How to Sequel

I’d like to begin this post by thanking Netflix for releasing the three Jurassic Park films this summer, I enjoyed a 398494th viewing of Jurassic Park last weekend, and then whined my way through Lost World.  (In my boyfriend’s defense, he hadn’t seen it and would rather watch dinosaurs chase Vince Vaughn than Rosemary’s Baby).

Is this what being a parent feels like?

This one was by far the worst, and I would much rather watch Jurassic World at that point if only for shirtless Chris Pratt.

What did we do to deserve him?

Afterwards, I suggested a more adequate trilogy, wholistically speaking: Ocean’s 11, 12, and 13.  In this writer’s defense, there is nothing better than watching Brad Pitt eat nachos and confuse the shit out of Matt Damon.  Besides, the soundtrack is amazing and the final scene to the movie will always be one of my favorites. If you don't get goosebumps listening to Claire de Lune, do you even have a soul?

Finally, we ended our weekend of  random film viewing with The Road to El Dorado, a classic. And like every classic animated film, The Road to El Dorado is being made into a live-action adaptation. Casting is pretty on point, and who wouldn't want to stare at Oscar Isaac for two hours? It was a dream we got to see his face in the new Star Wars. That's besides my point though.

Between the Oceans and Jurassic Park films, I contemplated what makes a movie up for discussion for a sequel, and a few particular aspects came to mind. This is something I often think of whenever I see a tweet about a follow-up film coming out. Three years ago, I asked how much of a great idea can a sequel be. Now, I list some criteria of what I think is needed for a sequel to really sell in theaters, and in our minds.

A Sense of Closure.  If a movie’s plot has a complete beginning, middle, and end, there is arguably no need for a sequel.  When films like When Harry Met Sally and Forrest Gump have definite endings to their stories, audiences don’t really want more, regardless of how hughly they are regarded.  They want everything to stay just the way it is.  Sure, something like Annie Hall or Catch Me If You Can may be your favorite movie, but there is no need for more. Leaving such classics as is defines them as classic, because they are original and stand the test of time alone.

Series are another story, however (pun fully intended). When there is more of a longitudinal storyline, like in Star Wars or Harry Potter, OF COURSE there will be a need to expand. And series are successful for various reasons, but that will be a rant for another day. But they are meant to have high potential for continuation (basically the axiom of a sequel). Each installment of a series or saga may have closure in itself and the plot as its own film, but overall other plot points and characters will have more to elaborate for the next part.

Another important point I reluctantly yet enthusiastically like to make is the case of the National Treasure films. American history is one of my favorite things. Even though both movies could have had plenty of closure and no need for a sequel, there was a second National Treasure, and hopefully there will be a third (please tell me I'm not the only one DYING to know what is on the 49th page of the President's Secret Book). Each movie can be defined as "great as is," and watching the first film is not necessary to understand the basic point of the next film. Same characters, different national monuments vandalized. NBD.

Same TBH but still hype for the third

Compelling Characters.  One excellent example of this is how a television series was in the works for the John Hughes classic Ferris Bueller’s Day Off for a while.  This, thank god, never became a thing.  As someone who aspires to live every day like Ferris, you would expect me to be devastated by this discovery. Alas, I am not.  Ferris had his day off, we laughed and cried with him, and stressed over the Ferrari. But, even if we love a character and there is a sense of closure, continuing their story would be unnecessary saturation of their already passionate silver screen presence.

When a great character comes into our life, they are great partially because there is only one of them. They are also unique in their own world, even if they are God's gift to mankind. Sequels with these characters that stick in our minds will lend themselves to a story that initially lacks closure. Without this closure, these characters can feel overbearing (especially passionate and obsessive ones).

Does the Source Material Allow it?  More now than ever, Hollywood has turned to source material, whether it is a book, actual events, or another movie, films have glamorized things.  When making biopics, there is rarely a need for more.  However, if there is no source material or any implication of a definitive end, then following up with another film may be a good idea.  For example, book series are meant to have several installments, as each movie serves as a set-up for the next. If it is a historical event, there may be fixation on just that.

By "Hollywooding" up source material, there is always a detour from the truth, which can lead to room for cinematic growth, whether or not a movie allows it.

What about the Prequel?  This summer, Pixar Studios showed us all that Disney has the grit to make a compelling prequel to a beloved children’s film: Finding Dory.  I’ll admit, when the press releases first came out about the film’s conception, I was skeptical.  I felt that there was so much closure to Finding Nemo that anything else would have been unnecessary and just a money machine. However, I was pleasantly surprised to realize that Pixar brought its signature sentimentality to the forefront and made for an excellent prequel.

Overall, the art of making a good film is difficult, and making a sequel to a good film is even harder without the proper criteria. Things like closure and source material are always important to consider when analyzing sequels, and should be done mindfully.