10/09/2009
Movies: Horror: Blogging:: 6 comments: by Emily Intravia
A few ways sequels don’t have to suck
More than any other film genre, horror has thrived—and sometimes shriveled—with the onslaught of sequels. From forced character crossovers to flashback riddled running times (is there even ten minutes of original content between the first round of followups to The Hills Have Eyes and Silent Night, Deadly Night?), it’s easy to mess up a sequel. But you know what? Pumpkins are in season, I’m high on candy corn, and the positivity is pumping, so let’s instead take a moment to consider some of the smart choices sequels have made in continuing a good story:
Expanded Mythology
The true beauty of a sequel is that it can take a premise people found interesting the first go ‘round and attack it from a new angle, such as the Cenobite-heavy chambers of Hellraiser II. While it’s true that many a sequel runs the risk of revealing too much (thereby negating some of the mystery that occasionally defines a first film) others seize upon the potential. Eli Roth’s Hostel, for example, was a better idea than film, but his followup used the now established setup of a capitalist torture show to fully explore what audiences were drawn to in the first place. Instead of wasting time with standard protagonists, Roth gave us a briefer intro to much more likable women, then promptly delved into Elite Hunting and its own financiers. The result was a quick moving and smartly done film that found just the right note to revisit Slovakia.
Other films are less successful, but not always in a sacrilegious way. The philosophically horrific Cube series debuted as one of the most surprisingly intriguing films of the ‘90s, while a few straight-to-cable/dvd sequels attempted to take an incredible concept and try it with a different recipe. Cube 2 :Hypercube plays with the math, hints at its origin, and shoots itself with a horrid title worth of an Atari game while Cube Zero (arguably a prequel) goes behind the scenes to pose new questions. Neither is anywhere near as satisfying as Vincenzo Natali’s original, which works precisely because we ultimately know nothing but what our own fears project. Still, if you watch Parts 2 & 3 as if they’re pieces of fan fiction blown up to feature length, both work on their own terms, sort of ‘what-ifs’ to a question that should never actually be answered.
Remakes In Sequels’ Designer Clothing
The world would be a far less groovy place had Sam Raimi ended the adventures of Ash in 1981. Yes, The Evil Dead is a great gooey film, but it’s his first sequel that cements Bruce Campbell’s status as an icon among the undead. Only quibble? It’s not really a sequel if the first half hour retells the original story.
Sometimes, a filmmaker decides that directing a second film is code for second chance. In the case of The Evil Dead, this minor lapse of originality works because Raimi takes the good and makes it better with more money. We forgive the fact that Ash and Linda had already made a fateful trip to that cabin in the woods because even within the constraints of the same story, Raimi uses such a different energy that we end up with a completely different film not only from its original, but from just about every other film that had come before it.
Keep the Story Consistent
Say what you want about the juggernaut success of the Saw series, but has there ever been a 6 film franchise with such an excessively complicated spiderweb of a plot? Haters like to attack Lions Gate’s posterchild for its grisly suspenseless violence and contrived characters, but I continue to argue that this is, in many ways, one of the tightest (at least by script) franchises in the horror genre. With occasional flashbacks (and inventive ways to utilize the now deceased Jigsaw himself), each film has continued the story with something of a six degrees of separation mentality. A minor character from Part 2 returns to head Part 4, while missing characters reappear with believable, if somewhat logistically stretched explanations as to their whereabouts. I imagine the upcoming installment will have two audiences: those that have followed the five previous films and are still waiting for answers about Jigsaw’s wife, the contents of a mysterious box, and the protagonists of Part III’s daughter (who’s been missing, but acknowledged in the last two films) while the other half will simply slurp their sodas through exposition and cheer at the latest rusted torture contraption. In a way, everybody wins. Except for oddly vast majority of horror fans who like to brand Saw the antichrist of filmdom.
...or Dare To Be Different
Franchises are generally defined by their formula, whether it be pretty teenagers + machetes or redheaded dolls + profanity. Every so often, however, some series take a chance by breaking from the fold (even Chucky changed his act with married life). Though initially panned by critics and ignored by audiences, Halloween III: Season of the Witch has slowly aged to prove itself the most memorable of all those October 31st celebrating films. Admittedly, that’s not much of a feat when its competition included Michael Meyers’ worshipping cults and Tyra Banks, but still: abandoning Meyers for an evil corporation wielding head-melting dime store masks was a daring move well before its time. Likewise, the majority of Elm Street fans tend to use Part 2 as a coaster for their Hypnocil spiked Red Bull, but the sheer fact that such a random entry exists in an otherwise formulaic series is in itself somewhat notable. (Also, it’s one of the most fascinatingly homoerotic/homophobic films of all time, but that’s a discussion save for another day).
Jump Right In
Look, if we’re watching a film with 2, II, or the words “The Return” in the title, you can probably trust that we’ve been here before. Thankfully, the better sequels understand that audiences don’t need heavy exposition to get the kills rolling. Note how starting from Dawn to Land,George Romero’s Dead films never wasted time explaining the oncoming zompocalypse. Similarly, 28 Weeks Later boasts one of the most terrifyingly exciting openings in recent years by immediately thrusting us back into a nightmarish world we know all too well.
There are plenty more notable sequel rules for continuing a franchise, so add some of your own and let the Freddy Vs. Jason style fights begin!
Posted by Jeremy Melton on 10/09/2009, 06:46 AM
I just like sequels to be light on story and heavy on effects. And nudity.
