In the world of films, sequels and follow-ups seem to be the gift that keeps on giving. They can either be great pieces of cinema or truly terrible ones. They also have the chance to occasionally be looked at from different perspectives, which was something that came into my head not too long ago when I concluded that it’s possible some sequels and follow-ups have been treated unfairly due to problems both in and out of the film-makers’ control.
Throughout film history there have been films that have had nothing but praise and then another entry is made that might very well be a good film but will always be measured up against its far superior predecessor – and so will have no realistic chance of maintaining the same quality. Think of The Godfather Part III or Return Of The Jedi. Both of them are third entries in their franchises but both live in the shadow of what came before them, so the odds are already stacked against them. It could be argued that expectations were maybe a little too high but I still think films such as these do fall into the trap of having to follow on from something that was so beloved – and it just doesn’t seem to work, regardless of how good or bad the films actually are.
I remember when I first watched X-Men: The Last Stand. I was maybe aware of its less than perfect reputation, especially when compared to the film before it, X2, but from what I could see it was a perfectly acceptable film. It is strange that some films can be put in a very bad light but when you actually see some of them, they may not be ground-breaking in any way but nor are they terrible to the point where you would want to stop watching.
Sometimes the differences between first and second films in a franchise can be quite intriguing. For a moment, consider the director Chris Columbus, whose output in recent years may not have been memorable but he does deserve to be credited for directing the first two films in the Home Alone and Harry Potter franchises. The films have more than just a director in common, the first entries seemed to be loved universally while the second ones both have their fans but don’t enjoy the same level of appreciation. Home Alone 2 does indeed follow some of the familiar beats from the first one but with it being a sequel it’s a longer film and enjoys a leisurely pace even if it doesn’t really need it. Characters don’t get much in the way of development and neither do any of the story’s themes or ideas, and in terms of the trap, goes along with the ‘bigger is better’ mentality which again is maybe not the best approach.
However in the matter of Harry Potter 2 it’s longer than the first film but has reason to be. It has a lot to work through which Home Alone 2 didn’t. It tries to push things forward by having a darker tone and bringing in mature ideas, themes and plot points that would later have a larger part to play in the narrative, all of which I think I Columbus did as well as he could – especially as this was so far out of his comfort zone. It feels like working on Home Alone 2 may have taught him something about sequels and everything that didn’t work with Home Alone 2 he made work with Chamber Of Secrets.
It’s no secret that film-making is a difficult business and occasionally a film comes along that is plagued by problem after problem and when it’s inevitably time for it come out, the less than favourable opinions are ready to be unleashed. This could have been the case with Dark Phoenix where anything said about it was negative and didn’t encourage much confidence. Another film that really seemed to suffer during its production was Quantum Of Solace. Not only was it being made in the midst of a writers’ strike, but it was also being made by a director who had no real experience making films like it. Even more unfortunate was that much of its camera work was done using the ‘shaky cam’ style which was in vogue at the time. That style of directing is mostly mocked and frowned upon now and has produced more failures than successes. It should only be left in the hands of those who know how to use it, and Marc Forester who before Quantum directed Stranger Than Fiction, Finding Neverland and Stay had no such qualification. If Quantum had had professional writers and a director who was better versed in the kind of film that needed to be made, it might have been far better than it actually was. Coming after the runaway success of Casino Royale didn’t help either, but it was really the production that let it down. I’m not trying to defend its mediocrity but it does make you wonder what could have happened if certain elements had been different.
In all my years of film watching there have been times when it seems like the first film in a franchise is loved, while the second feels like it’s been pushed to the side – even if it has something that can elevate the material for some audience members. I’m well aware of how popular the first Men In Black film was, and how the second one is looked upon in comparison. While I agree the first has its moments and I respect that, I think I prefer the second one, since just about all the highlights come from entertaining characters such as Tim Blaney’s Frank The Pug and the locker aliens. It also feels the same way with Night At The Museum 2 – the real highlight with the first one was probably how everything looked when it came to life. If I’m being honest the best part of the second film was watching Hank Azaria as the main villain with an engaging, over-the-top performance. These are by no means classic films (but they don’t have to be) but I still don’t think they are so lacking in good quality entertainment to the extent they should be more or less forgotten about with all praise going to the first one.
