| abstract
| - As the number of films in a series swells, the probability of an entry that is unmitigated crap jumps to a number greater than 50% with the second installment, and approaches 100% thereafter. For example, a successful film has a sequel that is decent but nothing compared to the original film. Suddenly a third movie appears and is may not even be produced or directed by the same people as the other two. If there are any more sequels, it just goes downhill from there if none of them are entertaining. Sequels to movies, generally unplanned ones (as opposed to a planned trilogy for example) and created on the impetus of box office revenue (Roger Ebert, in his Bigger Little Movie Glossary, defines "sequel" as "a filmed deal"), are rarely as good as the movie they're a sequel to. If there is a third installment, it will frequently mark a sharp downhill turn even when the second movie turned out all right. And even if there's a good trilogy, going beyond that has an even greater chance of crap. Note, however, that this only applies to unplanned sequels. Numerous examples exist of planned sequels which have been extremely good. It can also happen in the case of unplanned sequels (Ghostbusters 2 comes to mind as a sequel that, while perhaps not stellar, at least wasn't completely horrible) as well; it's just a lot more rare in that case, as noted above. Common symptoms of Sequelitis (that is, things which contribute to a sequel not being as well received as the original) include, but are not limited to:
* TYPE I: The casual (and sometimes callous) bumping off of beloved characters whose actors either refused to or couldn't return for the sequel.
* Low-budget cash-in sequels may take the alternate route of simply recasting almost every recurring character with a fresh batch of B-list actors, not just those formerly played by child actors now grown too old and big name stars now busy elsewhere.
* Occasionally the reverse situation happens -- the filmmakers bumped off a beloved character in the first film, but find a contrived way to bring them back.
* It's not uncommon for a main or supporting character from the original movie to disappear with no explanation for the sequel, usually because the actor(s) didn't want to return and the filmmakers didn't want to bother with recasting the part.
* Another possibility filmmakers take when they can't get most/all of the original cast back is to center a story around the previously unmentioned relative/friend of a beloved character, assuming that a connection to the original character will help make the new character just as good and beloved as the original. This can often lead to In Name Only.
* TYPE II: The mysterious unexplained departure of a hero's love interest (either because the actor or actress refused to return for the sequel or because the producers thought the Shippers would lose interest in the hero if he or she was married.) At most, there may be a throwaway line that poorly explains why he or she isn't there.
* TYPE III: Wacky Wayside Tribes begin choking the plot to conceal the fact that the writers have basically run out of story.
* TYPE IV: It's natural for producers to try and recapture the magic and atmosphere which made the first movie so successful. However, oftentimes they'll think to themselves: "Hmm. X worked really well in the first movie. If we ramp X up and show ten times as much of it in the second movie, people will love it!", "X" usually being toilet humor, sadistic slapstick violence, or something else along those lines.
* TYPE V: A tendency for the property to escalate into more science fiction, fantasy, or all around cartoonish elements, when the original at least made some attempt at being realistic (or at least low-key and consistent in its unrealism).
* Or to become louder, brasher and more violent at the expense of other aspects of the original.
* Inversely, it is also possible for a property that was initially wacky and intentionally unrealistic in the name of Rule of Cool, Rule of Funny, etc to try and ground itself and be more realistic, losing its original charm in the process. However, this seems to be far less common an occurrence than its inverse.
* TYPE VI: Many sequels begin to suffer from Pandering to the Base. Although it may seem like a good idea at the time -- who better to try and get onside than the fans of the franchise? -- this rarely ends well; usually, trying to please the fans ends up both (a) isolating a potential new audience and (b) annoying the fans, who are often made to realize that what they think they want isn't necessarily what they actually want, and are very quick and loud to say so. Many filmmakers often have little actual understanding of what fans do want, having merely perused a handful of message boards and assuming they speak for all fandom, if they even do that much research; in essence they end up catering to a Straw Fan. This is particularly the case when bringing back a much beloved character who unexpectedly won the audience over in the first movie, only to do nothing interesting with them or, worse, Flanderize them so much that they end up being a one-dimensional caricature of the charming and multi-faceted character they fell in love with in the first place.
* TYPE VII: The increasing insistence these days of any successful blockbuster movie to be stretched out to make a trilogy, whether the plot or characters particularly call for one or not; as such, a high-quality and self-contained first movie will often be artificially extended (with or without a Sequel Hook) into two bloated, incoherent sequels with the plot extended beyond its limits and stretched too thin between them. Do note also that Sequelitis can and does incorporate several of these types at once. The format of the sequel also enters the equation. If it's a Direct to Video sequel, chances are high that it sucks. After all, a lot of people assume a Direct-to-Video sequel is a movie that wasn't good enough to become a box office failure in theaters. The dreadful compulsion on the part of writers and filmmakers to add new chapters to perfectly good works has been likened to an addiction, sometimes termed sequelholism. The writers sometimes seem aware of this, and as a run of sequels are produced they may drop numbering the movies entirely and start adding cliché subtitles. This only makes it harder to guess the order to watch for new fans. If they aren't aware of this, then, in the end, odds are First Installment Wins. The inverse is a Surprisingly Improved Sequel or Even Better Sequel (depending on the quality of the original). Contested Sequel is when there is considerable division about the sequel's quality. Distantly related to Adaptation Decay. For a strangely divergent sequel, see In Name Only. For a sequel that retains the monster or villain but features none of the original heroes, see Villain Based Franchise. Can be caused by a poor choice in Sequel Escalation, and lead up to Franchise Zombie. Backlash against sequels has made many reviewers Sequelphobic. Some fans treat such sequels with Fanon Discontinuity. See also Sophomore Slump, The Problem with Licensed Games. Not to be confused with Egoraptor's new web series. Examples of Sequelitis include:
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)