Thoughts on Sequels, Series, and Reboots

Finding a balance

Some thoughts have been circulating in my head ever since I heard that a new film in the Jurassic Park series is set to come out. My gut reaction to the news was, why? I then found myself thinking that, maybe, it could be good, and that my gut reaction could be premature. I will reserve my assessment until the film comes out and I watch it.

I am not against sequels, or film series, or reboots. But lately, I still feel a surge of skepticism or trepidation whenever I hear about one. I wanted to explore my thoughts here as to why that is.

There has been an old phrase that I’ve heard often about how the sequel is never as good as the original. I don’t think this idea is accurate, but instead it suggests that capturing the power or the magic of the original story is impossible to do. I do agree that novelty only really happens once. In the case of Jurassic Park, the thrill of seeing people in a modern day setting exploring and trying to survive in a theme park in which dinosaurs have come back to life cannot be replicated completely. Any additional stories with this premise would have diminishing returns if they were to only try to emulate the new feeling of the original. I felt this about Jurassic World. While not a direct sequel, it sought to revitalize the series, but I think it felt short because it tried to capture the spectacle of the original while not offering much else. There was no way it could have met the majesty of the classic film.

However, there are plenty of sequels that I would argue are superior to the originals. Off the top of my head, I’m thinking of Spider-Man 2, The Dark Knight, and The Empire Strikes Back. Why did these succeed in telling gripping stories when so many sequels fall short?

I think, ultimately, that a sequel makes sense when there is more to explore with the world and the characters. In that way, it doesn’t become a rehash of old ideas, but is instead an organic expansion. Spider-Man 2 brilliantly deepens the characters introduced in the original Spider-Man and explores their relationships. Peter Parker’s decision to forsake a normal life, including a relationship with Mary Jane, as well as his involvement in the death of Norman Osborn, the father of Peter’s friend Harry, due to the fact that Norman was the villainous Green Goblin, have devastating consequences that shift the trajectory of Peter’s life. In a different way, The Dark Knight and The Empire Strikes Back develop the characters by exacerbating their crises and conflicts. Bruce Wayne has resolved to fight crime as Batman in Batman Begins, but his fortitude and morals are pushed to their brink when he has to contend with a new adversary, the Joker, who unleashes destruction and carnage across their shared Gotham City. The resistance members to the Empire in the original Star Wars, who end the original film in a moment of victory and triumph, face significant losses when the Empire enacts its revenge; the members of the resistance end the sequel in a position in which they need to recover in order to achieve a final victory. The Empire Strikes Back also presents the iconic revelation of Darth Vader being Luke’s father, which shatters his world. It’s a crisis Luke must recover from.

Beyond these examples of sequels that are superior to their predecessors, there are plenty of sequels that are still captivating and are almost as good as the originals. In my view, these sequels offer enough new story material to be entertaining but not enough to break new ground. I’m thinking of A Glass Onion and The Conjuring 2. The former is a new mystery that Detective Blanc from Knives Out must investigate; the latter focuses on a new haunting that the paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren have to deal with. The new scenarios are enough to provide enjoyment without feeling repetitive.

Thus, a sequel can build upon the original in captivating ways and tell an interesting story. Even a new scenario can be enough for an entertaining time. However, what happens when the film isn’t an immediate sequel, but is instead a later installment in a long-running series?

In order for a movie in a series to be compelling, at least in my view, it has to offer new ideas or new directions while at the same time feeling like a piece of the overall series. There is a lot of comfort, I think, to be found in a story that repeats itself, to an extent. This is the reason why serialized stories are so enjoyable, including detective stories and superhero adventures; at their essence, the structure is the same, with the protagonists encountering a crisis or adversary that they ultimately prevail against. Witnessing this pattern offers a sense of comfort.

However, sticking too closely to the established pattern can cause a film to feel repetitive. On the other hand, straying too far away from pattern means that sense of familiarity and comfort is gone.

It’s a balancing act, and I think a few films have done this well. The Fast & Furious franchise evolved from being a series about street racers to an action series in which the returning characters happen to achieve their missions using cars. When this shift happened, new life was infused into the series because things were both familiar and new. However, there have been so many installments since then that, I think, even the newness of the shift in direction has worn off.

I feel a somewhat opposite feeling in regards to the Mission: Impossible films. The first three felt wildly different, with the common element really just being the protagonist Ethan Hunt. There was no real sense of comfort or familiarity. However, the film series found its groove with the fourth installment and has since focused on being an action series that emphasizes incredible, practical set pieces. In terms of story, the films continue to focus on Ethan and his loyal team of companions, but their missions now have a feeling of cohesion. Even then, I worry if the film series has outstayed its welcome. I loved Fallout, but I haven’t seen Dead Reckoning. Fallout felt like a fitting send off to the characters, for me, and I hope that the planned final installment can stick the landing.

There has been much talk of superhero fatigue, and even though I’ve loved Marvel for so much of my life, having grown up on the comics and 2000’s films, I’m feeling it, too. I think my assessment about film series applies to superhero films, too. They need to have something new to offer without just repeating the same ideas. I think the best Marvel films, which include Captain America: Winter Soldier, Black Panther, and Avengers: Endgame all added new atmospheres or themes or even story structures.

I’ll end my discussion by focusing on reboots. I often feel that Hollywood should spend more time promoting new stories instead of revisiting old ones. At their worst, reboots, as well as sequels and series installments, feel like retreads of familiar ground. However, there are some reboots that I think are incredible because they daringly reimagine the original stories. Their boldness lay the ground for new storytelling avenues.

Batman has been on film for decades, and in the comics for decades before his screen debut. I thought there wasn’t much left to say about him, but I was so pleasantly surprised with The Batman from 2022. That film was meant to reboot the character after the Christopher Nolan trilogy and the Zack Snyder Justice League saga. I hope to write a full discussion of that film in the future, but for now, I will briefly touch on aspects I loved. The film has such a brooding, dark atmosphere, and it’s more like a detective story than a superhero adventure, which is fitting for the character; Batman is known in the comics as an incredible detective. Also, the 2022 film presents Batman as close to a villain, with a really fine line separating him from his adversary, The Riddler. It’s also an ensemble piece, with a fully fleshed out cast of characters. Also, the setting of Gotham has never felt so alive. I eagerly await its sequels.

Another reboot I loved, which I hope to write more about in the future, is the James Bond film Casino Royale from 2006. James Bond had been on film screens for decades before 2006, but that film sought to reinterpret the character, and I think it succeeded marvelously. It focused on grounded storytelling, both in terms of plot and character psychology. The story was devoid of goofy gadgets and ridiculous characters, and the film presented Bond less as a character or icon and more as a flesh-and-blood person. He was broken, physically and emotionally, over the course of that film. The Daniel Craig films that followed from this reboot were at their best when they explored Bond’s humanity.

So, overall, there are instances when revisiting an old story can be absolutely thrilling. I just hope that Hollywood, more often than not, takes risks and tries to break new ground when revisiting popular series. At their worst, sequels and reboots feel repetitive and unnecessary. Merely rehashing something from the past feels cynical, as a way to bank on recognition and nostalgia. However, at their best, they allow viewers to witness situations and characters that have felt familiar in ways previously unimagined.

What are some of your favorite sequels, reboots, or late entries in long-running franchises? I would love to hear from you!