Ever watched a movie and loved it and then watched the sequels and hated them? Or perhaps the latter movies were good but simply had a different feel to them from the first. This discongruity has bothered me for a long time. I like a movie and then I feel like it was ruined by its sequels.To counter this effect I began thinking about movies in terms of real life time lines. Consider for a moment the theory that each and every decision we make creates another alternate universe, thereby creating an infinite number of universes (we've all heard of this theory). I decided to apply a similar logic to movies.
What if each and every sequel creates another movie universe. Before you say it sounds ridiculous, let's take a look at an example. "Pirates of the Caribbean": We have movie number one, "Curse of the Black Pearl". It stands completely alone and has a distinct end. From the end of "Black Pearl" we could see any number of possible next chapters (although no next chapter is required). Enter the sequel, "Dead Man's Chest", this film answers the question of what happens next. It gives a fairly competent sequel, but remember, anything could have happened at the end of "black pearl". The sequel, in effect, creates a possible universe where its events follow the events of the first movie.
To me this is a very helpful way of looking at movies. Sure they made more pirates movies, but in my mind the first movie is the true universe while subsequent sequels are possible (if unlikely) later chapters. I can like the first and ignore the others or countenance them as I wish. I know, this is a lot of complication for a simple idea, but as a movie-addict, it helps to keep me happy.
This split-universe effect holds true for only certain sequels. The first film must exist as its own concise chapter and not be set up with a cliffhanger ending. No one can claim that "the empire strikes back" is in another universe than "a new hope" because the first movie directly led into the second (no distinct ending as the villains are still at large). On the other hand, it's easy to say the the original three movies exist in their one univse while the prequel films create another.
This is where the fun begins. Let's take a look at some famous franchises. Clearly each Indiana Jones film creates another universe (in that case it even fulfill one of my pet peeves of this category, characters that are written out for sequels, what happened to Marion?). The first "Back to The Future" is in its own universe, while I would say the two sequels create a second. As they are connected by a cliffhanger ending between movie 2 and 3, I would say 2 and 3 are in the same universe (the same goes for "Pirates of the Caribbean" and "The Matrix").
Most sequels can be viewed like this, and it really depends on how much you liked the sequels to how you want to view them. For example I loved the first two Spider-man films and view them as one universe while the horrible third movie creates a third universe, but you could easily say that the second film creates a universe also. The same holds true for Toy Story and the new Batman movies; if you liked the sequels you tend to group them with the first film.
So what films are exempt from this. Continuous series such as "Lord of the Rings", "Kill Bill", and the original Star Wars films are clearly exempt. The cliffhanger ending or undefeated villain is usually the best sign of this. Vader and Sauron both lived till the last movie, hence, no split universe. Other continuous movies (and when you think about it there aren't many) include 'Harry Potter" and "Twilight" (although this relies on how the books were written, if they books were split universe sequels than by following them, the movies are too).
Again this is a bit stupid I know, but it's also a fun way to classify sequels and get rid of disturbing ones (I've been known to use it on TV show episodes too although this gets tricky). So what do you think? Have you seen any interesting continuous or split-universe sequels recently?
I can see this, I would use it, Superman Returns is definitely a sequel that goes into its own universe, same could be viewed of 4 or 3, 2 seems close to 1 to me though. The Star Wars Prequel, they are another reality, so I ignore them to enjoy the originals. I wish I could see a X-Men 3 in the same universe as the first 2, and the franchise is branching out into a weird continuity multiverse in my mind, we have general ideas laid out in the first and loosely played upon in later sequels.
ReplyDeleteThis all being said I generally like a lot of sequels, I enjoyed the whole of Back to the Future and like in TV , I always want more but given let's say Ashes to Ashes and Life on Mars, we should approach Life On Mars as its own and Ashes to Ashes as an extension of a possible path. See it this way and maybe you can find more joy for the good in it despite your convictions about the meaning or purpose or your interpretation of events in Life on Mars.
Likewise, I guess some could see the new series of Doctor Who as such though I find I like it more the more it feels connected and like the original, or as an extension, a sequel that inhabits the same universe. Whatever you need to do in your mind to make it work better do because you can turn yourself of all of the good if you focus too much on the negative. I dismissed the new Battlestar Galactica because it was not a sequel, it was a remake, and they made Starbuck a girl when they didn't even use Athena and Sheeba. I'd rather a sequel to a remake any day, see my hopes for a proper sequel to Blake's 7 as originally planned, no remake please. This being said if such a thing was a remake of a tv series it should be close to the source and not a piece of disrespectful drivel see the film versions of Get Smart and Underdog and the new version of Prisoner, of which Ian's comments about the original made me protest. You must show respect for what got you here. This all being said, for example a new Superman movie needs to be in its own universe but take things from other source materials, primarily the comics and pay attention to what has been done before and either do it inanother way or bring something to the medium of film that has not yet been done. A new Superman does not need Lex Luthor in it, it needs Braniac or Mytzlplk. Approach that familiar element in the sequel, like Batman Begins gave us new to film villains then brought in the familiar foes in the sequel. The Dark Knight seems to inhambit Batman Begins universe, Batmn Returns is the same as Batman to me, but those other two, Forver and & Robin seem to be spunoff into other realities.