With all the outrage over Hollywood remakes over the past few years, it’s easy to forget that it wasn’t that long ago that we were hearing the same “lack of originality” argument being made about sequels. Back in the ’80s, Hollywood had started to realize the value of branding and name recognition and they went to town creating sequels to anything that was even remotely successful. Back then, it was almost a given that the sequel would automatically be terrible, but over time, some examples were able to prove that assumption wrong. That being said, it still seems to be a general rule that the sequel is never as good as the original. But why?
I guess the obvious explanation is that most sequels don’t have a good reason to exist outside of commercial interests and the continued storyline is usually just tacked on after the fact, if not a complete rehash. (Sequels that are a part of a trilogy or a larger series of films can sometimes be exempt from sucking.) Still, you’d think that when it comes to sequels, actors would have a stronger grasp of their characters and the filmmakers might have a bigger budget and opportunities to do all the things they couldn’t do with the original. What do you think? Is it true that most sequels never live up to the original? When are sequels usually the most successful? Does the original creative team need to be involved or can new faces sometimes keep things fresh? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.