Very rarely do I seem to agree with a film’s detractors. But that is what happened when I watched Batman Returns. The story and character of Batman are meant to be dark, something the 1989 film clearly understood – but it also had a lot of humour, which I think helped a lot in its entertainment value. This was seemingly abandoned when Returns came along; it’s possible Tim Burton was given too much creative freedom with it and because of that the final product was a film that was much darker than it had any need to be. It actually feels a little unpleasant to watch in some places and none of the first one’s light-hearted moments are anywhere to be found. This is one case where I can very much sympathise with the criticism the film has received. Again, Batman is supposed to be dark but not to the point where it’s unappealing to watch (and endangers a promotional deal with McDonald’s).
I once read a quote from Stephen King where he said that Red Dragon from 2002 “needs to be re-evaluated.” Frankly I agree with that statement. It may not have reached the Oscar-winning heights of The Silence Of The Lambs but as I have pointed out before, it did come out only a year after the poorly-received Hannibal which was in itself was following on from Lambs after a whole decade had passed. This may have had an effect on how audiences at the time saw Red Dragon. Personally I think it is a competently made thriller and although Anthony Hopkins may not have been doing anything new with the character of Hannibal, faithfulness to the source material, a clear look and aesthetic and a strong performance from Ralph Fiennes really make this a film that should stand proudly beside Lambs and not worry about the inferior entry that preceded it.
2006 marked an interesting moment for sequels and follow-ups. Both the James Bond and Mission Impossible film franchises were struggling to find their place in the new millennium. Mission Impossible 2 was, and still is, thought of as the worst in its franchise while Die Another Day may have relied too much on the kind of campiness that may have worked with Roger Moore but didn’t with Pierce Brosnan. Both series had new entries out that year and they went about it in very different ways. Bond was given a reboot and taken back to the essentials of its characters and story, as well as being given a level of humanity that had never really been attempted before. That worked well enough for Bond, while I think Mission Impossible just did what they could, hoping it would all work out and lead to a prosperous future. Fortunately for them, it did and if the trailer for Dead Reckoning: Part 1 is anything to go by, it still is. Some say the franchise got to where it is today with Ghost Protocol but I would argue that it’s more thanks to Mission Impossible 3 that the franchise is still continuing.
Trends in cinema can also be a problem. Think of the original Halloween from 1978 where there are a few deaths, but they are far from graphic and most of it is built around suspense and atmosphere. It may have only three years later, but by the time Halloween II came along, other horror films had come out in the wake of the original that focused much more on blood, gore and sex. And of course that trend worked its way into Halloween II. I thought it was an average film, but it’s possible that letting itself succumb to the trends it inspired began the damage to the franchise’s reputation that it’s only started recovering from in recent years.
Earlier I mentioned how the ‘shaky cam’ work of Paul Greengrass’s Bourne films influenced Quantum of Solace. But that wasn’t the first time something like that had happened in the Bond franchise. At the end of The Spy Who Loved Me a piece of text reads that “James Bond will return in For Your Eyes Only” which would have come true… if it hadn’t been for the success of Star Wars that came out around the same time. This led to For Your Eyes Only being moved back and in its place came Moonraker which was certainly not on the same level as The Spy Who Loved Me. What happened with both The Spy Who Loved Me and Halloween 2 both show that trends in cinema can, for better or worse, play a huge part in the direction in which a franchise goes, and what story it tells.
When The Dark Knight Rises came out in 2012 it was undoubtedly going to be held up against The Dark Knight – but when it was released most of the reviews seemed to be glowing. Now, years later, I come across its shortcomings being frequently discussed. I do think it’s interesting to note how it went from nothing but praise to its faults being laid bare for all the world to see and comment on. If I could really zero in on one problem it has, it would have to be that it’s too long. The Dark Knight was long too, but moved quickly enough that it didn’t drag – whereas I think Rises did.
Film fans seem to rarely change their opinions on what they have seen, but a few months ago my opinion of a film drastically changed. In 2010 I saw Nanny McPhee and The Big Bang in the cinema and didn’t like it. I saw it again twelve years later and I didn’t love it but I definitely didn’t hate it.
Sequels and follow-ups are going to continue to be a dominant presence in film for many years to come and the possibility of one of them getting an unfair reception isn’t going away any time soon (or maybe ever). But I do hope what I have said may give film fans something to think about regarding all the sequels and follow-ups that they have seen, and ask themselves if they may be worth another look. I know this article won’t be getting a sequel as It doesn’t need one. But then again unnecessary sequels do exist in great quantity. I could go on but the unnecessary sequel is a story for another day.