How much is too much?

[Juuchan17]

(I'm not sure exactly where to put this, because it could go in two places)

I have a simple question to ask: How much is too much?

Meaning, how many sequels is too much for a series to handle before it's considered as old and over-done?

I think IMO that as long as the sequels are well-written, well-animated, and well-voiced, it should be okay. But if it starts to go as long as The Land Before Time series, then it's time to either end the series, make a TV series (because the shorter, the better), or don't even start. Sequels can either ruin or popularize a series. Most of them ruin a series (LBT, Secret of NIMH, Cinderella, Atlantis, etc.), while a few actually refurbish interest in a series (I think there's more, but the only one I can think of is Balto) and even a couple of them spawned television series and sequels (Aladdin, The Lion King).

The most sequels a movie should have is at least one. Maybe two, if a trilogy can work. As long as they are good, I'll be content.

What do you guys think?

[Nikolus]

Sequels, as in unplanned and unnecessary additions to an existing story and/or characters, are usually a bad idea and the result of business men wanting to capitalize on a previous success rather than taking a chance that allows artists to express themselves more freely. The only time they aren't is when the main creator of the previous film conceives of the sequel himself (Truffaut's Antoine Doinel films, Linklater's Before Sunrise/Sunset, and, since this is an animation forum, perhaps Toy Story?).

[Juuchan17]

Sequels, as in unplanned and unnecessary additions to an existing story and/or characters, are usually a bad idea and the result of business men wanting to capitalize on a previous success rather than taking a chance that allows artists to express themselves more freely. The only time they aren't is when the main creator of the previous film conceives of the sequel himself (Truffaut's Antoine Doinel films, Linklater's Before Sunrise/Sunset, and, since this is an animation forum, perhaps Toy Story?).

Hmm, you do make a good point. Most of the Disney sequels were based on original films by Walt Disney, and seem very unnecessary. However, with the more recent films made after Disney's death, their sequels aren't too bad and some aren't too good either.

Toy Story IMO really didn't need a sequel, but it sure was good! Disney, unfortunately is about to seal its doom with TS3 (since it's going to be made without the help of Pixar, the original company that made the first two films). That's what I predict though.

Another success would have to be with the second sequel to Balto (Balto 3: Wings of Change). The original writers returned after the near disaster of its first sequel and made the Balto series hit the mark. (I hope they decide to not make another sequel . . . unless the writers come back again!)

But I digress.

^___^

[lupercal]

Though I agree almost all sequels are inferior to the original, and sometimes do grievous harm to them (or, in the case of NIMH 2, seem to be attempting to assasinate them) - I have a pretty simple answer to this question:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with making sequels, provided they're good. There is nothing wrong with making ENDLESS sequels, provided they're good. The fact that this rarely happens doesn't invalidate that principle.

The problem is partly that many sequels are made to movies which had such a sense of closure that it's almost impossible to continue the story without damaging the original. I think 'Balto' is the classic example of a movie that presents an almost insurmountable challenge to writers of a sequel - at least to anyone trying to make a movie as good as the original (as it happens I have to sort of mentally put the two sequels into a parallel universe. Once I do that, they work alright.)

Another problem is the _automaticity_ of sequels - at least to Disney movies. You know that eventually every 2D movie in Disney's back catalogue will have a sequel and/or a TV series, whether it makes any sense to have one or not. Though, funnily enough, taking the characters from 'Jungle Book' and putting them into 'Talespin', which made absolutely no sense whatsoever, ended up being more fun than the original movie.

Making sequels is easy, because the groundwork has already been laid. It's easier than starting another project from scratch, and of course since they're mainly DTV, only a fraction of the budget gets thrown at them, and usually it shows.

But I refuse to write-off the idea of the sequel. Consider, if the 007 movies had stopped at 'Dr No', we would have had no 'Goldfinger'. Sure, there was the fact that there were a series of Ian Fleming novels to work from, but for the most part the films differed from the books, often wildly - added to which, they ran out of Fleming books ages ago, and some of the completely original movies were better than some of the ones based on the novels. 007 is a franchise that is older than I am, and it will probably outlive me, producing good and bad movies as it goes.

You could argue that none of the 007 films were actually sequels to the others, but I would argue that 'Balto 3' isn't really a sequel to 'Balto 2' either. It has some of the same characters in it, and the same setting, but if Balto 2 had never been made, it would have made no difference to Balto 3.

Finally as evidence, I'll tender a few sequels that I think actually bettered their originals:

The Lion King 3 (as it's called in Australia) - to me easily the most enjoyable of TLK series.

Wallace and Gromit - the Wrong Trousers - easily a better film than 'A Grand Day Out', and probably still the pinnacle of Aardman's achievements (though you could argue it isn't a sequel, as there's no linearity involved)

All Dogs go to Heaven 2 (I know I'm in a minority of about 1 on this one, but though it's not a great film, and the production values are inferior, I think this actually narrowly outscores the original by telling a straightforward story in a coherent way, rather than splashing luscious animation about and forgetting what narrative is)

Toy Story 2 - I agree, TS1 probably didn't need a sequel, but this one made the astonishing leap of taking a great movie and making an even greater sequel. In fact, AFAIC this sequel beats any other 3D _original_ that I've seen.

And if we stray outside the realms of animation, most people agree that the best Star Wars film was the first sequel, 'Empire Strikes Back'; the later Indiana Jones movies don't suffer much against the first one, many people consider 'Aliens' the best of that series, and in TV land, remember that 1970 movie called M*A*S*H*? Nobody thought a sequel TV series to that would ever work.

