How long is too long for a sequel? Really, how long do you think is too long for a sequel before it becomes something it shouldn’t be? 5 years? 10years? 15 years? 20 years or more?
Let me start off with the definition of what a Sequel truly is:
A sequel is a work of fiction in literature, film, and other creative media, that is produced after a completed work, and set in the same “universe”, usually following the events of the original. It continues elements of the original story, often with the same characters and settings. A sequel is similar to a series, in which the same character appears in a number of stories, although the distinction is arbitrary, and some media franchises have enough sequels to effectively become a series, whether originally planned as such or not.
In the last couple of months we have seen a few sequels to well known films pop up. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and Lost Boys 2, are just a few of the films being brought back from the dead. Lost Boys 2 is coming to a theater almost 20 years after its first debut. “Indiana Jones” is strapping on his hat one more time after a vacation of 19 years. And how can we not forget about “Terminator” making a come back in 2003 after a hiatus of over 12 years. These are just some of the sequels that make me wonder why?
Stallone has become the king of sequels with 2 films bringing in over 7 sequels all while creating two of the most likeable characters on film in Rocky and John Rambo. We can’t forget Rocky and his latest try for a belt almost 30 years after we first saw him in the ring in 1976.
Should “Rambo” stop killing hundreds of people in a few minutes time? Should “Rocky” stop getting punched so much? It looks like Rambo is coming back around for number 5!!
In my opinion yes! And a resounding “yes!” at that. After Rocky 4 it went downhill. Rambo should of been left alone after the second film.I hate to see a film made just to bring someone back from the “dead” for the sake of money. I know that is what the Studio’s do day in and day out but come on folks!
For all of you “Star Wars” fans out there… dare I say how bad the last three films were? The first three films recently given to us by Mr Lucas in my eyes ruined the franchise. The filming, acting, special effects etc all ruined the original experience after all of those years of loving something for what it was. The gap in between was too big and too long ago for it to be a success.
With actors such as Arnold, Harrison, Bruce (can’t forget the Die Hard series) and Sylvester growing older every second, is this a ploy to bring us the best in entertainment or just to make some extra cash on a name for the big studios?
Pros:
- Name: The name could bring back an audience.
- Story: If the writing was done well and the movie was a hit, why not try and bring back us more.
I think overall a sequel is a sure thing if done correctly with the same people involved as the 1st.
Cons:
- Sequels always have the possibility of going wrong. An actor doesn’t sign back on, the directing and or writing crew is no longer interested or time constraints wont allow for it.
- Lapse in audience. The audience may of outgrown their love or interest of the film or lost touch with it over time.
So when is enough, really enough? After 5 years? After 10 years? I understand there will always be the exception to the rule such as the production schedule or special effects etc, but when has enough time passed when we consider a film “dead” in the best sense of the word?
I know I have forgotten many classic sequels, horror sequels, films that should have not been made in the 1st place, but I have captured some of the characters in my mind that actually have places in the hearts of most movie addicts.
Questions to you, the readers:
What is the ultimate motive of folks involved with a sequel? Do we need a sequel after 30 years? Am I a horrible movie fan?
What are your thoughts? I would love to hear them!
Written by: AtomicPopcorn on Thu, Mar 20, 2008