Tuesday, July 25, 2006


Sequel-mania Part II

Ok, so I have sequels on my mind again. A handful of sequels (those I mentioned not long ago) are actually brilliant and improve upon or augment in some way the original film it follows. Some sequels are simply throw-aways. Meaningless. Not harmful, but not memorable either. Then there are the sequels that might actually insult the sensibilities of an audience, simply for the fact that it follows a film which might be deemed "untouchable" in the collective memory of moviegoers. While it's clear to see why filmmakers might be eager to create them, these sequels never had a chance, and probably should never have been produced. These five spring to mind.
5. The Godfather Part III. (sequel to The Godfather and The Godfather Part II) It's not as bad as some think, but it is terribly derivative of the first two and completely unnecessary. Plus, the casting Sophia Coppola is a huge mistake.
4. Direct-to-video sequels to all the Disney masterpieces. Cinderella II. Bambi II. Lady & the Tramp II. The Lion King II. Etc. When then end with happily everafter, that should be enough.
3. Psycho II (sequel to Psycho). Sure I understand the temptation to make it. But Hitchcock was dead, and this project should have remained dead as well.
2.Return to Oz (sequel to The Wizard of Oz). Why wait so long to make a non-musical follow-up to a film that is among the most beloved of all time and then not include the Tin Man, the Scarecrow, or the Cowardly Lion (until animated cameos at the end)?
1. Scarlett (sequel to Gone With the Wind). What were they thinking? No film has ever sold more tickets than Gone With the Wind, thus making it, truly, the most popular film of all time. Without Clark Gable or Vivian Leigh, why even bother, especially with material not based on Margaret Mitchell's work?

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?