So despite the fact that most sequels are weak, I have nothing against the _idea_ of them, because a minority of them are actually very good. Most of it is in the talent thrown at the sequel, but I think part of it comes down to knowing which movies ought to be left alone. IMO 'Secret of NIMH' was virtually unsequallable, as was 'Balto' and, well most of the Ghibli movies (though the idea of a DTV sequel to 'Grave of the Fireflies' is amusing in a macabre way)

Loop

[Juuchan17]

Wow. You know how to make a point there, Loop.

:D

There is absolutely nothing wrong with making sequels, provided they're good. There is nothing wrong with making ENDLESS sequels, provided they're good. The fact that this rarely happens doesn't invalidate that principle.

I know there is nothing wrong with sequels and *neverending* sequels, but sometimes the sequels have to let the characters grow up and end the story for once IMO. But good quality is always a good thing for sequels to have. (whether it's in the animation, storytelling, voices, or new/old characters returning for a new adventure, it has to be good in some of these sections)

Making sequels is easy, because the groundwork has already been laid. It's easier than starting another project from scratch, and of course since they're mainly DTV, only a fraction of the budget gets thrown at them, and usually it shows.

Sadly, yes. I guess that's why new sequels spring up so quickly. But at least not all of the DTVs made nowadays look like cheap-made sequels (like the TLK sequels; they look so smooth and well-animated, they blend in!).

Wallace and Gromit - the Wrong Trousers - easily a better film than 'A Grand Day Out', and probably still the pinnacle of Aardman's achievements (though you could argue it isn't a sequel, as there's no linearity involved)

Hmm . . . I remember seeing all of the Wallace and Gromit films (except for the new one . . . because of lack of transportation and school work), but I loved this one a lot!

Toy Story 2 - I agree, TS1 probably didn't need a sequel, but this one made the astonishing leap of taking a great movie and making an even greater sequel. In fact, AFAIC this sequel beats any other 3D _original_ that I've seen.


I agree. It didn't need the sequel, but it sure was good! This, my friend, is a rarity for a sequel to be IMO better than the original. Heck, it could probably stand on its own if it wanted to!

(though the idea of a DTV sequel to 'Grave of the Fireflies' is amusing in a macabre way)

O___o;; That would be strange.

[P.C. Unfunny]

I think a sequel is only neccesary when the story in the original ends with something that suggests it. Like a villain not dying at the end or something simular. But,I must point out that James Bond is a series. They are a series of movies, not sequels. If they were sequels, it whould be the same villain every time.

[lupercal]

But,I must point out that James Bond is a series. They are a series of movies, not sequels. If they were sequels, it whould be the same villain every time.

Yes, but as I said, in what way is 'Balto 3' a sequel to either of the previous Balto movies? And even Balto 2 didn't have the same villain as the original (in fact, for most of the movie it didn't have a villain at all).
Balto 2 is more of a sequel because it has more of a sense of linearity. "This happened in 1, and consequently this is the situation in 2". There was almost none of that between 2 and 3.

Similarly, just OTTOMH, I don't see how 'Lady and the Tramp II' is a sequel to the original, except in the linearity of the 'next generation' schtick. The original characters, including the heroes, barely appear. All it does is tweak with the original idea, using the original characters as a springboard to get things moving.

The only way in which I'd say the 007 movies differ fundamentally from the Balto movies is that the original 007 movie ('Dr No') could be interchanged anywhere amongst the early films, because it doesn't have the sense of absolute closure that the first Balto movie has.And perhaps because they don't make such blatant use of recurring sidekicks.

I think maybe 'Lion King 1.5' is the most original entry in the 'sequels' dept. In a sequel, traditionally the linearity or timeframe moves ahead, but the character POV's stay the same. In TLK 1.5, the character POV's change, rather than the timeframe.

Loop

[P.C. Unfunny]

The only way in which I'd say the 007 movies differ fundamentally from the Balto movies is that the original 007 movie ('Dr No') could be interchanged anywhere amongst the early films, because it doesn't have the sense of absolute closure that the first Balto movie has.And perhaps because they don't make such blatant use of recurring sidekicks.

What do mean by "absolute closure" ?

[lupercal]

What do mean by "absolute closure" ?

I mean that to me, the end of 'Balto' so completely ties up everything the movie was about, that it's like closing the last chapter of a novel. Everything is resolved. There's nothing important left to tell. The film was mainly about his acceptance into the community, and the resolution of his crisis about being an outsider. The sequel had to posit him as an outsider again, which could only make sense if you pretended the wonderful climax of the first movie never happened.

Loop

[P.C. Unfunny]

I mean that to me, the end of 'Balto' so completely ties up everything the movie was about, that it's like closing the last chapter of a novel. Everything is resolved. There's nothing important left to tell. The film was mainly about his acceptance into the community, and the resolution of his crisis about being an outsider. The sequel had to posit him as an outsider again, which could only make sense if you pretended the wonderful climax of the first movie never happened.

Loop

Okay I understand, but the Bond films did have closure to them, it was just the same set up everytime.But the story and side characters whould change.

[lupercal]

Right, but everything has some sort of closure unless it's an ep of a soap opera. There's closure (as in The Brady Bunch giggling at the end of the episode) and then there's CLOSURE (as in the last scene of 'Dr Strangelove')


Loop

[lupercal]

err.. double post, somehow. Sorry.

[P.C. Unfunny]

Right, but everything has some sort of closure unless it's an ep of a soap opera. There's closure (as in The Brady Bunch giggling at the end of the episode) and then there's CLOSURE (as in the last scene of 'Dr Strangelove')


Loop

I have never seen Dr. Strangelove, however, I do see the point your trying to make. But with such frequent change in characters and only the set up remaining the same, I still see the Bond films as a series.