tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post1342991347975716846..comments2024-03-05T21:05:36.848-05:00Comments on CommentaramaFilms: The Problem of SequelsAndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-83497816350085731122010-03-12T09:17:11.762-05:002010-03-12T09:17:11.762-05:00I actually liked Rocky III better than I or II. Ma...I actually liked Rocky III better than I or II. Maybe I am weird. Part of it is that I was 7 when the original came out. I had only seen bits and pieces of the original and II when I saw III. <br><br>After going back and watching all of them later I still maintain that III was the best of them. :)LoneWolfArcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15662301159186936452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-61422104447767046862010-03-12T09:25:46.101-05:002010-03-12T09:25:46.101-05:00I'm heading out of town for the weekend so I&#...I'm heading out of town for the weekend so I'll spill everything now and reply in a couple days. :-) What follows is a random assemblage of thoughts.<br><br>Very good analysis. Screenplays are nothing if not a set of peaks and valleys: when your hero is up, bring him down. When he's down, bring him up. Many filmmakers (including ones who've done sequels) have said sequels are difficult because: a.) the audience wants something different, but b.) they want the same!<br><br>Some of the best sequels, like Empire, simply build on what came before. The Godfather II is another good example (along with the parallel flashback story). On the other hand, Star Trek II ignores almost everything in the first film. They even went out of their way to redesign the uniforms, the music is completely different (Horner instead of Goldsmith), etc. Trek II actually could've been the first film.<br><br>Actually, some of the Trek films are so completely different from one another that I'm not sure the normal rules apply. Yeah, V'Ger almost destroys Earth in the first film, yet most people enjoy the smaller, more intimate revenge story of Kirk vs. Khan. The Indy films are more serial-based: "Tune in next week...!"<br><br>I love the first three Die Hards but obviously Die Hard II is a repeat of the first film, even down to William Atherton's reporter character being on Willis' wife's plane. The third film is a little different since they: a.) explain the bad guy's motivations by tying it into the first film, and b.) they totally change the claustrophobic nature of Die Hard by opening it up. (From building to airport to Manhattan.)<br><br>The Alien films were problematic. While Cameron is applauded for taking a small horror movie and turning it into a balls-out action movie (and expanding on the one-note Ripley character from the original), Fincher gets crap for taking the action movie and turning it back into an Alien-clone horror movie. After all, how can you go from one alien to many to one again? (As I wrote in my blog, the development of Alien 3 was a stressful period for all involved. One of the writers was more interested, not in the alien, but in Ripley's character arc, from "young person" to "warrior" to "reflecting mother.") And then for the fourth one, Jeunet simply makes Alien again, but with a dash of black humor. <br><br>Sorry for the random nature of this post. I'll have more to add but I don't know when I'll have computer access (I'm not gonna be hovering for an hour over my phone typing a reply!) :-)ScottDShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15660889617173576835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-40850347767877084752010-03-12T09:35:06.384-05:002010-03-12T09:35:06.384-05:00Okay, not that ScottDS gave an in depth analysis, ...Okay, not that ScottDS gave an in depth analysis, I will have to expand on why I like Rocky III better than I or II.<br><br>I and II were the same. A lot of back-story (and II's wasn't very enthralling) leading up a crescendo title fight against Apollo Creed. II's ending was cheesy with both fighters knocking each other down, with Rocky getting up just before 10 and Apollo slumping back down. How Hollywood can you get?<br><br>But III was pure Rocky goodness for a little over an hour and a half! It starts with the Rocky and Thunderlips charity event (taken from a similar real life happening from the 70s I might add). Then the first fight against Clubber which Rocky loses. Mickey's death. Rocky doubts himself. Apollo rides in and restores Rocky's confidence. Then the 2nd fight against Clubber where Rocky pulls a rope-a-dope routine for the win!<br><br>Give me III over the other II. IV went way off track, V was a little underrated, but still not as good. I've never seen Balboa.LoneWolfArcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15662301159186936452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-3707151749008940572010-03-12T09:46:13.184-05:002010-03-12T09:46:13.184-05:00I'm usually not a fan of sequels and, truthful...I'm usually not a fan of sequels and, truthfully, I can't think of one that I really liked better than the original. It's always so hard to match that first movie's originality and authenticity, for many of the great reasons you've listed here, unless the screenwriters/actors/directors dig deeper into the main character's personality--flaws and all. Plus, there has to be plenty of surprisees in the second story. It can't just be a repeat of the first but with different names and in a new location. <br><br>I'd say that Rocky II maybe came close, but never matched the original. I think the first original new (does that even make sense??) 