The Trick with Sequels

For me, the Star Wars sequel trilogy will live forever in infamy alongside it's best-left-forgotten forerunner, the cringeworthy 'Star Wars' Christmas Special. But why?

Well, I'd say the primary antagonist of this aforementioned trilogy sums it up quite nicely:

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to." - Kylo Ren, The Last Jedi

Unfortunately, for a sequel, this philosophy spells downfall.

Sequels are a continuation of the story told before. Everything about a sequel hinges on what was established in the previous tale, otherwise it doesn't make any sense and to call it a sequel would be false advertising. The very marketability of a sequel depends ENTIRELY on how successful its predecessor was and how badly the audience wants to know what happened next. Sequels carry no weight on their own, so "killing" what came before is the pure essence of self-sabotage.

Sequels are tricky:

If the last film ended in a cliffhanger, we expect the sequel to pick up where the last story left off, but if everything was wrapped up nicely with a bow in the last film, the sequel can only be about a brand new adventure.

Exploring a brand new problem with a character that we already know and love subsequently allows us to discover a brand new side of that character. You've got to be careful to do something new without destroying what has already been established. Lilo & Stitch 2: Stitch Has A Glitch is the best example: The first film focused on the development of a friendship and highlighted the importance of family. The second film showed us the other side of the coin; that sometimes friends fight and family members can have problems we don't understand, but friendship and family is still important and may be the only thing that can fix the problem in the end. See? They gave us a new struggle, but didn't negate what had been previously stated. In fact, they reiterated it.

Be careful to avoid redundancy in the character's growth, the next film has got to focus on the next event. Say a character struggled with selfishness in the first film but learned to be selfless by the end. What good does it do us to watch him struggle through a selfishness relapse? Yes, in real life folks will make the same mistake over and over, or have to learn the same lesson more than once; but we don't get a lifetime with this fictional character, we only get an hour or two. A movie has to take us through the whole event from beginning to end, so the character has got to learn the lesson and learn in permanently. Even if the movie has sequels, the character can not keep learning the same lesson in each film. Focus on the next event. If you want to explore that realistic "relearn it" thing, it is better done in a series, because a series has the luxury of going through the process step by step.

For sequels that introduce the next generation of heroes, we get brand new characters and must inherently have brand new problems as well, otherwise you are cheating both your characters and the audience. The Star Wars trilogy is a prime example of this: We had new and refreshing concepts for characters; a Force-sensitive girl, a stormtrooper deserter, and an upstanding Republic pilot. It sounds like quite a promising trio, doesn't it? Sadly, they were not allowed to grow as themselves or discover their individuality, but were instead forced to relive a tale that had already been told. They were wasted. References to old events and struggles can be nostalgic, but only AFTER the new characters are who they are and not mere copies of the characters that came before. Had Rey been allowed to live her own story instead of recreating Luke's, I think she'd be just as celebrated by now.

Speaking of Luke, "Let the past die, kill it if you have to." Kylo said, and I dare say that is EXACTLY what the writers did. The old characters that we knew and loved died right in front of us, one by one. That was probably the worst idea ever. You don't have to kill or undermine past characters in order for the new ones to shine. You can let the new characters grow on their own without disregarding the characters that came before. Avoid murdering the past characters at all costs!-- Seriously, I can't think of a single instance where killing off the old characters was a good idea. Lord of The Rings is a good example for agreeable alternatives if you need the old characters out of the way: Bilbo would've hindered Frodo's progression as an individual, but Tolkien didn't kill him off, he simply found somewhere else for him to be. Killing off old characters so the audience is forced to love the new ones is ineffective. If you feel bringing back the old characters is too much of a threat to what you are trying to accomplish with the new characters, then don't bring them back. I'd honestly prefer never to see them again rather than to be reunited just in time to see them die.

A saga is even more tricky than a sequel:

A sequel continues the story by adding something new to what was established in the first film. As far as sagas are concerned, multiple things have been established and multiple lessons have already been learned. This makes sagas even more tricky than sequels. Sagas are also far more dangerous than sequels, because a bad sequel can be swept under the rug and disregarded, but one bad apple in a saga spoils the whole bunch.

Take the Toy Story franchise for example: Each film establishes a little more of Woody's character, but by Toy Story 4 all that growth disappears. His sulking that he's not getting played with completely annuls the conclusion he came to in Toy Story 2, and his flippant disregard for Bonnie over his memory of Andy contrasts his actions in Toy Story 3. Even Toy Story 1 is mocked. Seriously, how did we go from 3 films of "You've Got a Friend in Me" to "The Ballad of a Lonesome Cowboy"?

Don't contradict what the previous films have established. If there's nothing more to add, there's no reason to continue that storyline. Do a spinoff instead.

...And on a personal note, be clear that it's a spinoff. I really detest false advertising. The title "Rise of Skywalker" feels misleading since all the Skywalkers are dead in the end and it wasn't made clear enough that they adopted Rey. So yeah.

Sequels and remakes are different:

The trick with sequels is the recreation of the ride without the recreation of the story. You know what worked in the previous film, but its important to remember that it worked BECAUSE it was the previous film. The Force Awakens and The Rise of Skywalker mimic the plot of the original trilogy a little too closely: Instead of establishing an original problem and villain, they recreate the last problem and resurrect the last villain. The origin story of the main protagonist and the primary antagonist's fall from grace are almost exactly like the original trilogy as well. So technically, the sequel trilogy is not actually a sequel. By definition, it is a remake.

The Last Jedi breaks violently from this pattern-- Too violently. It destroys everything. Absolutely everything. Even things we did not want destroyed. It comes in abrupt contrast to The Return of The Jedi, even without context. Hey, the Jedi are back! Oops, no they are not. Which basically wraps up the entire point of this post: Respect the past. Don't live in it, but don't destroy it either. How can we appreciate how far you've come if you erase the starting line? It's not always for the best that the sequel feels like the first film, but you should always pay attention to what the first film has said.