Film sequels. Not many in the cinemas at the moment, but in the next few months we will see sequels to Underworld, Transporter, The Punisher, The Pink Panther, Night at the Museum, The Terminator, Transformers and Ice Age, – not to mention spin-off prequels of franchises such as X-Men and Star Trek, and another chapter in the Harry Potter series.
Why are sequels made? Sometimes it’s not correct to call them sequels – Star Wars, Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings, for example, are more like chapters; they’re part of a longer story that has to be chopped up rather than an addition to a single stand-alone story. Or the James Bond films, which are individual adventures with recurring characters.
Other films, on the other hand, exist purely because the success of their predecessors inspired someone to decide that it would be worth re-using some (or most) of the elements to make another film. The figure that gets thrown around is 100 million US dollars; there are, however, films which have made less than this and still spawned a successor, and films which have made more than this but have not been profitable enough to warrant a sequel.
Anyway, enough on the technicalities. What I really want to do is bitch about sequels I do and don’t like. Just to note: I won’t judge films I haven’t seen.
First on the list, and especially ironic, is Highlander. Why ironic? Because the catchphrase from the film is ‘There can be only one.’ And there really, really, really should have been ‘only one’. There are few movies I hate more than Highlander 2: The Quickening. Actually to say I hate it is an understatement; I loathe it to the point where thinking about it actually irritates me.
Admittedly, the original isn’t exactly great cinema – you’ve got Sean Connery playing a Spaniard/Egyptian, and Christopher Lambert playing a Scotsman. But it’s a good movie; lots of action, great swordfighting, the soundtrack is Queen at pretty much their rocking best, and Clancy Brown has the role of a lifetime as The Kurgan.
The sequel wasn’t just bad – it was appalling. It seemed like whoever wrote it hadn’t actually seen the first one. It basically took the original concept – a few humans are born immortal and are drawn to fight and kill each other to claim a prize – and retconned it to imply that all the immortals were really aliens sent to earth as punishment. How perfectly wretched.
A work of such determined awfulness actually has the power to weaken my liking for the original.
Other sequels fail because they are an attempt to stretch a story. The Matrix is probably the best example of this. The first movie was brilliant, not only because it is a good, well-made action film, but because it had a great concept behind it. But that concept was only enough for one film. Not two – and definitely not three.
I find that character-driven films have problems stretching as well. Characters in films are created to be outlandish, often silly – but falling short of the point of stupidity. However, it’s a very fine line. The problem then is that, when it comes time to make a sequel, the characters tend to be pushed over that line, beyond acceptable believability and into intolerable, irritating silliness. Films falling under this category include Bad Boys 2 and Ace Ventura 2.
Other films just lack the same punch – Hellboy 2, Pirates of the Caribbean 2, Oceans 12 and Underworld 2 being good recent examples. Not necessarily bad films, but the drop-off in quality from the first is more than expected.
Die Hard 2 was pretty good, though Die Hard 3, while a good film, loses points for going against the spirit of the first two by being more of a buddy film and having an uncomfortable-looking Jeremy Irons play a German. Beverly Hills Cop 2 - not too bad; Beverly Hills Cop 3 - terrible. The Lethal Weapon series went to a tolerable third, but the fourth pretty much sucked.
Then there are those that just keep on going: Police Academy, Scary Movie, Rocky, Rambo, Friday the 13th, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Star Trek, Jaws and so forth. Fortunately, most of these have stopped entirely or a getting 'rebooted' - a phenomenon which I'll probably comment on another time.
There are, of course, those sequels which are better than the original. Blade 2 (but not Blade 3) and X-Men 2 are good examples. Shrek 2 – not entirely awful. I haven’t seen any of the Godfather films, but Godfather Part 2 is often cited as the poster-child for the better-than-the-first film contingent. The last Batman (in the revamped series) probably counts as well, though I’m not a huge fan of either (though I thought Heath Ledger was brilliant).
You’ve also got sequels which are so distinctly different from the first that it’s almost impossible to compare the two – simply because, to use a well-known analogy, what was an orange is now an apple. The best example of this is Alien and Aliens. Alien is a sci-fi suspense horror while Aliens is more of a sci-fi action. It’s very difficult (in my mind) to try and decide which of the two is ‘better’. They’re both great, but for vastly different reasons.