007 with Daniel Craig was exceptional. He gave us a serious side of James Bond we never really saw before. I loved that movie. But the next 007 movie that came out with Daniel Craig was a disappointment, mostly because he wasn't developed any further and I can only take so many crash-and-burn car chases.Writer Xhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16505411188186283813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-4943991584456301612010-03-12T09:53:36.952-05:002010-03-12T09:53:36.952-05:00LoneWolf -Rocky Balboa is pretty good, surprisingl...LoneWolf -<br><br>Rocky Balboa is pretty good, surprisingly good, actually. I'm biased because I was a temp at MGM at the time the film came out so I got to see it at an employee screening. <br><br>In any case, I recommend it. (The Rambo movie he did after that ain't too bad, either.)ScottDShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15660889617173576835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-27484685944351963042010-03-12T10:30:54.493-05:002010-03-12T10:30:54.493-05:00The accidental sequel, wherein the original was wr...The accidental sequel, wherein the original was written, and capped as a one off then reappears as the magic sequel, Beverly Hills Cop, 48hrs, Pirates of the Caribbean, Caddy Shack, etc. They are as you say, poorly written, and tarnish the brand. There are exceptions as listed in your post, and up-thread.StanHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07395708786509590321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-27404188580766807332010-03-12T10:36:40.167-05:002010-03-12T10:36:40.167-05:00LoneWolfArcher, I also prefer Rocky III to Rocky I...LoneWolfArcher, I also prefer Rocky III to Rocky I and II. I can't tell you why specifically, I just liked it better. It was definitely a different movie than the first two.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-68413135726072102942010-03-12T10:43:46.120-05:002010-03-12T10:43:46.120-05:00Scott, Thanks, glad you liked it. Also, thanks fo...Scott, Thanks, glad you liked it. Also, thanks for the thoughts. I agree with them. You're absolutely right about the problem with Aliens III -- how can you tell us that one creature is invinsible, then go to "we can beat Armys of them," and then go back to making one create as exciting? There is an inherent problem there. And that was really the problem created by Aliens.<br><br>It's the same thing with action movies. We've gone from threatening a person to families, to cities to nations to worlds. What's left to up the ante to make the threat seem so huge? But that's really for another post.<br><br>I think you're right about the Star Trek films too, I think they largely ignore their prior movies whenever they put out a sequel, which hasn't made them sequels so much as just constant "reboots." So they actually side-step the problems I'm talking about in this article. In fact, that might be the best solution for making good sequels.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-60181384565725354572010-03-12T10:52:50.718-05:002010-03-12T10:52:50.718-05:00Writer X, I agree. Though there are a few sequels...Writer X, I agree. Though there are a few sequels that I do prefer -- though they are more like "reboots" than sequels.<br><br>I think you hit upon the other problem with sequels -- they are often made simply to exploit an existing audience and they don't want to go too far from what the first film did. So they don't include new plot points or anything "too" creative. Instead, they just end up repeating the first story with a slightly different location or bad guy, and then inserting car chases, expanded fight scenes, and sex scenes as a substitute for writing.<br><br>I thought the first Craig movie was surprisingly good -- and felt very original (though I didn't like the "I resign" bit -- it didn't fit his character at all). But the follow up was recycled garbage.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-10683747408553516692010-03-12T10:55:23.221-05:002010-03-12T10:55:23.221-05:00Stan, I think that the best sequels, the ones that...Stan, I think that the best sequels, the ones that don't fall into this trap are either the "reboots" like Scott notes with the Star Trek movies, or they are films where the director actually envisioned an entire story arc (like Star Wars) which runs longer than the movie itself. But most sequels come into being only after Hollywood realizes that the audience likes the original.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-85933607251642209602010-03-12T12:19:41.054-05:002010-03-12T12:19:41.054-05:00Terminator 2 was one of our favorite family movies...Terminator 2 was one of our favorite family movies when the kids were in middle school. I think it worked as a sequel because it turned Terminator one on its ear. (But, also, time travel is a big cheat, I have to admit..) T-3 was a disaster and had all the sequel flaws you talked about.<br><br>Good discussion about stories. I think suprises are cool part of story telling. We would watch T2 over and over and still roar laughing and repeat along when he says "Come with me if you want to live!"CrisDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-37222233290763546702010-03-12T12:22:06.922-05:002010-03-12T12:22:06.922-05:00Your main point is absolutely valid, and actually ...Your main point is absolutely valid, and actually also indicates the enormous problems faced by writers in series television such as Star Trek. Just as in good single episode drama, where the events being portrayed necessarily must be the most significant to date for the characters involved, in episodic writing those same events must necessarily not be the most significant.