Sequel Curse And The Need For Closure

There’s been a long standing belief in Hollywood that is commonly referred to as the Sequel Curse. A movie that receives critical acclaim is followed by a sequel that is universally agreed to be sub par.

It’s a phenomenon that occurs time and time again. Jaws was the first summer blockbuster. Jaws 2 was terrible.

Speed was a runaway hit (pun intended). Its follow up wasn’t.

Jurassic Park was a cultural milestone. The Lost World couldn’t possibly live up to the hype.

In fact, news of a sequel that is as good if not better is treated with relief and a little bit of surprise. Sure, it isn’t a rare occurrence, as Toy Story 2, The Godfather Part 2 and Terminator 2 are just some of the memorable successes over the years. However the vast majority of sequels are weaker in quality, though they almost always capitalise on the goodwill of the audience at the box office.

A concern that I’d held for several years though, was not about the inevitable Hollywood exploitation of a successful movie. Studio executives follow the money, and audiences still hold out hope for good sequels. When fused together, the results are a mixed bag.

But what annoyed me was how the constant need for commercial success meant even successful franchises were being dragged back to the drawing board.

The Bourne trilogy, in my mind, brilliantly combined raw, brutual action with the sophistication and speed of a spy thriller. It was a joy to watch all three movies, safe in the knowledge that none of them would disappoint me in the slightest. I felt a sense of pride whenever I got the chance to introduce the trilogy to someone, as though I had played a part in its success, which I didn’t.

So when they finally announced, after stating the opposite for years, a fourth movie, I felt an inexplicable sense of annoyance. Kind of like a collector fretting over someone possibly ruining his collection.

Of course, I’m not alone in this regard. There are those who launched an internet campaign to try and get Armond White removed from Rotten Tomatoes, alledging that his contrarian view had prevented Toy Story 3 from getting a 100% rating, and with it, the distinction of being a trilogy with 100% rating.

Why should it have mattered to them? For the same reason I’m bothered by the announcement of Toy Story 4. Perhaps it’s the sense of closure that is being disrupted. The fear of memories being tarnished.

An extreme and slightly tainted example might be the vitriolic opposition towards Ghostbusters reboot. I didn’t care, mostly because I didn’t love the original.

My test might have been the upcoming Ocean’s Eleven female reboot, for I love Steven Soderberg’s trilogy, the uneven second one included.

But thankfully, I’ve realized there is no need to feel annoyed by the lack of closure that a completed trilogy or stand alone movie was supposed to offer. Not because the results are great. But because the price that needs to be paid is far too high.

If studios no longer squeezed life out of respected movie properties, I wouldn’t have to worry about Jason Bourne annoying me every time I consider the original trilogy. But then I also wouldn’t have enjoyed Ghost Protocol and Rogue Nation, fourth and fight entry in a series that I thought was sure to fail.

Sequels do sometimes ruin the legacy of movies. But some also turn out to be great additions. Whenever I see an online campaign that rails against an actor or director or studio potentially "ruining" a movie (Ben Affleck, Paul Feige, Ghostbusters), I say to myself:

It's far easier to pretend bad sequels didn't exist, than it is to forgo the chance to see great additions.