Movie sequels are impossible to predict. Some become classics and some become the most hated
movies of all time. So what makes a sequel good, and why do sequels have such a hard
time not sucking? Let’s compare similar sequels to see what works and what doesn’t.
One of the biggest obstacles with a great sequel is that you have to do something new. Maybe
the first movie worked great, but the sequel can’t be the same thing or it’ll suck.
The sequels that we all love mix it up and surprise us.
The first Terminator features Arnold Schwarzenegger as the villain, and he’s such a terrifying
villain because he’s not even human. He’s a robotic monster whose only objective is
to kill Sarah Connor. A lazy, unsurprising sequel would put us in the same world with
the Terminator trying to kill again, but James Cameron surprises us, and in a spectacular
twist, Arnold is actually sent to protect John Connor from another, more powerful Terminator.
Now that’s a great sequel. And then, there’s Speed. The first Speed
is about a cop who tries to rescue civilians from a bus rigged to explode if any of the
civilians try to get off or the bus slows down. It’s action packed and suspenseful
from start to finish. The sequel, Speed 2, has the same general idea, but the bus is
now a luxury cruise ship. The surprise is amazingly lame. A slow-moving cruise ship
is way less thrilling than the fast moving bus in the first Speed. The surprise isn’t
a surprise. It’s a let down. Sequels also need to build. They need to add
something, and what they add has to be good. 22 Jump Street has the same general plot as
21 Jump Street. The only real difference between the two films is that one takes place in high
school and the other in college. But the second film adds a whole gag about the movie itself.
They constantly make references to how doing the same thing over and over again will not
lead to the same results. They’re making fun of the fact that sequels never work. They
build on 21 Jump Street by now making fun of themselves. It’s clever, original, unique, and hilarious.
The Hangover: Part II tries to build on the
original. Instead of taking place in Las Vegas, the sequel is in the much more exotic Thailand.
But that’s really the only addition to the original. There’s nothing new here. There’s no build.
An inherent problem with feature-length film
is that the amount of possible character development is limited to the hour and a half length of
the movie. So in a medium like television we can see so many complex changes in a character
over the course of several seasons whereas a movie can show maybe one or two major changes.
With a sequel, though, we have a chance to see characters we love in the original grow
even more. I think any sequel that doesn’t take advantage of this opportunity for more
character growth is a disappointment. Toy Story, for example, shows us a whole new character
arc for Woody in the sequel. In the first film, Woody makes the realization that getting
the most attention isn’t what’s important:
And then, in the sequel, Woody has another realization that, while his time with Andy
is temporary, he would rather spend his limited time making Andy happy over being displayed in a museum.
Through the sequel, we get further insight into Woody and his dedication to Andy.
We learn more about Woody’s goals, his fears, and his obstacles. The sequel added just as
much depth to the main character as the first film which, in the end, is what turns sequels
into classics. We can see this added depth to characters in other great sequels like
The Godfather: Part II with Michael Corleone and The Dark Knight with Bruce Wayne.
When we compare these sequels to something like Cars 2 and The Hobbit franchise, we see
another way movie sequels can suck. Cars 2 doesn’t show any change to the characters
from the original, and even with almost eight hours of screen time for The Hobbit series,
we see hardly any character depth in most of the ensemble cast.
I have to commend the Marvel Cinematic Universe for knowing how to make great sequels. You
can tell from their consistent continuity, writing style, crossovers, and brand marketing,
that Disney isn’t making sequels just for one-time cash grabs. Disney is attempting
to make very long-term profit by creating a lasting franchise and brand, and it seems
to be working. Their sequels surprise, build, and add character depth. Think about The Avengers.
We get loads of surprises when our favorite super heroes fight it out, build on plots
from previous films, and we see tons of character depth by seeing the conflicts of interest
between each super hero. I’m not saying Marvel movies are the greatest movies of all
time, but what I am saying is that Marvel knows how to make sequels, and that’s saying
a lot given the countless disappointments we’ve seen in sequels.
Making a good sequel to a great original is definitely a challenge, but I think a big
problem with sequels is that a lot of the time the studio doesn’t really care if a
sequel is well reviewed. With a successful original, as long as a sequel is OK, it’s
almost guaranteed to make a profit for the studio. Remember that despite all the hate
towards sequels like Cars 2, The Hangover: Part II, and the Star Wars prequels, they
grossed more than their original films. Sequels create an interesting paradox in the film
industry. To be successful, a film normally has to show something unique like great special
effects, acting, or plot, but a sequel can make a profit only by having a recognizable
name and providing nothing unique. So do Hollywood a favor and stop going to sequels that suck.