Which leads me to my final sequel comparison, and one on which I appear to be one of very few people to hold this opinion. So, brace yourself for what I’m going to say now:
The Terminator is a better film than Terminator 2.
That’s right. But don’t get me wrong; I love Terminator 2. It’s an awesome, iconic, groundbreaking film. But, while all that money, all those special effects, the cool liquid-metal, Robert Patrick being creepy, and even the Guns & Roses song on the soundtrack made T2 an awesome film and one of the best sci-fi/action films of all time, it doesn’t make it better than its predecessor. A more spectacular film and a bigger adrenaline rush? Hell yes. But that’s not everything.
I like the originality of the first one. The dark, gritty feel. The suspense and the storyline and the understated humour of Arnie’s wooden (well, metallic) performance; a far cry from the second which was written with his delivery one-liners for comedic effect in mind. Yes, T2 was funny – but instead of the incidental humour of the first, it was more polished, felt more contrived.
When it comes down to it I guess it’s that (seeming more contrived) which makes the difference. The Terminator felt more like it was made because they wanted to make a movie, tell a story. T2 set out to do those things - but they also wanted to make themselves a shitload of money doing it, and that affected many of the decisions that they made. I’m pretty much an indie at heart, and that affects my opinions; I don’t ever try to hide it.
Anyway, I’ve gone on far too long as it is. Got any comments? Any of your own sequels to add? Want to list the top ten reasons why T2 is a better film?
Go for it.
Interesting. Can't say I agree with all of it but interesting none-the-less.
ReplyDeleteFrom my various studies in media over here in the land of the sequel, the reason most often given for the making of a sequel, something particularly prevalent in video game production, is the marketing necessary to educate the [media] consumer as to the product's content. A sequel can provide almost immediate brand recognition for a consumer and make marketing the product much much easier and far more likely to be successful, which when there a millions of dollars on hand can be a big incentive for investors!
Thoughts....
-Christopher
You could have said which bits you didn't agree with so I could have addressed them specifically! Are you one of the majority T2-is-better-than-T1 people? If so, I do understand; for me the first one was significant in my ouwn personal journey into film - and was probably considered a bit dated by the time you saw it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all the branding/marketing stuff - that all makes sense. I just wish they spent as much time and effort making good films as they did a) marketing them, and b) working out new ways to market them.
Did you see Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen? It truly sucked ass; it definitely goes into the FAIL category.
I saw T2 before T1 - and it was one of the first action films I ever saw - so it holds more appeal to me than T1. I liked that T2 had the courage to not stick to what was established in T1, as well - it didn't send one person and one terminator, it sent two terminators and in so doing provided more background and 'reason' for the machines. I also like it for the transformation you see in Linda Hamilton: in the first one she's so young and round-faced, in T2 she actually looks like a psycho killer and is all muscle. The mere tranformation of an actress isn't enough for a film, I know, but the fact that T2 wasn't rushed out a year after T1 indicates they at least put more thought into it than many sequels.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of, Pirates of the Caribbean: I actually liked the sequels (well, Pirates 3, mostly). They suffered from the usual sequel formula (first film fairly independent; 2 and 3 basically one story cut in half - like Matrix, Star Wars, etc), but... okay, stay with me.
For me, the whole point of the Pirates films was that everyone had their own agenda and they were double-crossing the crap out of each other to get it. Pirates 2 was essentially setting up all of those motivations. Pirates 3 (the one I liked) is everyone stabbing everyone in the back for two hours. For many people, I can see how that would get old. I just found it amusing to wonder who would betray who next, for what, and try to remember why. The double-crosses, while ridiculous in number, were all set up before the fact and came from a place of character. The alliances were so fragile and temporary, which was a refreshing change to most movies where the Team is the Team and once you're part of the Team, you won't betray the Team for anything (and if it seems like you are betraying the Team, it's just to fool the baddies).
Oh, Pirates 4 was frakking awful, though. There's no excuse for that film's existence.