<br><br>I believe that the best sequals or prequals are merely part of a much larger story. Each individual movie happens to chronicle just a portion and begins and ends with the natural dramatic rise and falls within the larger story. In the case of Star Wars, it was crafted in a way it could stand on it's own. Empire Strikes Back, on the other hand, was clearly the first half of Return of the Jedi. When viewing, one immediately recogizes at the end that there is unfinished business.<br><br>The same is true of Godfather and Godfather II. One gets the feeling the story was there all along,and just split into two parts. Godfather III did admittedly complete the life story of Mochael Corleone. Unfortunately, the plotting was just not as compelling as the first two.<br><br>One final example of good sequals as parts of a larger whole: North and South and it's sequals. Each is merely a large episode in a larger saga.Tennessee Jedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10604275115906776992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-16751478920417132062010-03-12T12:24:47.230-05:002010-03-12T12:24:47.230-05:00p.s. my point is the same as yours, Andrew. I usua...p.s. my point is the same as yours, Andrew. I usually purposely do not read earlier comments until I have posted my own so that I can avoid falling prey to the anchor effect. That sometimes results in a duplication, but is still, I think, preferable to the other.Tennessee Jedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10604275115906776992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-31753762390212514562010-03-12T12:38:55.189-05:002010-03-12T12:38:55.189-05:00CrisD, I agree -- T2 is one of those sequels that ...CrisD, I agree -- T2 is one of those sequels that I think is better than the original. Not only was the budget bigger and the effects better, but the story really took an interesting turn and, as you say, turned the original on its head. Plus, I have to say that the acting and the writing in T2 was simply superb. All around, they did a great job with that one.<br><br>As for T3, I agree with you there as well -- it fell into the sequel trap.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-70743288457322002462010-03-12T12:40:35.600-05:002010-03-12T12:40:35.600-05:00Andrew,I like your choices, but the best sequel, I...Andrew,<br><br>I like your choices, but the best sequel, I have seen, is Crocodile Dundee II. The first is a love story with a fish out of water story, Dundee being the fish. The second reverses that with the gangsters being the fish out of water. It basically stays the same with a sense of danger to Dundee. Very entertaining. The third sequel was very dissappointing which proves your point. :-)<br><br>Sister Act couldn't be topped by Sister Act 2. The first had mortal dangers for a fake nun. The second had mortal dangers for a school. Not even in the same league.<br><br>Goldman said it best, the reason why sequels are made is because of the money.Joel Farnhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15856960977033430002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-81901272289975105992010-03-12T12:45:47.875-05:002010-03-12T12:45:47.875-05:00Jed, Good comment and I agree entirely. Not only ...Jed, Good comment and I agree entirely. Not only are the best sequels those that merely form another part of a larger story, but I think, as you say, this is truly highlighted by the problems with writing series.<br><br>Each week needs to seem more dramatic than the last week, but you can't just keep upping the ante or the prior weeks suddenly seem quaint (plus you run out of ways to up the ante pretty quickly). That's why again, many of the best series don't do the monster-of-the-week format so much as a long story arc that slowly exposes plot points over each episode.<br><br>Alternatively, you can do something like the original Star Trek series where each week involved different moral and philosphical questions, so that the "issue" can't really be compared week to week. Or you can do like the Twilight Zone and simply do entirely different stories/formats each week. Those are also ways to avoid the sequel trap.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-57095412202113488032010-03-12T12:49:36.460-05:002010-03-12T12:49:36.460-05:00Joel, You're right, most sequels are made for ...Joel, You're right, most sequels are made for money. A few are made to continue a story, but most are just for money.<br><br>I too like Dundee. I thought it was very clever how they turned the first story on its head. It gave the two movies together a more complete feel. Not to read too much into those movies, but in an odd way together they ended up as a character study of the differences between the urban and the country lifestyles.<br><br>Plus, they were just fun.