The Different Types of Sequels

     These days, a successful movie is almost guaranteed a sequel, sometimes before the movie is even released. Sometimes sequels are inevitable, and other times they are merely a cheap way to make more money. In this guide, I'll attempt to demonstrate and identify the many different types of sequels, as well as whether or not they merited from the beginning.

     Sequels are made for many reasons despite the obvious monetary factor. There are different types of sequels that are made with different purposes. Sometimes sequels are made to continue a story, and sometimes they are made to merely place the same character in a different situation, or they retell the story in a different setting. For the purposes of this article, I will place series together with sequels when the sequels at least follow the characters from the previous entry. For example, the Indiana Jones movies do not technically have sequels, but they are a series, because the stories are not in any way continuous. You could watch any one of them and not even know there were others. The same holds true for movies such as Mission: Impossible and The Expendables, just to name a few. There are also sequels that were already planned from the beginning and that finish an incomplete story, and are required. An example of this would be Back to the Future, with it's open ending of the first one, or The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Then there are the sequels that continue a story, and while they may have been unnecessary due to the closure received in the first one or previous entry, they provide further plot and character development. An example of a finished movie receiving a sequel would be Taken. That movie was finished, and could've been left at that, but due to its success, a sequel was made, and then another. It's not that this was bad, but just done for other reasons than necessity.

     In this guide, we will explore three types of sequels: the continuation sequels, the finishing sequels, and the series sequels. In addition to these, I will also discuss the different qualities of sequels and the patterns they seem to follow.

     Continuation Sequels: These are movies that while not intended to have sequels at first, the makers felt it necessary to continue the story to some extent. In these types of sequels, the first movie or previous entry did not have to merit a sequel out of necessity, but the sequel would require the viewer to be familiar with the original or previous entry to follow the story. I mentioned the Taken in the introduction, and it really is the best example of this type of sequel. Taken ends with Brian Mills destroying the entire human trafficking organization that took his daughter from top to bottom and patching things up with her. The story had a clear conclusion and while the sequel did a better job than most in continuing the story, it wasn't really needed, as the story had reached its conclusion. Not that there was anything wrong with Taken 2, it does a great job of continuing the story with a believable premise, I'm just pointing out that from a narrative standpoint, it wasn't necessary. Another example would be the original Star Wars, with it's ending implying that all was well, and while an option for a sequel was left open, it tells a complete story and offers resolution to all of it's major conflicts and events.


     Finishing Sequels: These are the movies that require a sequel because they leave certain issues unresolved. Back to the Future and The Lord of the Rings are extreme examples of this type of sequel as they are in fact not a trilogy of movies, but one whole film. It is important to bear in mind that not all sequels of this type follow this extreme. In fact, in most trilogies, especially the ones that weren't planned from the beginning, only have one entry is of this type. A classic example would be the third film in the original Star Wars trilogy. As I mentioned earlier, the original Star Wars was its own movie and could have finished at the first, but the same does not hold true for its sequel, The Empire Strikes Back. That entry required a sequel as it left many elements and conflicts unresolved, so while The Empire Strikes Back is a continuation sequel, The Return of the Jedi is a finishing sequel.

   
     Series Sequels: These are movies that can stand on their own two feet and depend on no other movie or information to follow, although usually, background information on the series helps with the appreciation of the story. Take for instance James Bond as a series and specifically, Die Another Day. It is not essential to the story to know about the history behind James Bond and his secretary Moneypenny, but it helps understand the shock value when they start kissing. The same when James sets off a jet pack at Q's lab that was used in the previous film Thunderball. Another example of films that follows this pattern is the Jack Ryan series, albeit with more consistency and continuity. Mission: Impossible also follows the same pattern. The most extreme example of this type of sequel is the concept of shared universe, most famously executed by Marvel in their Marvel Cinematic Universe. While The Avengers is a hybrid between series and continuing sequel, requiring you to have some background knowledge to fully understand the film, but for the most part, you don't need to watch the films for any one superhero to understand the others, although they do tend to give each other nods. Tim Burton's Batman and its sequels are also a good example of this type of sequel, because while it can be helpful to watch previous entries, each story stands on its own two feet, and they even kept Alfred the same actor to give it a sense of continuity.

     I promised earlier to get into the patterns that sequels tend to follow and I would like to talk a little about that now. The patterns I am referring to are the patterns of quality. Rarely will a series of films maintain the same level of quality and entertainment throughout its entire run. This is due to various reasons, one of them being straying from their original intent (see article). If we were to look at especially trilogies, we can rate an individual movie's quality as 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, 5 being the highest quality possible. Looking at it from that perspective, we can start to apply the principle to individual trilogies. Take for example The Godfather. I will for the purpose of demonstration rate the first Godfather movie a 3. this is not a reflection of it's quality, but rather a scale for comparing other entries in the series. Moving from this, we can place The Godfather: Part 2 at 4 or maybe even 5, depending on how much better you consider Part 2 to be. When looking at The Godfather: Part 3, we would place it as a 2 or a one on this scale. Again, remember, the purpose of the scale is to compare movies in their own respective series, not comparing other series, so while we list The Godfather: Part 2 a 4, it does not mean that it's quality is the same as Star Wars: Episode III. The only comparison we are making is that both The Godfather: Part 2 and Episode III are the best in their own series and how much better we rank them in comparison to the series' other entries. Now, we can begin to look at individual series and see their patterns. For example, The Godfather trilogy would have a pattern of 3, 4, 1, which gives us an accurate picture of how good each movie in the series is compared to the other entries.

     Now for the fun part, let's take a look at a few individual series and see where they are on the scale shall we?

The Matrix Trilogy: 4, 3, 1.
Mission: Impossible: 5, 2, 3, 4.
Indiana Jones: 5, 3, 5, 1.
Original Star Wars Trilogy: 3, 5, 5.
Back to the Future: 5. 3, 5.
Men in Black: 5, 2, 4.
Die Hard: 5, 5, 3, 2, 1.
Batman series (1989-1997): 5,3,4,1.

     These are just a few examples so that you can get get the general idea of the concept. I hope it has been made clear enough to follow. I think it is interesting that if you were to compare this concept with that of series that strayed from their original intent, you will see a pattern. Consider Indiana Jones as an example. It strayed from the original feel in Temple of Doom and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, although Temple of Doom was closer to form and quality to Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade, so now the pattern not only makes sense, but matches and accurately describes the series as a whole, putting Raiders of the lost Ark and The Last Crusade on the same level, while measuring how much worse the other movies are in comparison to each other.

     Analyzing series is an interesting field when appreciating movies. Many times you can pinpoint exactly what it is that makes a series what it is and just where the turn was made as well as the quality. Many times a series doesn't stray from its intended purpose, but that does not mean the level of quality doesn't change. It can always get better, or worse. I hope this guide has been helpful to you and perhaps increases your enjoyment in watching movies. After all, that's the whole point watching movies in the first place, isn't it?