. Basically they're just like new episodes.

Punisher 2 sounds better already than the previous 2 Punishers...

Hunt for Red October
Clear and Present Danger
Patriot Games
Sum of All Fears

Same here Ronnie. I don't really consider Bond movies sequels really. It's a series of stories that (especially in Bonds case) has lasted decades and it would be practically impossible to keep the same actor for all 21 bond movies.

Can you imagine Connery ordering a large prune juice with Metamusil shaken, not stirred?

The Friday the 13th films might count. Even though Jason is the main attraction, part 4 was the most financially successful.

So what is a sequel then? I don't consider the Batman movies (from 89-B&R)sequels either - just new episodes. Shouldn't sequels have some kind of arc to them (like Godfather) other than just the characters?

I liked The Sting 2...

"Installments of stories about the same character"? That sounds like a sequel to me.

To me, Bond is a series. Casino Royale was hardly the sequel to Die Another Day.

A sequel to me is something like the Matrix, Pirates, LOTR, Bourne movies. But to each his own.