As you have probably guessed from the previous subject of this blog, one of my chief delights in life is watching things be it TV or film. There really is nothing like the buzz of excitement when you sit down to a film that you have been eagerly awaiting for months. One of my favourite moments of a cinema trip is the pre-film trailer sequence, in which anticipation for future blockbusters is ramped up with the rising, inspirational music and the teasing 30 seconds of footage that just doesn't reveal enough. Maybe this doesn't happen for you but I have to say, the viewing of a new trailer is one of many little film-related delights in my life. Yet I cannot help noticing that this sense of excitement hasn't appeared for a while in my sadly infrequent cinema trips and I am curious as to why this is.
The feeling I get when I see most film trailers at the moment is indifference, the sense that I will probably watch the film in question at some point in the future but I will not actively pay the price to see it on the big screen. I think this can be partially attributed to the types of films coming out this year. A quick glance over the summer schedule for 2011 reveals that this is a season packed with sequels and prequels with Harry Potter's final installment, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Final Destination 5 and Rise of the Planet of the Apes on their way and also, the previous releases of Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides and The Hangover 2. With all the biggest blockbusters of the summer being either a sequel or a prequel to further films [one could argue that both Thor and Captain America slot into this category as both films will be fed into the upcoming Avengers movie], it would seem to any non-Earth resident that moviegoers are obsessed with watching the seemingly endless goings-on of robots in disguise, drunken pirates or boy wizards. However is this really the case?
In terms of Harry Potter, the sequels were pretty much inevitable and rightly so - it is a story that must be viewed as whole, even though most people I know refuse to acknowledge the existence of the first two films. In the case of Pirates of the Caribbean, the initial, seemingly general consensus, including my own opinion, was that another film was simply not needed. Now don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of the first three and have not yet seen the fourth so comment will not be made upon its quality. Indeed, the first film was a complete, joyful surprise; an original take on the pirate genre, which was languishing in the Hollywood doldrums after the woeful Cutthroat Island. Johnny Depp's performance was fantastic, Geoffrey Rush had the best pirate accent since Tim Curry and Orlando Bloom cut quite the dashing Errol Flynn-type figure. A surprise hit all over the world, it was a blast of fresh air in a year that also included a multitude of sequels including the dire Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle and Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. Then the Pirates sequels came along. I for one did enjoy both on a surface level; visually they were both beautiful, the jokes were amusing and Johnny Depp swayed drunkenly all over the screen. But scratch beneath the surface and you discover plot holes, repetitions and scripts so hastily put together it is no wonder that they made no sense, not to mention bloated running times that led to cinemas scheduling an interval for At World's End. I cannot help considering that, had they left it with just the first film, it would have been a permanent symbol of originality and a classic example of the summer blockbuster. Now it joins the ranks of films like The Matrix, where a smart, well crafted and importantly, an original film was ruined by unnecessary sequels.
Now you're probably thinking that it is common knowledge that sequels are never as good as the original film and for the most part, I think this is correct. Most sequels either attempt an unsuccessful replication of the formula that worked in the first film or attempt to do something entirely new that doesn't quite work. Iron Man 2, when considered alone, was a fairly good film but it did not expand much on the first other than to cement the relationship between Tony Stark and Pepper Pots. Then there's the inevitable 'it's a lot darker than the first' trope that is mainly associated with the Harry Potter series but is also employed elsewhere. For example, after the wholesome family, Nazi-bashing fun of Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was significantly darker and more gruesome [and is technically a prequel]. The banquet scene in particular sticks vividly in the memory. And in terms of Indiana Jones, one only has to look at the fourth film in the series to see what happens when the writers decide to drain almost everything good from a formula that worked. Yes I am still bitter about this. Returning to the idea of sequels getting darker, this is something that has actually worked on several occasions. One such example is of course, The Empire Strikes Back, one of the finest film sequels ever produced. It took the idealistic story of the first film and expanded it to become a grim depiction of what happens when our heroes don't succeed.
The Empire Strikes Back is a classic case of the sequel exceeding the original. And, in order to maintain a level of optimism in this post, it is also necessary to look at sequels that did work. The Bourne Trilogy and Christopher Nolan's Batman films are two such recent triumphs of successful sequel film-making. Paul Greengrass did a fantastic job of continuing the story of Jason Bourne after Doug Liman's Identity established Bourne's struggle to find himself as it were. In this case, it is a good exhibition of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' with each film sticking fairly well to a similar formula; Jason Bourne doesn't know who he is, is chased around various cities, outwits everyone concerned and eventually learns a little more about his past. But the important thing here is that Greengrass didn't produce a carbon copy of the original film, he added in more threat, different, often better set pieces and produced two sequels that increased in quality from their predecessors. In contrast, The Dark Knight didn't have a formula to stick to because Batman Begins was very much an origin story of Gotham City's decay and how Bruce Wayne became the Bat. Therefore, when Nolan came to creating a sequel, he was able to just go headlong into the world of Gotham's favourite vigilante with one of the scariest adversaries created in recent times and in doing so, arguably created one of the best comic book films ever.
So yes, sequels can be a good thing when done correctly and I am more than happy to sit down and watch a sequel if I feel it is going to elaborate and continue what has gone before. But I do not want to be continually fed big budget sequels that are simply a cash cow for the production company, which I sneakily suspect is the only reason behind films such as Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and Dark of the Moon. The first Transformers was an ok action film. The second one was giant robot balls. I certainly don't want to be fed these sequels at the expense of other, more original films that would also attract an audience if marketed correctly, a film such as Inception for example. Again, it was a breath of fresh air, a thriller that did not assume the audience was stupid and continually played with expectations whilst delivering great action scenes throughout. It remains to be seen whether this would have been made or publicised quite so much had Christopher Nolan not been at the helm but it was something different, a standalone film enjoyed by a multitude of audiences.
Sadly, however, whilst these sequels continue to make obscene amounts of money [Transformers 3 has just hit the $400 million mark], major production companies will stick with these films rather than risking investment on something new. Then again, I can only hope that some of the sequels coming out this summer or in the next couple of years will be good continuations of their respective stories rather than hollow attempts at grabbing people's money. And on that note, I bid you adieu. I'm going to watch Inception... again.
