Should There Be A Sequel?

There have been a lot of sequels lately. This summer alone we have had, or are expecting, The Amazing Spiderman 2, 22 Jump Street, Transformers: Age of Extinction, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, and much more. Usually I like sequels; it's interesting to see movies expand their stories. But then again, there are sequels that are just unnecessary.

I understand that studios need to make money, and these sequels make more money than original ideas. But the people aren't just going to see any sequel to any movie that they liked. There are some great movies that should not have a sequel.

I think that there is a certain criteria that a movie should have for it to work. Here's a list of all the things that a sequel should have for it to even stand a chance of being good.

1. The movie before it should be recent. Recently there have been a few sequels to movies made decades ago. For example, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the fourth movie in the series was released nineteen years after the third one. In addition to that, we are expecting a sequel to Dumb and Dumber this November, and an Independence Day sequel (without Will Smith) will be released in 2016. There is even a sequel to The Goonies in the works, even though the children in it have grown now. It is not a smart idea to make these so late, because it would seem like these movies are selling out. Also, since these movies have been beloved for some time, audiences would be even more disappointed that it doesn't have the same feeling as the original.

2. The movie before it should open itself to sequels. What I mean by this is that the end of the previous movie shouldn't solve all problems without any chance of them returning. I do not mean that only movies with open endings should have sequels, but the sequel should be able to bring up other conflicts that would be believable. For example, if the bad guy or hero dies at the end of the movie, and he or she needs to be alive for the sequel, there should be a completely believable reason as to why he or she would be alive. Also, movies that were previously supposed to be the last in their franchises should not have another sequel (ex: Indiana Jones and the so-called Last Crusade).

3. It should not be the same story as before. Doing that is just stupid. Making the same movie, but with slight differences in it does not make a sequel (ex: The Hangover Part II). Besides, nobody would believe that the same thing would happen to these people twice.

4. It should have enough characters from the original. Some movie sequels, like the Independence Day sequel mentioned above, could not get some of  their predecessor's greatest actors to return. This may be OK in some cases, but if someone whose performance was the highlight of the movie does not return, then you may want to scrap the sequel idea. Unless you can find something to make up for his or her absence, or you find someone who you are absolutely sure can replace him.

5. It should be something people want to see. This is the most important and obvious one of them all. Realize that just because a film made a lot of money doesn't mean that people liked it and want a sequel.

Of course, even if something passes this criteria, that still does not guarantee that this sequel will be good. However, unless I'm forgetting something, this criteria would make sure that it's not just selling out.