It sounds absurd, but studios seem to use the same rationale for almost every sequel and/or reboot: We’re back and better than ever! This time we’ve got more explosive stories! But we buy this argument every time we shill out another $10 to see a sequel. In superhero movies, this usually means more villains; in action movies, a bigger stunt/CGI budget; in comedies and animation, it’s wacky new characters. Therefore it’s better, right?
Sure, we all can recite the sequels that were better than the original like automatons: “Toy Story 2,” “Terminator 2,” “The Empire Strikes Back,” “The Dark Knight,” etc. But we can only prove the point by being unable to remember all of the junk heap follow-ups to outstanding films. Do any of these ring a bell? “The Sting II,” “Psycho II,” “Jaws 2,” “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom,” “The Two Jakes.” These are sequels to some of the landmark films of the 20th century, and they all are miles away from the quality of the original. Now think about the mediocre films that receive this treatment (i.e. “Anaconda”). Yeah, it gets pretty ugly.
But sequels are a time-honored Hollywood tradition going back to “Fall of a Nation” in 1916. And they prove to be good business, if poor art. While only 6% of the IMDB Top 250 (including remake “Star Trek”) are sequels/remakes, 45% of the top 100 grossing films (domestic) are. Even if you factor out inflation (and 3-D prices), 18% of the top 100 adjusted grosses are sequels/remakes.
Where does this leave the film community? The studios are businesses, nothing more. They are beholden to shareholders and think in bottom-line terms. The idea of cinema as art only matters if they can turn it into dollar signs. Actors and directors who work the big budget productions so they can work the indie films probably have the rational approach of having their cake and so on. And there are the “artistes” and “auteurs” who eschew gigantic paychecks and back-end deals for the sake of their crafts and probably their own sense of purpose. Regardless, they are all self-serving. No solutions there.
So just remember the consumers have the true power. Studios do not make movies to lose money. So if you don’t want to suffer from sequel overload, don’t watch them. It’s the only message that will be heard.
With the chances of said message being delivered by all of America lying somewhere between George Lucas passing on a merchandising opportunity and 007 being killed off at the end of Bond 23, here is the remainder of this summer’s sequels and their prognostications.
“Transformers: Dark of the Moon” (July 1)
Likely to be another: “Resident Evil: Extinction,” but with a lot more box office potential.
On the “Transformers 2” Wikipedia page, an irrepressible fan crafted a plot summary of more than 1,000 words. That is love. And proves that you can’t trust everything you read on the internet. Even Michael Bay summarized this movie with three words, only two of which are fit to print: Bigger Robots. That might be generous to the plot.
Inane sequels spawn horrendous third movies. This will be no exception. I guarantee that by the end of this movie, your thoughts toward Bay will be something akin to this quote from Billy Madison: “What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it…may God have mercy on your soul.”
“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2” (July 15)
Likely to be another: “Lord of the Rings: Return of the King”
Normally, the 8th movie in the series sees a catastrophic dip in quality when compared to the original, but J.K. Rowling’s themes and depth matured along with the original target audience of “The Sorceror’s Stone.”
While 7.1 was a bit lacking in pace at times, 7.2 should be an amazing conclusion. Like “Return of the King,” both hail from literary sources that have a natural progression for the storytelling. And both will be memorable finales with plenty of excitement. The surest bet of the summer.
“Rise of the Planet of the Apes” (August 5)
Likely to be another: “Hannibal Rising”
A prequel following a bad remake. There aren’t a lot of comparisons to this category, and while “Red Dragon” was not as bad as Burton’s “Planet of the Apes,” it wasn’t “Silence of the Lambs” either. Is anybody really asking for an explanation for how we got to the first “POTA?”
I think we might see something at the level of “Dumb and Dumberer.” Maybe worse.
“Spy Kids 4: All the Time in the World” (August 19)
Likely to be another: “The Land before Time IV: Journey through the Mists”
OK, I haven’t seen the fourth “Land before Time” movie. But don’t tell me it doesn’t suck. And when you are adding Jessica Alba to the cast for the fourth “Spy Kids” after the last two were useless, well, suckitude awaits.
“Final Destination 5” (August 26)
Likely to be another: “Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter”
All you need to know is that there were 7 more “Friday the 13th” movies after this one (not counting the remake) and this is the fifth time we have been told that this destination is final.
