I’m fascinated by movie sequels for several reasons. There existence at times seem unnecessary, trivial, yet at other times, they combine to create a cohesive narrative.
One question I ask myself is why they’re made in the first place?
Is it because a singular movie wouldn’t be long enough to cover the story? Or is the sequel more of an after thought, whether it was made because of the first film’s success, or because of audience demand?
The sequels I enjoy the most are when they are self-contained films (i.e. The Star Wars series and The Hobbit films), where they could exist on their own with or without a sequel. But when a movie ends inconclusively, almost abruptly, then it feels as if the movie is incomplete.
I think the same is true for books. No matter how good a book is, if it doesn’t have an ending but ends abruptly, it’s as the author didn’t finish the book.
But I digress.
My focus on the topic is what justifies a sequel. Is the purpose simply profit? In that case, might the sequel be the same as the first movie, but with better special effects, CGI, etc.? Is the sequel showing us something new? Is it advancing the story, leading us to the overarching conclusion?
I think the problem that a series can fall into is using the same formula again and again. Is the sequel merely a stage for new action scenes? Is the outcome always the same?
Good stories surprise us, and go beyond what’s formulaic and predictable. Sequels tend to fall in the trap of rehashing the same formula again, giving us the same movie but with a new cast or with new scenery. But if sequel can stand on its own, then it does two things: it advances the overarching narrative, and shows us something new.
Fallton Havenstonne 