Sequels

Salutations! I am Justin, your host for tonight's Mutant Roundtable. Today we're going to talk about a subject that always fascinates and horrifies us in the movie world, and that is the topic of sequels!

Let's start off easy! What is one sequel that you hated intensely, and one that you loved like it was your firstborn? (For the purpose of "sequel" questions, "spinoffs" and "prequels" will be allowed)

Easy indeed! The first is tough to pick from, but I'm going to have to go with The Matrix Reloaded and Matrix: Revolutions. The thing there was disappointment. Sure, there have been sequels that have sucked far worse, but these weren't supposed to. They were SUPPOSED to be good. Disappointment is harsh.

Favorite... well, the tops of my list almost don't count. I have a huge love for the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Star Wars trilogy. But I think the reason the sequels ruled was because the stories were intended to be one story, just told over three movies. That makes a huge difference. Outside of those, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is definitely at the top of my list.

Well, there's the obvious: Batman & Robin. I didn't see this in the theater, was fully prepared for the awfulness of in on VHS, was appropriately horrified when I did finally break down and rent it, and *still* somehow wound up owning the DVD. I am a weak, weak man.

Most of the Highlander sequels were pretty lame, too (reviews forthcoming!), but The Final Conflict (Highlander 3) is especially wretched. At least The Quickening was somewhat redeemed by the Renegade Version.

Last, and probably least, is Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation. It's such mindless, meandering, pointlessly bizarre celluloid waste that I won't spend any more time talking about it. I just want my ninety minutes back.

Loves? Well, as Lissa said, there's Star Wars, LotR, and Indy, natch. Spider-Man 2 and X2 rate pretty highly, as does Aliens. My all-time favorite underrated sequel, however, is Rocky 2. It doesn't have the emotional resonance of the first one, but it's got such heart and Stallone is clearly having so much fun that it's one I can never turn off when TNT is having their monthly marathon.

Actually, in terms of "immense disappointment", I think Alien: Resurrection was just a complete and utter "you have wasted your time and money" situation. Mostly because my friend Chris and I were super-looking forward to seeing it opening night, and after it was over we were just like "That was garbage." I've heard it sort of grows on you, but after that first viewing I don't want to see it again. Bleh!

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was a major childhood disappointment, although the merchandise tie-in did allow me to buy an awesome Indiana Jones action figure (the Raiders of the Lost Ark figures were cool, but I preferred the larger Temple of Doom figure). This girl who was pretty much my childhood best friend absolutely LOVED Temple of Doom, so I ended up having to endure far more than I otherwise would have, but to this day the only benefit of the film is that my friends and me can exchange "No time for love, Doctor Jones!" alterations for humorous benefit.

If the Star Wars series doesn't count as sequels/prequels (see: argument in Scream 2) I think the most successful sequel was The Godfather Part 2, which I think avoids the "series installment" stigma because globally people like to pretend Part 3 doesn't exist.

Friday the 13th Part 2 is fan-tabulous, and Freddy vs. Jason is that film's fan-tabulousness multipled a thousandfold. Oh, and Halloween 4 is so cool it makes me cry.

Oh, wait: Legally Blonde is a surprisingly durable piece of cool entertainment that I have yet to get tired of when I flip and "nest" on a few scenes whenever it's on cable (which is nightly, so it seems). Legally Blonde 2 appears to be one of the worst things I've ever tried to watch with my body and mind protectively going into 'sleep' mode to protect me from it's awfulness. Yikes!

I'm definitely in there with the others on Aliens and the second Godfather movie. I wouldn't really count the Star Wars/LOTR films as sequels, although The Two Towers is honestly my favorite of the LOTR trilogy.

I choose to pretend that Alien 3 did not happen. I've fired it from the Magical Mental Canon of Shalen. (Puns. Puns are funny. Right?) The same is true of any movie with Matrix in the title when added to any other words. I don't know if Serenity counts as a sequel, considering it's a film following a tv series, but I treat it in essentially the same way.

Others have mentioned sequels I enjoyed, but I also particularly liked Trancers IV: Jack of Swords for its cheesy hilarity, naming of random energy-sucking vampire (!) characters after characters from Shakespeare, general all-around gutsiness of having the final quest area called the Castle of Unrelenting Terror, AND the protagonist, as with other entries in the series, named Jack Deth. I would own it if it weren't so hard to find. At present I only have the first film in the series, which is far from the most amusing.

Continuing in the B-movie vein, I truly and deeply loathed Starship Troopers 2. It wasn't really connected to the first one's story and characters, it just happened to be taking place in the same universe. And, far from the first movie's biting satire, it went straight for the Alien-ripoff critter possession plot. Lame. Tired. Annoying.

One that I hated? Has to be Temple of Doom. (Highlander: Endgame is a very very close runner up though. That could have been soooo much better.)

One that I loved? Die Hard With A Vengeance. Jeremy Irons as the next Gruber to take on John McClane? Genius. Pure genius. Samuel L. Jackson was a nice touch too. I think I've watched this one more than the original.

Next Question: We've moved into the age of direct-to-DVD sequels (American Pie 4 & 5, Cutting Edge 2) — what are your feelings about this new trend, and have any of these "quickie" sequels attracted your attention?

