I hate sequels.
| Meta | |
|---|---|
| Title: | I hate sequels. |
| Creator: | Homer Sapiento |
| Date(s): | March 1985 |
| Medium: | |
| Fandom: | many |
| Topic: | |
| External Links: | |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
I hate sequels. is a 1985 essay by Homer Sapiento.
It was his contribution to Rogue's Gallery #18 in the form of Sapiento's regular column, A Parting Shot. The essay in this zine does not have an individual title, and the one used here on Fanlore is the first sentence of the essay.
Some Topics Discussed
- the Star Trek movies, the Indiana Jones movies, the Star Wars movies, the Rocky movies, the movies Jaws, Dune, Witness
- the tendency of sequels to fail, complacency, and the desire to be bigger and louder
- kids today and their laziness and expectations
- the cost of a movie ticket was about $5
- Doctor Who and its connection to public television
- George Lucas and Steven Spielberg added things to movies to appeal to children and sell stuff: Ewoks = teddy bears, the character "Short Round" = teddy bear
Excerpts
I dislike sequels. There, I admit it, I said it out loud. More than that, I hate 'em! The very hint of a II, III, IV, or ad infinitum after a familiar title is enough to cause convulsions. And raise brooding suspicions that the producers are enticing me to spend over $5 for two hours (or more!) of relentless garbage.
I do like 'series' films: relaxing in the sublime comfort of Sherlock Holmes, Charlie Chan or The Thin Man is a wonderful way to overlook a rainy after noon, They tended to the soul without overwhelming the senses. Not to mention the fact that they were logical.
I even enjoy the old Flash Gordon, Superman, et al. Of course the children of the newest generation, weaned on the likes of STAR WARS, would find them amazingly obtuse. So be it. Those culturally poor youngsters grew up with man having already gone to the moon. Those kids who would rather sleep than wake up at dawn to watch, in wonder, at the Space Shuttle take-off. Why bother? They've seen it all. They have nothing left to be in awe of — unless it's the technological wonders wrought by some special effects studio! Which is most probably why I enjoy Dr. Who, with all its Flash-Gordon-low-budgds-props-and-such. It's fun, it's in color, it's intelligent, and it's free (except for the $30 my guilty conscience extols from my wallet during Pledge Week!). Who could ask for anything more?
But actual, real live sequels? I'd rather sit through a Bo Derek/Brooke Shields/Pia Zadora film festival.
Remember JAWS? I don't know anyone who didn't jump when that shark came out of the water while Roy Scheider was chumming - no matter how often they saw it! Great flick. Unique, JAWS II? About the only good thing that thing did was eat a few teen-agers. Let's not even waste space talking about JAWS III. Unless you want to discuss comedy.
STAR TREK, This is a perfect example of the exception that proves the rule: I preferred the WRATH OF KAHN. And, I'm probably in the minority who thought Spock would have been better off left 'dead.'
I really enjoyed STAR WARS - again because it was unique. But I enjoyed EMPIRE more on an adult level: there was a relationship begun. And, I enjoyed EMPIRE less because of the obvious cliff-hanger ending which compelled me to be a prisoner waiting for the third one. Which was a disappointment. There were too many unsolved threads all left dangling, too many illogical conclusions. No, No. JEDI was written for the younger kids who'd see it - the ones not yet in tune with SW or EMPIRE. Why else put in teddy bears and make Solo look like a schlock?
Again, to prove the rule, there's the exception: I liked RAIDERS better than TEMPLE OF DOOM. And since TOD was the prequel, that makes RAIDERS the sequel. Right? Ask anyone. The whole violence-thing with TOD has been done to death, so I won't bore you. Except I'm not too sure what the whipping scene had to do with anything, except showing off a little flesh for the female members of the audience. Violent? Uh-huh. Extreme. Maybe. Excessive. Definitely.
TOD would not have been a hit as the first Jones flick. The character wasn't defined enough. The novice audience at TOD was probably left wondering who and/or what Indiana Jones really was. Again, the element of the 'teddy bear' (Short Round) was added for the kids. Willie? I can't argue with the character - she was perfect for who she was, where she was. She was also annoying, and if Indy had any sense, he'd have packed her on her own way - to Delhi. But then, of course, he wouldn't have had anyone to save. And the audience that looked past the special effects was left wondering what happened to the kid? What happened to Willie?
Mainly, the problem with sequels (or the prequels to the sequels) is a problem that is prominent throughout society as a whole: that feeling that more is better and that over-kill is the best. I don't believe we, as an audience, need to be overwhelmed with special effects. Yeah, sure, they're great - up to a point. Beyond that point sheer excitement leaves you with a headache.