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-80962304429528900712010-03-12T12:49:36.459-05:002010-03-12T12:49:36.459-05:00Andrew: For all the reasons you mentioned, sequel...Andrew: For all the reasons you mentioned, sequels are difficult, and rarely as good as the original. Godfather II was excellent because it could continue a story while expanding on the original and filling in the gaps from it with historical flashbacks. But the two combined had said nearly all that could be said, so Godfather III was not only not up to the quality of its predecessors, it was a near-caricature of them.LawHawkRFDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-59720928538481325292010-03-12T13:04:26.475-05:002010-03-12T13:04:26.475-05:00Lawhawk, I agree. II did a great job of expanding...Lawhawk, I agree. II did a great job of expanding on I, and III was more of a caricature.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-70539823033031479602010-03-13T23:48:09.688-05:002010-03-13T23:48:09.688-05:00While I think your analysis is generally correct, ...While I think your analysis is generally correct, I think you err in writing about Aliens as if it is inferior to Alien when it's generally considered equal or superior. As a result, you make a statement that you don't support:<br><br>"That’s why most of the best sequels <i>either avoid trying to repeat the first movie</i>, or they are actually longer story arcs disguised as sequels."<br><br>You do not provide an example of the emphasized portion, and Aliens is actually a good one. <br><br>Alien was a horror movie, Aliens is an action movie. This is where Star Trek fits: After the philosophical Star Trek I, the better sequels went off in new directions. Star Trek II is a naval battle film. Star Trek IV is a fish-out-of-water comedy. Star Trek VI I remember liking but I saw it a long time ago. (What kind of film was it?)<br><br>Fans of Batman Begins and the Dark Knight who agree with your analysis that many of the best follow-ups are longer story arcs disguised as sequels will be pleased by the below interview with Christopher Nolan. He conceives of his Batman films as a trilogy, and notes that the former hero Batman is a fugitive as we begin act three.<br><br>http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2010/03/christopher-nolan-takes-flight-with-superman-we-have-a-fantastic-story-1.htmlGordon Winslowhttp://ondeafears.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-18346507345366401572010-03-14T00:00:00.768-05:002010-03-14T00:00:00.768-05:00I haven't seen Rocky III, but I find it incred...I haven't seen Rocky III, but I find it incredibly hard to believe that it's as good as Rocky, which is a nearly perfect film and one of my all-time favorites.<br><br>My high opinion of Rocky is why I haven't seen Rocky III. I saw Rocky IV and it caused me to never want to see another Rocky sequel because it was an act of sacrilege against something I held as near-holy.<br><br>I did see Rocky Balboa, because the girl I was dating when it came out was a huge Rocky fan. I really enjoyed it, but it felt more like a pleasant postscript to Rocky than a straight sequel. Like a quick tacked-on scene at the end of Star Wars where you learn that Han Solo opened up a brewpub with Leia on Endor and had five kids, only in full-length movie form. And a very pleasant postscript it was.Gordon Winslowhttp://ondeafears.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-22991048467951944052010-03-14T05:17:44.591-04:002010-03-14T05:17:44.591-04:00Gordon, Your point about Aliens being a different ...Gordon, Your point about Aliens being a different kind of movie is well taken and I would agree. It would probably not surprise you that I enjoy both movies equally.<br><br>However, I would still maintain that Aliens does diminish Alien because it changes the nature of the creature from being a unique unbeatable creature to being merely one of a group of very tough, but easily killed creatures. It makes you think that all they really needed was a gun and the first movie would have turned out very differently.<br><br>In other words, before Aliens came along, Ripley's achievement in Alien was more impressive. After Aliens, where she participated in the killing of dozens of the creatures, her deeds in the first movie seemed a little weaker.<br><br>Regarding Rocky, I have to admit that I'm not a huge fan of the series. Rocky just never spoke to me, so I saw them mainly as popcorn movies. I included the picture just because of the "III" on the image, not because I meant the article to be specifically about any movie in the Rocky series.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-87009779350484456422010-03-14T16:59:47.157-04:002010-03-14T16:59:47.157-04:00Andrew:Did Rocky on its own not speak to you? I co...Andrew:<br><br>Did Rocky on its own not speak to you? I could rhapsodize about it for hours, and probably have. It's the sequels that turned Rocky into popcorn, which is why I pretend they don't exist (except for Rocky Balboa, as noted). <br><br>I'd like to yell "Watch it again!" but I know that if it didn't reach you the first time, it probably won't the second time either. People are always telling me to watch M*A*S*H again, but despite several attempts I've never made it through.<br><br>Loved the sequel though, if a TV series counts as a sequel.Gordon Winslowhttp://ondeafears.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-35639846638069032962010-03-14T19:29:01.516-04:002010-03-14T19:29:01.516-04:00Gordon, I can respect Rocky, but it just didn'...Gordon, I can respect Rocky, but it just didn't take for me. I can't say why. Just one of those things I guess?<br><br>MASH didn't take either -- though I enjoyed the series.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.com