It got me to take a look at the entire trend of doing straight to VHS/DVD sequels and sequels in general. Obviously, it’s to make more money, but it has to get to a point where the studios question the purpose of their lives. The Disney generation that lived through the “Renaissance” is a gifted group. The best that Disney had to offer came out while we were kids and we have the opportunity to show those classics to our children. Now the only passable sequels were the first. The first were, of course, “The Return of Jafar” and “Aladdin and the King of Thieves”. These being the first, we didn’t know what to expect. “Jafar” was good enough, it had most of the cast returning, but of course the most notable member did not return, Robin Williams. Luckily he did for the final installment of the Aladdin series. Disney’s constant returning to the dried out well of story is thankfully coming to an end thanks to John Lasseter, so we can forget about movies like “Atlantis: Milo’s Return” and “Cinderella III: A Twist in Time”. Bad sequels to good movies are one thing, but terrible sequels to bad movies have no excuse, but Disney has turned into a money grubbing company that doesn’t care about a child’s happiness.
My point is this, what is creative about doing a sequel to a fully fleshed out stand alone film if you can’t get the same (voice) actors or even crew for that matter. The Disney sequels are a good example, but a more recent example would be “Mummy 3: The Tomb of the Dragon Emperor”. It lacks several aspects of the first two films, most notably, Rachel Weisz, Arnold Vosloo and, I think, most importantly Steven Sommers so that already marks it down to maybe a 70%. Starting the movie at that percentage doesn’t leave it with that good of a chance to be very good. Even with Brendan Fraser attached to the film, the fact that their son has aged dramatically since the last film makes the film look confusing, especially since the new actor for the son is only a few years younger than Fraser. The movie couldn't overtake The Dark Knight, so it didn't have too much of an impact on the moviegoers who seem to be more interested in seeing The Joker blow up Gotham.
Sequels in general aren’t usually a good idea with original story ideas or even with some preconceived ideas. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not opposed to sequels, they can make good series’ even better, ala this summers Dark Knight to Batman Begins. As a matter of fact, tomorrow I will be giving Batman geek review of the Dark Knight. Now I’m sure you’ve read plenty of reviews of the film, but I’m just going to show what I enjoyed and certain things to watch for in the next movie, whenever it may come out. In terms of sequels, do we really need a Madagascar 2, or a Shrek 5, or a Star Wars 2.5? It is in this moviegoers opinion that no we do not. Let some stories alone so we don't have to get our hopes up with another "Spiderman 3" or "Indiana Jones and the Temple of the Crystal Skull". Let the nostalgia, no matter how recent, live on in the minds of the moviegoer. Most people would gladly double dip on a DVD that has more special features then see their favorites get butchered. Seriously, don' even get me started on X-Men 3.
Thank you for reading and I hope you enjoy what's to come.
