Tough Act to Follow: What We Talk About When We Talk About Sequels … and Why
by Jeffrey Martin
The summer movie season has warmed up to a solid, albeit young start. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 fulfilled most of its promises upon release a few weeks back. More recently, Alien Covenant acts as an efficient bridge between Prometheus and whatever film comes next. Although they share a (surprisingly) fair amount of attributes in their stories, I wasn’t expecting to be asked the same question for movies that are released weeks apart: “Is it better than the first?” It’s a fun question, a fair one even, especially if you’re a fan of either film, but this is symptomatic of a concept we need to learn how to talk about: sequels and film.
Hollywood is the town of what-have-you-done-for-me-lately and lately, studios want their movies to warrant sequels so they can create a string of products that will consistently bring in revenue. The thinking is paradoxical: in order to make The Next Movie, *insert major studio here* has to make Movie A to set up Movie B that will fund The Next Movie. Look no further than the summer of 2017, host to an embarrassment of riches in sequels such as Pirates of the Caribbean 5, War for the Planet of the Apes, Cars 3, Transformers: The Last Knight and even An Inconvenient Sequel, just to name a few. If we are going to be consuming the latest of these pre-existing installments, then it’s necessary for us to learn why we talk about sequels the way they do.
If we can’t differentiate a movie from its sequel in any way other than it being better or worse, then we risk losing the value of cinema.
So, what does a sequel have to do? It has to carry the story to its next chapter. The tricky part finds its way in complicating our readings of a sequel by not the content of the film itself, but by the expectations we place upon it from the content of the previous installments. Whether that previous installment was Star Wars or My Big Fat Greek Wedding, the narrative thrust of the first gets brought into the next film, but why do we have to think that the next film has to up the ante? Or be funnier? Or have bigger explosions? Better yet, why does a sequel have to be better than the first?
For some films, like the Cars series, the bar of “better” isn’t set high enough to be considered ambitious. For others, such as The Godfather, it’s damn near impossible, but it still happened depending on your taste. Sometimes, a sequel just needs to take a left turn into an unexpected journey: Enter Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. Whereas the first entry rode on the promise of bringing the team together, the latest Marvel Cinematic Universe installment splits them apart so we can learn more about each character individually. The humor, character development, character interactions, and stakes are not better in this film than the first; they are simply different. If we can’t differentiate a movie from its sequel in any way other than it being better or worse, then we risk losing the value of cinema.
This value hinges on the idea of telling a wholly unique story in a wholly unique vision. Oliver Stone, Francis Ford Coppola and Stanley Kubrick all made Vietnam War movies (Platoon, Apocalypse Now, and Full Metal Jacket), but each filmmaker brought his singular sensibilities to the subject. All three cover the same war, but they eviscerate their characters differently enough to make each film unique in its quest for humanity through the dehumanization of war. This is where Alien Covenant falls short. Yes, the story is entertaining, but it brings in the search for answers of the creation of life in Prometheus while fighting against the brute force of 1979’s Alien without creating something new. Instead, this in-between-quel toes the line of being a remake of both of these movies at once in style and story. A studio’s worst fear is not picking up any new fans along the way of making a follow-up to a movie because, like any good second date, you need to give your significant other a reason to keep being interested in you.
If the housing market bubble can pop, then why not the sequel/reboot syndrome? Based purely on box office results, the studios won’t be backing off anytime soon. To quote “Deep Throat” in All The President’s Men, a cautionary tale for our times, “ Follow the money.” Us film fans are left to figure out how to deal with sequels in the meantime. Perhaps the easiest answer is the best answer, which is to say just watch the film and analyze it on its own merit. Although the first in a film series establishes a sense of narrative and tone, those that follow are not obligated to serve the same plot points. Enjoying a movie is one of life’s great pleasures. A sequel that favorably tops its predecessor is a minor miracle that’s worth celebrating, but it shouldn’t be the main plot line for all the films that follow.
Jeffrey Martin is The Collective’s cinema critic and you can follow him on Twitter at @jeffthemartin.
