I was watching "Coming Attractions" on E! today. For anyone who doesn't know, it's a show for movie trailers. Two of the big summer releases this year are sequels: Rush Hour 2(??) and The Mummy Returns. As far as sequels go, these aren't in the same "What in The???" category as, say, the sequel to Weekend at Bernies (which still makes me momentarily lose my faith in mankind whenever I think about it), but still, it's not like Rush Hour was fabulous movie, screaming for a part 2.. I'm all for having the characters die at the end like in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, just so they *can't* do sequels. what's your take on sequels? Are they ever better than the first? Worse? Just some kind of charity scheme so Chris Carter and Brendan Fraser don't go completely broke?? And yep, I know, Empire Strikes Back ruled. I'm talking about any of the others.

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2001

Answers

I think a lot of sequels, especially comedy sequels or summer action sequels, opt way too much toward big budget eye candy. I loved "Star Wars," and while I liked "Empire," at the time it just seemed so obvious to me that Lucas had proven himself so the movie company gave him wheelbarrows full of money for a sequel. The effects seemed to be the stars of "Empire." Looks like that's the case for "The Mummy Returns." The first one had effects-a-plenty, but they obviously went big on the sequel's effects budget.

Plenty of sequels are great, though. "The Godfather 2" is generally regarded as better than "The Godfather," although many say they work best as a set. And while I loved "Alien," my preference is for "Aliens," which I think exceeded the first one in terms of gripping action. A lot of people liked "Terminator 2" better than "Terminator," but I'm not one of them.

Lots of filmmakers never plan on having sequels, but often the commerce concerns of the big movie studios override such creative intentions. Take Sylvester Stallone, for instance: he didn't intend to make a sequel to "Rocky" but there was tremendous viewer sentiment for Rocky to win and so he made the movie. But his original "First Blood" story was supposed to have Rambo die in the end, but the studios overruled and what came next was the huge box office hit "Rambo: First Blood Part 2." Again Stallone wanted Rambo to die in the end, but because this was the biggest hit that year, they decided to make another one. That one bombed.

Definitely, though, the majority of sequels are mistakes that should never have been made and are only there to make money. Hollywood is full of copy-cats, not necessarily due to a lack of imagination or creativity but due to suffocating fear of not making huge amounts of money in receipts. Even movies that make moderate profits are regarded as "disappointments."

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2001

I thought the first Alien was better. Yea, the second had more action, but it was predictable. In Alien, when that thing popped out of that guy's chest, not before, nor since, has any movie left me nauseated for a full evening.

The second Silence of the Lambs was not what I expected. Sure, it showed the more "human" side of Hector, but I thought it dragged and, once again, was predictable, except the ending scenes. Also, once again we have a hanging ending. I do enjoy saying Okie, Dokie then. And, if I'm in a particularly obnoxious mood, "will that be with bowels or without?"

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2001

"The Horse Whisperer" was a big hit in rural NYS (New York State). Rural NYS is horse country. Grace had ner accident in NYS, so the film had local appeal.

Grace is both very lucky/unlucky. She is forced to take heroine journeys, and this makes her special. The idea of her returning to NYS as an amputee with a rehabilitated Pilgrim (her horse) offers rich possibilities, IMHO. At any rate, rural New Yorkers would like it and so would I.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2001

The first sequel I ever saw that didn't completely suck (AT THE TIME, I hasten to add ;-) ) was Superman II. It had a plot, it provided "what-if"s, and was entertaining and fun like the original had been. Granted, now I can barely watch Superman II, but at the time, it was totally enjoyable. [Note to any younger readers: this was before everyone had VCRs, so theatrical releases were always a Big Deal.] Superman III and IV were dreadful films from the get-go, and I remember thinking that studios should probably stay away from 3- and 4-film franchises. IMHO, this runs true for the Star Wars series, because even though I loved it AT THE TIME, Return of the Jedi is a pretty lousy film; it was evident that Lucas was pandering as soon as those damned Ewoks showed up onscreen. He was thinking of plush toys and merchandising, not credibility. He needed the "Awwww!" factor to get women and kids into the theatres. I realise that's a sexist theory. That's why it bothers me so much. With Episode I, George completely sold out, filling his film with offensive characters (offensive both in a political sense and as horrid forced slapstick schtick), boatloads of special effects whose sole purpose seemed to be to say "look what I can do!", remarkably bad acting (which can be blamed largely on the director, who clearly did not do his job well), and, worst of all (to me), cutesy dialogue that cheapened the film's integrity beyond repair. To me, Star Wars will always be Episodes 4, 5, and 6 only. Even if RTJ is weaker than the two films immediately preceding it, it is still MILES better than Episode I, and it does provide a satisfying finale to the saga as a whole.
The three Indiana Jones films are interesting to consider, as far as sequels go. While the first film, Raiders of the Lost Ark, is a superb piece of work, the second installment of the series faltered: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, while not a _bad_ film, certainly did not measure up to its predecessor in terms of predictability, dialogue, plot, and acting (Kate Capshaw delivered a poor performance, sez I, and I have often wondered if Spielberg's decision to cast her as Willie was based more on his attraction to her as a woman than on the quality of her audition [he ended up marrying her a few years later]. Note that I am not saying Capshaw is a bad actress-- I have seen her in a number of projects since Temple of Doom where she delivered excellent performances.). The third Indy film had a huge ace in the hole in that Sean Connery was aboard to play Indiana's dad. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is solid, overall, despite a weak female lead (imho), and, as in the Star Wars finale, The Last Crusade provides a good ending to the Indy trilogy, as our heroes, literally, ride off into the sunset. There may be a fourth Indiana Jones film: Harrison Ford says that he, Lucas, and Spielberg all want to do another outing, and, that, contingent on a good script and a convergence of schedules, it will happen. I will be fascinated to see what they come up with, if this film ever gets made.
I'd love to say more, but I've already prattled for too long. Apologies. :-) Film is one of my favorite topics.
ps-- I loved The Mummy and am thrilled there's a sequel. I trust it will be as silly and fun as the first film.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2001

klee wrote: ". . . remarkably bad acting (which can be blamed largely on the director, who clearly did not do his job well), . . ."

Oh my God, klee, those were EXACTLY my thoughts when I left the theater after that Episode 1 mess. The actors are all generally very good, but Lucas spent NO time on them at all, devoting almost everything he had to his special effects, of which is very proud. The actors were left to flap in the breeze and man, does it show. And it's not their fault - it's all on Lucas. Bummer.

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2001