Sequels = re-gifting?

I’d like to talk about sequels.

Sequels are what happens when a movie is successful. They are a continuation of a story that may or may not have been intended for continuation. Sometimes they are good. Sometimes they are the other thing. Sometimes we feel like they’re totally justified, sometimes we wonder why the hell we’re getting a fourth movie about pirates who are now, by the way, having all the magics. Whether or not we feel they are justified, there is one justification no one can argue with.

Sequels get made when originals make money, to the point that getting butts in seats is more important than actually making a worthy second movie. All a sequel needs to do is promise the effect of the original and people will pay to see it. Delivering on that promise is not a requirement.

‘The flop’ is not a new concept. Every movie runs the risk of not making money. But it seems that over the last few decades movies have changed in how they deal with risk by sticking to what they know.

When you look at all the blockbusters - the family movies, the animations, the films that pull the crowds and get the press – they all now seem to have one thing in common. They’ve been done before. They’re books of films. Or comics. Or remakes or reboots. The only original films seem to be the indies, the Rom-Coms and the thrillers. Though a lot of those come from books too.

And it’s all about the risk. Basically, film companies don’t want to take any. If they can find a story that’s already been told, that people already love, they can have a guaranteed audience before they even decide on the story. Why risk paying a writer to spend a year on a script, then pay a director and actors and a film crew for another year to shoot a film, then promote the film, all to simply ‘see how it goes’? Business doesn’t work that way (says the Arts major).

And why take risks on ‘unknown quantities’ when you've got thirty years of popular cartoons, forty years of popular TV, eighty years of popular comics, and fifteen years of popular films that can all be remade and then remade again. ‘Giving it a new spin’, ‘taking it to a new place’, ‘exploring new territory’ – they’re all code for ‘we’re making something we already know you’ll like’.

Part of the problem is the idea of ‘giving the audience what they want’. As technology accelerates, audiences want to see their favourite characters up on screen again, in more vivid colour, in more epic adventures, with better CGI and bigger explosions, played by their latest celebrity crush. But all the best writers and directors and producers know that audiences are not writers or directors or producers. They are audiences. And what an audience wants ultimately does not matter as much as what they need.

And what they need is to be challenged.  To be engaged. To be shaken up. Because stories only matter when they change us. Even in the tiniest way. A movie that doesn't change us is a waste of time.

But some sequels do change us. So do some remakes. The Lego Movie is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a while and it has the same marketing origins as the Transformers series and Barbie and the Mermaids of Mermaidia.

What makes it special is its original story.

And some movies have the conceptual depth to justify more stories. The Toy Story’s are great examples, as are the 28 Days/Weeks Later films. Both worked perfectly well as solo outings but had enough success, and contained enough story potential, to spawn strong sequels. Even Sister Act 2 and Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey are worthy successors, in my opinion.

But it’s the movies that strain to be sequels that are the problem. The ones try to repeat the ‘magic’ of the original instead of finding fresh souls of their own. Cars 2, The Transformers movies, the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels were all parasitic growths on the backs of their predecessors, with few original stories to tell. They tried to give the audiences what they wanted – ‘more of the same’ - without giving thought to what they needed: something new.

And therein lies the problem. How can you give more of something new?

Granted, both the Transformers and Pirates films did very well at the box office. And a lot of people can watch all eight without feeling too underwhelmed. But these people still comment on the reduction in quality between the original and the sequels in both series. It makes me wonder if they like the sequels on their own merits, or merely because they let them re-enter the world they loved so much in movie number one.

One film company that seems to buck this trend is Pixar. Since Toy Story in 1995 (I know, right? A whole year after The Lion King) they have managed to bring us original stories again and again. That’s nearly 20 years of successfully original storytelling, and similar returns at the box office.

Though, there have been some dips in their success. With the exception of the Toy Story’s – and now Monsters University – Pixar films began to suffer when they start worrying more about what the audience wants than what they need.

Cars 2 was an attempt to recapture the glory of Cars. I don’t have loads of love for either film, but the first was much more well received than the second (paradoxically, or perhaps predictably, the second has grossed more worldwide). And as for the recent ‘moderate successes’ of Brave, Planes, and my personal problems with Frozen, my theory is that these recent films have all suffered, not from sequelitis, but from having too many cooks.

Various podcasts and interviews appear to indicate that from Brave onward Pixar changed its attitude about audience screenings. These are preview screenings of unfinished versions of a film to gauge audience response and adjust a film accordingly before the final release.

I’m delving into conjecture here, but my theory is that around the time Pixar merged with Disney (I’m still not sure which bought who) test screenings became more numerous, and so did preemptive changes to improve box office response. This is why I feel Brave, Planes, Wreck-It-Ralph and Frozen all seem sort of cobbled together and generally not as impressive as Wall-E, The Incredibles and Toy Story. As if too many people were being given what they wanted so no one got what they needed.

Though, in that sense, I speak entirely for myself. I know loads of people that think Planes has a great story, Frozen has good female role models, Wreck-It-Ralph has a lovable hero, and Brave has a second act. So maybe giving people what they want isn't that bad after all.

But I still worry about the idea of the guarantee. Not that filmmakers need it to invest in million dollar projects, but that they seem to think original stories won’t provide it for them.

Or maybe that’s it. It’s not that original stories won’t get butts in seats.We know original stories make money. Avatar is the highest grossing film of all time and that’s original (except that it is kind of like Pocahontas) and Titanic is the second highest, and that was original (except the part where we knew how it would end). I was going to say here that original stories still get butts in seats, it’s just harder than using a cardboard cut-out.

But I've just taken another look at the top grossing films of all time, which include The Avengers, Harry Potter Part 8, Frozen, Iron Man 3, Skyfall and The Dark Knight Rises. Despite my general point of view, I’m still surprised to find that the top 18 films are all sequels or book/comic adaptations. With the possible exception of Avatar at the number one spot, there are no original movies until we get to number 19, which is The Lion King.

I’m not sure what that says about us as film goers. I know that the ‘highest grossing films ever’ list has almost no correlation to the ‘most critically-acclaimed films ever’ list. But I wonder if that matters.

Either way, it’s clear these trends are not about risk after all. They’re about effort. Loss vs gain. Creation vs recycling. Gift vs Re-Gift.

And that’s all it comes down to. Sequels can be good if they have something new to say, but why make something new when you can make something comfortable? Its really up to us ticket-buyers as to how the trend continues. So I guess the question now is: would you rather watch a safe movie or a great movie?

Because you can’t have both.

Except for the Matrix sequels, obviously. Everyone loves those.