Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Irrelevant Sequel Summer

So, we're officially a month into The Summer of Sequels, with four of the 98 scheduled sequels having premiered. And, as expected, they're the only movies that have made any money so far.

As a money-making venture, I understand why we have sequels. If you paid to see the misadventures of The Ocean Gang the first two times, you're more than likely going to pay to see them a third time. What I don't get is why some movies even have sequels.

There are some movies that almost require sequels, because you can't cram the whole storyline into one movie (like Harry Potter or Star Wars). Or, there are movies which, due to the previous history of the characters, have near-infinite story possibilities (like Spiderman and The Fantastic Four). But is there anything we couldn't piece together from Daddy Day Care that would require it having a sequel (and one that appears to be completely unrelated to the original)?

A good example of this theory, having just announced plans for a third and fourth sequel, is Shrek. The only reason the first Shrek movie was made was because Jeffrey Katzenberg was pissed at The Walt Disney Company, having just come off a massive lawsuit against them. So, he produced a movie with a slight variation of the Sleeping Beauty/Cinderella theme, filled with bitter references toward Disney. (If you look on IMDB, the working title for Shrek was Fuck You, Disney! True story.) And it was very successful. Yet neither sequel was as clever (or as bitter) as the original; they were basically reworkings of the first movie, made solely to make money.

Same holds true for the Die Hard franchise. If ever there was a definition of a high-concept movie, it would be Die Hard. Its basic premise, an action movie taking place entirely in one building, was so seminal that subsequent action movies got pitched as "Die Hard on a (fill in the blank)." The sequel followed that premise, expanding it slightly to an entire airport. The next one (which, I suspect, started life as the third Lethal Weapon sequel, and was actually more entertaining than what eventually became Lethal Weapon 4) expanded further to include the entire island of Manhattan. This new third sequel takes the concept...well, I don't think it even has the same concept, but it's got John McClane in it, so I guess that makes it a sequel. Once again: Just a case of making a movie just because the previous installments made money.

The worst offender is the Rush Hour series. In Rush Hour 1, you've got Jackie Chan as a fish-out-of-water in Los Angeles, and, because he's Chinese, he doesn't understand anything about America! Hilarious! Then, there's Rush Hour 2, which is the exact same movie, except that now Chris Tucker is the foreigner in Hong Kong. Pure comic gold. But are there really enough variations of the "Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?" joke to merit a Rush Hour 3, where both characters are out of place in Paris? I suspect the only reason these movies are still being made is because Brett Ratner, who killed a perfectly good X-Men franchise, can't get any other work in Hollywood, for fear that he might kill someone else's money-making venture.

But this is all Hollywood economics: The first one made money, so subsequent installments will, too (and usually moreso). We're pretty much stuck with sequels (which are still preferable to remakes), whether we like it or not. So, enjoy Ocean's 13 when it opens this weekend. I know I will.

4 comments:

Jesus Melendez said...

"The next one (which, I suspect, started life as the third Lethal Weapon sequel, and was actually more entertaining than what eventually became Lethal Weapon 4) expanded further to include the entire island of Manhattan."

It's true...Die Hard 3 was ORIGINALLY conceived as a Lethal Weapon. Remember that next time you see the black guy (in this one Sam. Jackson) yelling "McClaaaaaaaaaaaaaane" as they jump the cab.

Speaking of Die Hard 4...when did McClane go from being a fish out of water cop to a guy who launches cars at helicopters. Take THAT terrorists.

E said...

Maybe Die Hard 4 started life as XXX 3. I could see him driving a car into a helicopter. What a jerk.

Anonymous said...

what the fuck eric? too long btwn posts, this is well below the performance level bar you have set and is not acceptable. n

E said...

Read the disclaimer in the masthead.