I don’t like the bad rap that sequels have been getting lately. For the past few years it seems all I hear are critics talking about how much they hate sequels. Critics always say the same thing. “It wasn’t as good as the original.” And they always imply that movie studios should never make sequels. Once they have a hit, they should leave it alone because a sequel will ruin the magic.
Well, I disagree. I think sequels get an unjustified bad rap. I don’t even think critics give them a chance. It seems like whenever a critic goes to see a sequel all they start doing is looking for stuff to criticize. So they can make a list of all the ways this movie is inferior to the original. People. This is not the proper way to watch a movie.
What about the sequels that are considered BETTER than the originals? Godfather 2. Terminator 2. Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back? I think most people who have seen these sequels (and many others) will actually agree that they are better than the original. In my opinion, there are MANY sequels which are better than the original.
I like Spider-Man 3 (2007) better than Spider-Man (2002). I know some people may disagree but too bad. I like X-Men 2 and X-Men 3 better than the original. There are more but lets move on.
I do agree that there are some originals that have not yet been topped by any sequel. Superman (1977). Jurassic Park (1989). Ghostbusters (1984). Bruce Almighty (2003). Dumb and Dumber (1994). Just to name a few. But I still watch the sequels. I still enjoy the sequels. Well, except for the Dumb and Dumber sequel. I still don’t know why they made that one.
But then there are instances where a series of movies will be made and one of the movies in the middle is the best. Not the first. Not the last. But perhaps the third? I think the third movie in a series can sometimes be special. I like Superman 3 (1983) with Richard Pryor. It’s not better than the first but it’s better than the other movies that came after it. Star Wars Episode 3 is the best of the new trilogy. And I already mentioned Spider-Man 3 and X-Men 3.
Now lets talk about the Indiana Jones franchise. I saw 4. Everyone saw 4. It wasn’t my favorite. It’s still a good movie but I probably enjoyed it the least of all 4. It just didn’t seem like Indiana Jones to me. Maybe too much time has passed (19 years to be precise). But my favorite Indy movie was part 3 – Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. That doesn’t mean they should stop making sequels after the third one comes out. I’m simply pointing out that sometimes even the third in a series can surpass the first two.
For anyone who still thinks that sequels are the work of the devil I will make one last point. Look how many Star Wars movies have been made. Look how many Star Trek movies have been made. Batman. Superman. My God, look how many James Bond movies have been made. When we talk about sequels we can’t just think about the second in a series. We’re talking about trilogies. We’re talking about studios making a bunch of movies and then starting over from scratch with a re-launch. I think the James Bond re-launch is looking good so far. I’m looking forward to the Star Trek re-launch. And I think the Batman re-launch is particularly cool.
So in closing, sequels are not the devil. Critics - don’t be so quick to bash the sequels. Because sometimes the sequels rule!!!
http://www.charlesdewandeler.com
