Sequels [and Prequels]
When an adventure/action/horror movie turns out to be a real hit, sequels [and in Lucasfilm's case prequels as well] are churned out to keep the receipts flowing as long as possible. This is probably inevitable, but I for one cringe at the phenomenon, because almost always the initial genius is prostituted in clumsy attempts to keep what seems to be the "success formula" going. The theme is then wrung out, like a wet washcloth, until $-exhausted.
Indeed I think that Lucasfilm is one of the worst offenders in this regard. The original Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark were just stunning, and burst upon audiences at the time like fireworks. Then Lucasfilm ground out se/prequels that increasingly just fumbled and stumbled.
For instance: If Temple of Doom had been the initial Indiana Jones movie, do you think it would have had anywhere near the impact, and the immortalizing of the character, of Raiders? And The Last Crusade descended into "Abbott & Costello" slapstick, with the supposed-to-be-funny put-downs between Connery and Ford. As much as I like Sean Connery (and I do), I think that his presence in this film simply served to confuse and upstage Ford, so that we could not concentrate on Indiana Jones' heroism. He was too busy getting his face slapped and being lectured like a little boy by his father.
A few other progressively-anæmic sequel-stretchouts: James Bond, Superman, Gods & Generals (following Gettysburg), Conan, Psycho, Halloween, Friday the 13th, Amityville, and Phantasm. I guess there can't possibly be a sequel to Titanic unless you count Raising the Titanic!
Occasionally sequels do refine the original idea. The second "Rambo" film was clearly more spectacular than the first, although the third was a weak "formula"-turkey.
Michael Aquino
When an adventure/action/horror movie turns out to be a real hit, sequels [and in Lucasfilm's case prequels as well] are churned out to keep the receipts flowing as long as possible. This is probably inevitable, but I for one cringe at the phenomenon, because almost always the initial genius is prostituted in clumsy attempts to keep what seems to be the "success formula" going. The theme is then wrung out, like a wet washcloth, until $-exhausted.
Indeed I think that Lucasfilm is one of the worst offenders in this regard. The original Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark were just stunning, and burst upon audiences at the time like fireworks. Then Lucasfilm ground out se/prequels that increasingly just fumbled and stumbled.
For instance: If Temple of Doom had been the initial Indiana Jones movie, do you think it would have had anywhere near the impact, and the immortalizing of the character, of Raiders? And The Last Crusade descended into "Abbott & Costello" slapstick, with the supposed-to-be-funny put-downs between Connery and Ford. As much as I like Sean Connery (and I do), I think that his presence in this film simply served to confuse and upstage Ford, so that we could not concentrate on Indiana Jones' heroism. He was too busy getting his face slapped and being lectured like a little boy by his father.
A few other progressively-anæmic sequel-stretchouts: James Bond, Superman, Gods & Generals (following Gettysburg), Conan, Psycho, Halloween, Friday the 13th, Amityville, and Phantasm. I guess there can't possibly be a sequel to Titanic unless you count Raising the Titanic!
Occasionally sequels do refine the original idea. The second "Rambo" film was clearly more spectacular than the first, although the third was a weak "formula"-turkey.
Michael Aquino
