Video of the Week: Why Do So Many Sequels Suck? (by Channel Awesome)

The film industry can’t get enough of sequels. Nowadays, the ratio of sequels and adaptations to original film is staggering. There are far more of them now than there were a couple of years ago, but even then sequels were getting a good portion of the overall number. Nostalgia Critic asks why so many sequels aren’t living up to what the first one delivered, and he does put forward some valid and interesting points that I do agree with.

Some sequels are fan-driven. If the audience want to see more of their favourite characters, then the studio will do what they can to get greenlight the project. However, the dark side of that is, if the studio discovers that the first one has made them a lot of money, then the follow up should make just as much. The latter proves to be the least effective the majority of the time.

Nostalgia Critic noted that sometimes we don’t want a sequel and when being presented by one, it may not get as much love as the previous. Some films, if they received a sequel, would completely ruin the ending of the first. It’s those cliff-hangers that keep you guessing long after you’ve left the cinema. It’s those moments that makes the entire film experience worthwhile, because it’s been building up to that very moment, or an unexpected, well-delivered twist changes your perception of the film. If explored, those moments lose its impact. We get the answer we secretly didn’t want. If Christopher Nolan suddenly announced that he was making a sequel to Inception, that ending makes you wonder if he’s in a dream or in the real world gets answered, and we don’t want that. Sometimes the films biggest impact comes from the way it ends, forcing you to have to watch it again just to see if you can pick up any clues hidden throughout.

Sequels have become so common and expected, some films set up one even if there won’t ever be a continuation of the story. Instead of leaving it on a well-constructed cliff-hanger, we’re left with just a bog-standard question that doesn’t leave you thinking, just annoys you until you see what happens next. If we are expecting the film to be part of a series, then by all means set up the next instalment. If we want it to be a standalone, then please just end it there – it can’t be that hard, surely.

Nostalgia Critic explored many factors that goes into why sequels are bad, but also says that if a studio does the opposite, then it would be good, right? Well, in theory yes, but it is a considerable amount of work. If it’s designed to be part of a series, then the story will flow naturally and in theory the sequel will be just as easy to make as the first one, but if not planned, then you have to worry about where the characters are going to go, and that can ruin the experience.

Take the Insidious trilogy for example. The first one was a decent standalone. A nice horror story that explored a new concept and made me jump out of my skin many times. It ended nicely, with a good cliff-hanger. They thought they had defeated the evil spirit, but actually they hadn’t; it’s still there, just as powerful as before. When we thought it was a happy ending, it quickly turned into a nightmare for the characters. The sequel explored that.

It continued the characters’ battle with this evil spirit. The first one focused on the child, whereas the second focused on the dad. The concept was the same, but the story was different. Not only that, but the continuity between the second and the first fitted faultlessly. When twists were revealed, secrets spilled, they had finally defeated the evil spirit and we all enjoyed that moment of happiness.

However, it had to end on a cliff-hanger. I can see what it was trying to say. Just because the character’s battle is over, evils spirits are going to stop tormenting the living, but was that really necessary. It’s easy to assume that someone somewhere is being plagued with spirits, we don’t need to be shown it. Not only that, but the third one in the series was a prequel to the first film. The third instalment in the series was scary, the story was told well, and it did contain moments of continuity with the first two.

You see, the third was asked for by the fans. They enjoyed seeing the ghost hunter trio, and when Lin Shaye’s character was killed off in the first film, brought back in the second, the only way to continue her story was to tell what happened before, and the audience, I included, did enjoy watching that.

This year, the fourth instalment, which is a sequel to the prequel, is coming out near the end of the year, probably around Halloween time. I do like the series, but you know what they way, ‘power of three.’ There have been many film series that have ventured into a fourth instalment and didn’t live up to the main trilogy. I do have my fingers crossed in hope that it’s going to be good, but the reputation that fourth instalments have is breathing heavily over its shoulder.

So many sequels have failed to live up to the first, it’s almost expected that it’s going to be bad, which adds to the delight and enjoyment when we discover it to be good. It’s very rare for the sequel to be better than the first, and even rarer still for the third to be the best in the series. Of course, I am talking about the overall score. Individual opinions can differ considerable. One person may like the sequel, whereas the other hates it, and vice versa with another series.

No matter how different our opinions may be, there’s always one thing that we can agree on, and that’s sequels are always a gamble.

Thanks for reading

Antony Hudson

(TonyHadNouns)