Tuesday is the day I introduce a guest onto my blog and let them write me a post. They will be posting something about their area of knowledge and each week I will try and have a different area.
Sometimes I may post a response to what the guest has written.
The first Take Over is by Cassie May; she is nineteen years old and is a studying teaching at University. Here is her post: (edited)
What I don’t seem to understand with some films, and even a few books, is why there are sequels. It makes no sense at times. For instance, someone could resolve everything, or at least leave one not-quite-so major plot-line dangling, in one film/book, but the director/writer decides Let’s bring up everything in a sequel.
This is a bad reason to have a sequel.
(I apologise in advance if it seems like I struggle to stay on track)
It's okay if it's a good film that people actually care about, or a story that is continuous, but if the film is riddled with plot holes, surely it counts as a cheap ploy on the part of the writer/director to get the audience back for a sequel. Those who don’t care enough to find out what the resolution to the plot is, like me with one such film, and I couldn't be bothered to pay much attention to it. I didn't care to find out the resolution to the plot, but in an argument with a friend found out that the sequel resolved the plotline. What I didn't say was that a.) this surely alienates the people who didn't care enough to see the sequel and b.) doesn't really do the plotline justice, full of holes or not.
But it's true. It just doesn't.
A good reason to have a sequel is if the film is based on a book, and there is more than one book in the series. The original book obviously won't offer any resolution to the plotlines and it wouldn't do the series justice if the whole thing was condensed into one film. So sequels for this reason equals good thing.
Then there's the film that's got so much intrigue that you can't quite resolve the plotline, thus demanding a sequel to resolve the plotline and do the film justice. Of course there's always the time-honoured solution of the epic film, but then you have a problem: how are you supposed to keep the audience awake if they get bored of the film, short of some loud dramatic music/explosion to keep the audience on their toes? Having the music/explosion has to be credible. A sequel would avoid this problem.
Then there's the worst reason to keep making sequels: people like it. There's only so long you can keep going on the same plotlines before people get bored of it, or the actor who plays a popular character refuses to do any more sequels, which I'm sure doesn’t do wonders for the sequel's popularity. It would be more interesting if the writers wrote something unrelated to the film series, so audiences can see what if they can do anything else.
I'm not saying that sequels are a bad thing; in the right place they can be good. But there is a time and place for everything including sequels. Use them in the right place and you'll get another great film. Wrong place and you could mess things up. The sequel is a film in its own right, too.
If you have any comments or views on what has been discussed then please place them below. If you would like to appear on my Take Over Tuesday blog then let me know.
Stay safe,
Matt
