Sequels

              Sequels are spawned every year. Sometimes one, sometimes several. Mostly in the horror genre, which I will leave out because those are a different type of monster. I love a good sequel, and will even goes as far to say I love a sequel, on occasion, more then the original. It's not often that is the case, but we should all be aware that it does happen. I myself have been known to even watch the sequels that are, most likely, destined to be sub-par. It doesn't mean I enjoy them all of the time, but if I was a fan of the original, then I will give it a try. Although that doesn't always seem to be the case, because I have also not watched a sequel even after enjoying the original, because I felt that there was nothing else for me. The story had been told and I don't need to see a plot that was developed just to make money.
               Some sequels I choose not to watch, because they couldn't even retain the same actor(s) for the sequel. It doesn't always hurt, but sometimes it doesn't help. As an example of one that works, I will look at the sequel to Silence of the Lambs. Hannibal didn't retain Jodie Foster, but brought in the talented Julianne Moore. I know there was lots of time in between the movies, so perhaps they may have aided in why it work, and it didn't hurt the film either. I feel that Hannibal wasn't as good of a movie as Silence, but it was a good movie in it's own right. Did the missing Jodie Foster hurt? Not at all. Julianne Moore gave a fine performance as Clarice. She was the best choice to take over where Jodie Foster left off. What also helped Hannibal was the retention of Anthony Hopkins as the Hannibal Lecter. Had he been lost as well, then maybe nothing would have helped that movie. Thankfully we will never know.
               As an example of a movie that lost itself completely I look to The Punisher: War Zone. An awful sequel, for numerous reasons, but one reason alone is the fact that Thomas Jane didn't reprise his role (I see why). I'm not saying that Ray Stevenson was a bad choice, it's simply that the movie was bad, and it lost all of what made me enjoy the Thomas Jane version. Had Ray Stevenson been the original choice (forget the Dolph Lundgren version) then maybe the second would have been OK instead of terrible. The second was a cheap knock off-of the first, as well as being a cheap knock-off of B movie gangsters. The only thing that made it watchable was the violence.
               Sometimes there are movies that are set up to be trilogies, which I am fine with as long as the story can continue to move and grow, then, by all means,  lets have more for me to enjoy. The Matrix was set up as a trilogy, but the latter two lost the same fire that made the first a phenomenon. I enjoyed the second two, but the first is head and shoulders above them. The original Matrix is a "stand alone" movie, however, I cannot say that for the latter two. Should it have been a trilogy? Yes because with that particular story there were many more stories that could have been told. I'm not sure that the latter two chose the best stories to tell, but the weren't the worst stories either. They could have been better, but they could have been worse. I think they Wachowski's lost what made the first so incredible story wise and just focused on what made it work visually.
             Then there are the Lord Of The Rings movies, which are based off of books, so of course the trilogy was already there. I never read the books but I can tell that these were intended to be enjoyed in parts. Each part, however, is not really "stand alone" capable. Which is kind of interesting, but also what makes sure that they have to be enjoyed in parts to a whole. I don't think that these could have been any better then they were. I think they were done so well that each one outdoes the others in some ways. Because of that, my favorite of the three is incredibly hard for me to decide. I have a love for certain parts in each one that make me feel that particular movie is my favorite of the three. I can say that if they were not a trilogy and therefore one, I would have to say each was my favorite. Figure that out!
             Then there are the Star Wars movies. I was reading an article and they were saying that they are still unsure if George Lucas had originally intended them to be a trilogy let alone to have SIX of them. Plus an animated Clone Wars. So perhaps box office success played a part. Nonetheless, I love the Star Wars movies. On my list of favorite movies of all time. This is an example of a sequel being better then the original. The Empire Strikes Back is a better movie then a New Hope. The story in Empire is the most mind-blowing of all the movies. The moment we learn the truth about Darth Vader is a moment that will live in cinema history forever. Return of the Jedi is also an admirable sequel. It brought great closure to the story, and maintained an element of anxiety, as to what will happen next. Then came the sequels, or the pre-quels. OK, look, I love Star Wars, but I do wish these ones were better then they were. They should have been, but George Lucas went a little too crazy trying to create worlds and scenery and forgot that what made the originals great was not just the amazing effects (for the time) as well as the amazing sets, but the fact that his story was hard hitting, and heartfelt, as well as intense, and endearing. The characters he created in the originals were, and will always be iconic. However his characters in the pre-quels were already iconic, but forgot that, leaving us trying to pick up the pieces of a broken C3P0. How do we piece it together to make us love it again?
               Then there are the movies that had success at the Box Office, or maybe just happened to gain a cult following, so therefore being pushed into "sequel land" which can be very disappointing. Such as Miss Congeniality 2: Armed and Fabulous, or Speed 2: Cruise Control, or Oceans 12, Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, and I know there are many others. I can't be positive, but I believe that these sequels were made because the originals were able to have success. What a joke. How do you expect us to respect these movies when clearly they didn't respect us? In the Batman movies they couldn't even maintain the stars. Well, Chris O'Donnell really wanted to be Robin twice, and Joel Schumacher decided he didn't mess up Batman Forever enough he needed to really mess it up, so he decided that he would do Batman and Robin. Oceans 11 had an outstanding cast, which came back for Oceans 12, and was put together so well that it didn't need it to say "Look we are all really famous!". Oceans 12, however, did just the opposite. It said "You loved us before, now we don't really have anything to do, but remember how much you loved us?" And the result was just plain awful. A story that was stupid, and sad, and (insert negative here). All these movies do is remind us that, although a movie can have success doesn't mean we should just make a movie for the sake of it.
                My overall point is simple. A good sequel shouldn't be that hard to do if you stay true to what brought you there in the first place. In the near future we will have sequels to Avatar, and The Hangover. They both may turn out great, but chances are that with one seemingly having told it's story, and the other with a story that could still grow, we may be looking at another installment to a trilogy and one that is saying "more money please". So as sequels continue to happen, look for my sequel to this in the future, as this may just be a story that has more to tell.