There's "that movie"–the one that had sky-high ratings at the box office. The one you dragged your friends to for a fourth viewing. The one that is so quotable its script has contributed to today's cultural colloquialisms. (Any "Mean Girls" fans still trying to make "fetch" happen?) When a film does this well, it is natural for directors and producers to want to follow their tried and true formula for success by making a sequel. Success seems imminent, and filmmakers anticipate being able to rest on their laurels. But sequels, unless carefully thought out beforehand, generally backfire with a weak plot that only barely references the former film; in fact, the sequel may even tarnish the original by association.
On April 15, "Scream 4," featuring David Arquette, Neve Campbell and Courtney Cox will be released in theaters. According to the "Examiner," the trailer "promise[s] some fresh energy in this latest installment."
Yes, "latest installment" indeed; as "Scream 4" takes to the big screen, moviegoers are forced to wonder how much of the sworn "fresh energy" will really be delivered, considering that this is in fact the fourth in the series. The fact that such energy has to be "promised" also questions the franchise's ability to deliver.
Movie buffs will also be hit with déjà vu with the May release of "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides," also the fourth film in a series. The movie brings back Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow in all his pirate glory, as Jack races Blackbeard in an attempt to find the fountain of youth.
To call these films "sequels" of the original may be stretching the word fairly thin; a sequel, by standard definition, is "a literary work, movie, etc. that is complete in itself but continues the narrative of a preceding work." Moviemakers and moviegoers alike surely see some conflict between this definition and what they see on screen. Is every movie sequel made nowadays "complete in itself"? Perhaps one film following an original can be defined as such, and can be welcomed by viewers. But when a movie series continues to pop out film after film, exactly how much is too much? Certainly one wonders how much the same old bit can be played out before it's played-out.
Even the word "sequel" is chock-full of negative connotations, seeing as so few of them do as well as the original. I'm sure the aforementioned "Mean Girls" fans were reeling with pain when it was announced that a sequel, "Mean Girls 2," would be airing on ABC Family. The film had entirely new actors and a completely different plot, yet it referenced the original in a half-hearted manner that almost insulted the quality of the first film. The movie received awful reviews, and Google searches of "quotes by Regina George" shot up more than 300% as fans paid homage to the original film. Although this sequel failed to do permanent damage to "Mean Girls," it was clearly a bad business move.
What is the rationale behind producing a sequel? Is the motive always truly to provide continuation to a film's story? If it were, would we still have some of the eyesores that currently exist? The movie sequel has, unfortunately, become less of a statement and more of an afterthought, a cinematic footnote. Unless a sequel is actually going to live up to its predecessor and make a significant contribution to the plot as a whole, it shouldn't be attempted. Before the first movie is even filmed, the directors ought to know if a sequel is possible; a movie and its sequel should be planned somewhat in tandem. Deciding to make a sequel because the original film has reaped in profit is never a smart move.
The number of sequels is growing – the "Saw" series alone contains seven films, and other series are growing in sequel production as well. When film audiences finally stop attending these usually dreadful echoes of true entertainment, producers will be forced to stop making them. Who knows… maybe they will even
is a member of the 
Be the first to comment on this article!