JM
Posted by Emily on 10/09/2009, 07:16 AM
Understandable. I imagine the Friday the 13th franchise was tailor made for you! Sleepaway Camp too, at least until the recent debacle: part 1 features more male skin than anything else, then the next two are just wonderfully random assortments of murders with the occasional boobage. Actually, you’ll probably have a better idea of than than I, but would you agree that the majority of sequels see increased levels of nudity as they move on? A notable exception would be Puppet Master once it hit Part 4.
Posted by The Samurai on 10/09/2009, 03:06 PM
My thoughts on the Halloween franchise are that the original trilogy is just fantastic. I love the original because I find it an artistic and beautiful film. The second film has some flaws but damn, if it isnt one of the best, if not the best, hospital slasher ever made. Part 3 was a wise choice from someone to keep Myers out and because of that the film has thrived. It was panned originally but I remember it scared me more than part 2 or the original as a kid.
Now, remakes are never optimal unless you are a studio head or stockholder. It’s basically the same principle of less work, more money. Some have worked incredibly well, the TCM remake comes to mind, but then some fall incredibly flat….too many to mention. Although I found Friday the 13th enjoyable, it was only a little above average….smart Jason doesnt work for me and I am also one of the weirdo’s that adores Part 7 of that series….Zombie Jason Vs. Carrie was badass cheese fun for me.
Now increasing nudity in sequels was an issue mostly of the 80’s I think, it seems to have steered more toward violence in the 90’s and 00’s. You know, there is one director out there that uses nudity incredibly well and uncomfortably for me, that’s Rob Zombie. He cant make a decent film anymore but he knows how to use nudity anyway. I think as horror fans, or movie fans in general, we know what we are getting into with sequels. Remakes are a total roll of the dice, the easiest way for them to go away is to not support them. It’s difficult though because as horror fans we get so little quality and I think we are all optimistic about a slick reboot ultimately, at least in the beginning…..maybe?
I think sequels are the juice that keeps horror going unfortunately, and possibly builds other films with it. I wish there were more original works but then I see something overhyped like Trick R Treat and I relize that film makers are to blame. Hollywood doesnt hire talent anymore, they hire hacks…they sure do know a good marketing person when they find one though.
Posted by Emily Intravia on 10/09/2009, 03:51 PM
Thanks for the comments Sammy!
It’s funny you mention the first three Halloweens Sammy because this morning, I found myself realizing that Halloween is kind of a dreadful franchise. The original obviously is a masterpiece and Part 3 is all sorts of new wave fun (I haven’t seen 2 in recent enough years to really comment on it) but 4 and 5 offer nothing, 6 and Resurrection are embarrassingly bad, and H20 is too slick. Zombie’s films both offer something new, but the first is just too crammed and unrealized and the second is an absolute mess. Granted, the middling films are probably better in quality than most F13s, but after part 3, there was almost nothing to even remember. I can’t imagine anyone saying that Parts 4-8 rank anywhere near their top 20. As much as I rag on Jason (because it’s really mediocre at best, even when it’s at its top form), those films do have more memorable qualities compared to most Halloweens. I wonder why that is.
I won’t go into my hatred of the Friday reboot because it makes me get very twitchy. It was ‘fun,’ but totally missed the boat in embracing the camp or actually making a newly scary film. Felt like the filmmakers had no desire to commit to anything that would remotely ‘reboot’ anything.
I don’t have a problem with sequels because like you said, that’s what keeps the genre going. I noticed that of Bravo’s 100 Scariest Movie Moments, about half had spawned series. I’ll give my money to something like Final Destination or Saw because to me, they’re like throwbacks to the late 80s/early 90s, when horror sequels were simply the norm and filmmakers could take chances by playing with a tried and true formula. I still prefer the lone wolves for originality’s sake, but if a studio wants to continue a story I liked, I’m usually in. Remakes are a whole new can of worms because so often, there’s just no motivation for them to have been made. i’m okay with something like a F13 reboot because like I said: none of the films were ever that good, so if you want to try it, go for it. Same for Children of the Corn. Dawn of the Dead? Despite the fact that the original is my favorite film of all time, I enjoyed and respect the remake because it did something new. It’s films like The Omen remake that I don’t get. Why just re-film with different actors? Didn’t Gus Van Sant prove it just doesn’t work?
Zombie does have a weird talent with making nudity work (ah to that hotel scene in Devil’s Rejects). It’s definitely on the downslide though: H2 pretty much chose random moments to toss in a few boobs.
And finally, you may be weird for loving Friday 7, but my favorite of all is Jason Takes Manhattan. Whatever that says about me is not good.
Posted by The Samurai on 10/09/2009, 04:53 PM
I totally agree with the remake of Dawn…it is an interpretation, I think that rebbots would be so much cooler if Hollywood took director’s of vision and said “GO NUTS!!!” but that maybe wishful thinking on my part.
You love 8, I love 7 and we shall declare our weirdness to the world!!! Great article btw…..as I say, you have a way with the words milady…and you are right about Halloween, everything after 3 is fodder…
Posted by Emily Intravia on 10/09/2009, 08:07 PM
I feel a similar way about film adaptations of books: Unless it’s a children’s novel, I don’t really need page for page, just as shot-for-shot (or even near shot-to-shot) remakes are completely unnecessary. There are of course exceptions—No Country For Old Men is near verbatim from McCarthy’s novel—but to me, remakes and to a lesser extent, adaptions, are a chance for a filmmaker to look at old material in a different way.
Thanks again Sam!