Opinion – How Long Should We Really Wait For A Sequel?

October 26, 2017

This weekend just gone I went to see Bladerunner 2049, the long-awaited follow up to the 1982 sci-fi classic (although I didn’t think it was that great). Anyone capable of doing basic maths will be able to work out that this sequel comes a staggering 35 years after the original film was released. Bladerunner 2049 is actually one of those sequels where people may have had genuine concerns about dying of old age before seeing it.

Of course, it would seem that leaving enough time for a Chinese dynasty to come and go between films is slowly becoming the norm. Fair enough, not every franchise is dragging it out quite as much as Bladerunner did, but there are plenty of films waiting upwards of five years before even thinking about making sequels.

Take a look at all the *ahem* gloriously original ideas Pixar have come up with lately. We’ve already had a prequel to Monsters Inc. and a sequel to Finding Nemo about ten years after they came out, and follow-ups to The Incredibles and Toy Story are also in the works.

I do question the effectiveness of this method though. Think about it – by leaving such a long time in between, you effectively have to cater to an entirely new audience with the second film.  The more time that passes in between increases the challenge as well. For example, with Pixar sequels (or prequels, I don’t discriminate) the original audience are getting on to be adults. As a result, the film has to balance maturity with nostalgia, plus it needs to appeal to the younger viewers who will also want to watch it.  With sequels such as Bladerunner 2049 however, you’re in a very different ballpark altogether. First of all, you have to remember that the first film came out 35 years before, so many of the people who originally saw it are very likely dead or close to it.  Secondly, technology has come a long way since 1982, so the effects in the original film are going to look very campy in comparison to the wondrous things that certain directors are so reliant on today. This may deter people from seeing the original film, which may ultimately impact their decision to see the sequel or not. Do you see where I’m coming from?

To put it simply, I think there needs to be a cut-off point after which sequels cannot be made. There has to be a point at which fans have to be willing to let a film and its story go. Whether that would put an end to Pixar sequels I don’t know, but it definitely means that films like Bladerunner 2049 wouldn’t get made. 35 years is too long. End of. After allowing such a long time to pass, it doesn’t even feel like a true sequel anymore, but more like an unnecessary extension of a story that had finished being told a long time before. Inevitably, there will be films that will make people, including myself, argue that there should be no time limit on such things, but for the large part I think many would agree that you can have too much of a good thing, especially if you’re forced to wait over three decades for half of it.

Enjoyed reading this opinion? Then you will probably like listening to us too, so check out our podcast.

4 thoughts on “Opinion – How Long Should We Really Wait For A Sequel?

  • October 27, 2017 at 12:04 am

    I am against any sequels per se. A sequel should only be made if it is absolutely necessary. I don’t think the issue is the length of time between the original and the sequel, but the quality of the sequel. I can wait 50 years, if the sequel will prove to be great. Blade Runner 2049 exceeded my expectations.

    • October 27, 2017 at 6:53 am

      That is another point as well. My issue with waiting such a long time for a sequel is it feels like the filmmakers get cocky by making you wait that long. I get that production issues etc may delay releases, but generally speaking I think a gap of anything longer than 5-10 years is just ridiculous. For me, it feels like it’s taken for granted that the audience will come running back after all that time.

  • October 27, 2017 at 7:46 pm

    I always feel it works on both sides, if you want to continue the story, you should wait until you have a good enough story to tell, Blade Runner for example was never getting a sequel in the 80’s because of box office failures, but the continuous of the story worked wonders.

    in 2015 we got the ‘reboot sequel’ Mad max, Jurassic World, Force Awakens that work because of the improved technology available to the film makers.

    But things like Jigsaw which are just blatant cash grabs don’t work

    • October 28, 2017 at 7:16 pm

      I think the main problem I have is so often we wait a long time for a sequel and the film we end up getting in no way warrants how long we’ve had to wait for it. There’s always going to be films that will be worth waiting for, and ones that won’t, and both will make the arguments for and against. For me though, there have been more that haven’t lived up to the expectations that such long waits build, and so I do find myself asking the question whether or not there should really be a point after which filmmakers just need to let go of a franchise.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.