What exactly is a sequel? And why does this guy hate them so much to write something about them?

To define a sequel is rather tough. Its either the continuation of a plot in a second (or more) movie, the continuation of characters in another movie, or the search for more money based on the movie name. And lately, any movie can have a sequel. It used to be limited to the huge, blockbuster movies. Now its any movie. The Cutting Edge 2? Basic Instinct 2? Seriously. I am not including movies that are spread over more than one film in this rant, like the Lord of the Rings series, or Kill Bill 1 & 2. To qualify for this rant, a movie must be filmed, released, a new story line developed, filmed, and released. Usually with a significant time delay involved. For example, Jurrasic Park, JP 2, and JP 3.

Ok, I understand what a sequel is, but why are they bad? I particularly enjoy some sequels, like Save the Last Dance 2.

First and foremost… they (film makers, Hollywood, etc.) almost never make sequels of the right movie. For example, Save the Last Dance 2. Seriously. The first movie was so terrible, how could they make a sequel? What could they add to the story line? None of the characters return. It probably isn’t in the same city. This is on par with Dirty Dancing 2: Havana Nights. Different characters, different city, same God-awful plot. Why did they call it Dirty Dancing 2? (Hint: see above) For The Money!! They wanted to draw people in that enjoyed the first movie under its name power. I could make a flipbook, call it Titanic 2: The Beginning, and people would murder each other to see it on opening night.

Secondly, most sequels rarely have the same director. This is important. If a movie made you feel a certain way, changing directors on a sequel pretty much guarantees you will not be as moved or whatever the second time around. My example this time would be the Die Hard series. Die Hard 1, directed by John McTiernan, is an awesome movie. Die Hard 2, directed by Renny Harlin, is not as good. Renny does not capture John McClain’s plight against a far superior force. Renny almost makes John out to be invincible to the threat, as he hardly looks scared. But in DH1, McTiernan does a great job selling the character and his fear of the dangerous situation. That’s why DH3 is a good sequel, because they put McTiernan back at the director’s post, bringing the original feeling back, though 7 years have passed.

Which brings me to my next point. Between films, many years can pass. Actors look, sound, and act different. Watch an original and a sequel back to back sometime, and notice that the characters don’t act the same. Someone who is heartbroken in the original is less or significantly more heartbroken in the sequel. Someone who is crazy is less crazy. Someone who is an angry person may act happy. In Lethal Weapon 1, Mel Brooks plays a crazy, nothing to lose, ex-Vietnam special forces, cop. Danny Glover plays an old, one week from retirement cop who doesn’t want a new partner. The year is 1987 and a good movie is born. 1989 yields LW2. Surprisingly, with the same director, LW2 maintains character integrity in that both Glover and Brooks are able to continue their respective roles. Add Joe Pesci, who plays a slightly annoying comedic relief. 1992 brings LW3, where Brooks is less crazy, Glover is less irratible, and Pesci is still annoying. 1998. LW4. Is it really necessary? Brooks isn’t crazy, Glover is 11 years past retirement (though still saying “I’m too old for this $#@%” every chance he gets). If you watched LW1 - 4, you would see the tremendous change in their characters. So much so, that you can hardly tell that they are the same characters minus their names.

I want to point out that not all sequels are terrible. Some are actually good. But that number is less than 10% of all sequels. Personally, I enjoyed the Indiana Jones series, though they are technically sequels and not continuations. Even though they were filmed over several years, Harrison Ford is able to maintain character integrity, which is rare. I enjoy the Godfather Part 2. The exception to the rules above for me is US Marshals. It is a sequel by definition, though it does not run under the Fugitive name sake (which is brownie points in my book). It is simply the telling of the story of Sam Gerard, the US Marshal who tries to catch Harrison Ford.

Mel Brooks said it best when he said “With any luck, I’ll see you in ‘Spaceballs 2: The Search for More Money.’”