In answer to the question, zilch. Direct to DVD sequel of major franchise = so lousy they thought they couldn't make book at the box office. Direct to dvd sequel of B franchise that never GOT a theatrical release, on the other hand, equals movie gold as far as I'm concerned.

I especially abominate the horde of Disney direct to DVD sequels. Stitch Has a Glitch? Please.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single direct-to-DVD sequel that I've even considered buying. I barely even notice the silly things. Really, except for the Disney-ish stuff that caters to a somewhat less discerning audience anyway, my feelings for the trend are slightly lower than ambivalent and only slightly higher than acrimonious.

James Berardinelli did a brief article last year where he called Direct-to-DVD a scarlet letter of the medium, and that's probably a better analogy than I can come up with on the fly. I have, however, seen a few that weren't gag-inducing. Eye See You wasn't terrible, certainly a better Stallone movie than Driven (and that one even had a companion video game). Species 3 was admittedly wretched, but it's a fun and reasonably harmless sort of wretched, and, if I'm remembering correctly, cleaned up at the DTV Oscars that year. In full disclosure, I should probably mention I paid to see neither of those movies, and maybe if I had, I would be a bit more vengeful.

As far as the actual existence of Direct-To-DVD, I'm fairly ambivalent. I assume there will eventually be a star who got his big break in one of these and validate the practice of quick + dirty sequels, but until then, they're mostly the same useless, empty, forgotten schlockfests that fill the racks of most independent video stores worth their salt. And who knows? Maybe the next generation will get a new Ed Wood or Roger Corman on whom they can look back and smile patronizingly.

Next Question: Out of all the genres, it seems like horror is the most renowned for sequels. Why do you think this is?

Money. People who want to see other people torn to shreds do not care if they're seeing the same person/critter/being do it several times sequentially, whereas watching Keanu Reaves seduce Sandra Bullock on a fast-moving object gets boring after the second time (or, IMO, the first). And I'm not pointing the finger here — I will watch almost any movie with zombies in it no matter how similar it is to all the other zombie movies I've seen.

I agree with Shalen that money is key. Streamlining a production straight into DVD form lends itself more easily to the lower budget genres. (Which includes both horror and Disney-type movies.) Minimal expenditure for whatever returns they can get their money grubbing little hands on.

The other factor (which Shalen also mentioned) is that some audiences are easier to please than others. I'm not trying to impugn anyone's tastes, but minimal story/maximal gore isn't particularly difficult to craft, especially when you have an existing brand name to rehash for audience recognition. Is this a well for future Mutant lovin' material? Possibly. But for now, it's just plain garbage.

Seriously, to me these things just seem like a hazy middle ground between legitimate box office and spin-off television series. Am I alone in thinking that? Anyone?

Money certainly plays a roll. Horror films, especially the ones that tend to be most popular at the box office and in DVD sales, tend to be highly formulaic and thusly any director with or without talent can be told "Take ___ Part 1 and remake it with a new cast and more blood for $5 million. Make it by Friday, please."

Story-wise, horror sequels can knocked out of the park as well. The killer died in the first one? Well, he's a demon. He had a son. She was wrong: her son is still alive and he's an undead zombie force of nature. Note to self: change the ending of the film when it's released on DVD to make it more ambiguous as to whether the killer died or not. *maniacal sound of hands clasping at money being made over "UNRATED ALTERNATE ENDING NOT SEEN IN THEATERS! super DVD special edition*

I'd say action movies are the next easiest films to 'sequelize.' Whereas most dramas and comedies generally end with denoucements that don't lend themselves to being continued, action films (especially ones built around a particular action star: hello, Steven Seagal!) can be pumped out as long as there are cool new stunts to shoot, exploding blood squibs to be placed on extras, and an action star who doesn't feel the Shakespeare/higher drama pull.

But then again, does anyone REALLY want Fried Green Tomatoes 2?

Noooooooo!

No, wait. I like this idea. I can see huge potential here.

Fried Green Tomatoes 2 - Yes I Like Them Sam I Am!
Must Love Dogs 2 - The Corgi Files
My Best Friends Wedding 2 - The Annullment
Sleepless In Seattle 2 - Insomnia in Hoboken

Hey, why not?

Pride and Prejudice 2: Pride and EXTREME Prejudice
Cover photo: Colin Firth holding a shotgun.
Tagline: They called him Fitzwilliam one too many times.

Or possibly:

Any Given Romance 2: Because Life Doesn't End When You Marry

This is one of the reasons I liked Shrek 2 so much, by the way (speaking of great sequels).

Shrek 2 did kick much butt. Although I have to give props to the Mummy 2 for the same thing, actually. The couple was married! And happy! And that wasn't really a sideplot to the movie! When does that ever happen?

I hadn't bothered answering the question because I hate horror in general, so I never watch the sequels, either. But I do think the film makers need to ask "is there a place for a sequel here?" I've never seen Highlander 2, but I saw the first Highlander well after it came out. Enjoyed it greatly, but at the end I just looked at my friend and said, "And they made a sequel from this how?" I thought the story was over. I felt satisfied. Good story, but come on. Everyone was dead.

Sure, everyone was dead. But without Highlaner 2, you would never learn about the alien planet that the immortals came from! ::shudder::