Oh, sequels. The savior and bane of the Hollywood engine. I don't need to go into any sort of detail about how sequels, remakes, reboots, and franchises are spelling the doom of creative cinema. I've written far too much on it already, to say nothing of other film critics and, indeed, 90 percent of the Internet. This summer, as with any other blockbuster season, sequels reign supreme. One could argue the season actually started a month early this year, with "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" launching in April. By the time May swung around, we had not only Spider-Man and X-Men sequels, but re-imaginings of Godzilla and Sleeping Beauty as well. Now nearing the end of the month of June, we find ourselves bombarded by even more sequels, including the upcoming "Transformers: Age of Extinction".
I'll be writing a lot on Michael Bay's seven year love affair with giant robots soon, but for the purposes of this rant, all you really need to know is how hated Bay's Transformers sequels are. They are prime examples of not only Bay's gigantic ego, but Hollywood's as well. Sequels are often excess personified, upping the stakes and scale of their predecessors in hopes of out-grossing them. There was a time when sequels weren't really necessary, and just blatant cash-ins. Then the era of the franchise arrived, where blockbuster films came tailor made as the first in an ongoing series. Sequels became "necessary", but that didn't mean they were still any good. That was, until filmmakers wised up and realized sequels should build on the foundations of the original. Instead of cashing in, they should grow organically from what came before, and move the characters and stories into new directions.
It sounds like a no-brainer, but we as audience members know all too well the disappointment of a bad sequel. Thank the cinema gods, then, that two amazing sequels, "How to Train Your Dragon 2" and "22 Jump Street", came out in the same week. Not only are these amazing films in their own right, but they are textbook examples of how to make brilliant follow-ups to already entertaining works. And the best part is, both films display a different class of sequel, that nonetheless knows what truly made the first film so appealing. Both films wisely focused on that, instead of simply taking everything in the last film (positive AND negative) and adding more of it.
I expressed very clearly in my "Animation Domination" rant that I wished to cover more animated films. My ultimate reason for this was that most animated films can move us in ways the best live action films can't. Maybe it's because we expect these to be mindless kids' films, which then surprise us with engaging characters, mature situations, and a significant amount of depth. Maybe it's because animation is free to realize any world it wants, instead of being limited by budgetary constraints. It could very well be a combination of both, or for a variety of other reasons. The point is that Dreamworks' "How to Train Your Dragon" franchise is so damn good at doing all of this that it's almost scary. I had no expectations for the first film, and after seeing it in theaters on impulse, I was surprised to find the best Dreamworks film since the first two Shrek movies (in may ways surpassing them).
With such a strong first effort, interest in the sequel was only natural. I secretly hoped the second film could surpass the first, but was always aware that most kids' film sequels never got that chance, barring a few exceptions (thanks Toy Story!). Needless to say, I wasn't disappointed. "Dragon 2" improved on its predecessor in every way, not only offering a superior sequel and animated film, but a strong summer blockbuster in its own right. In the future, I hope film historians take note of this film, or films like it, when discussing how to make a proper blockbuster sequel. Like any sequel, we do get higher stakes and a larger scale, but the filmmakers did well to couple that with a huge emphasis on story and characters.
When making a sequel, filmmakers should pick a story that grows naturally from the first film. It should explore and expand on the unique world of the original, while giving more depth to the central story and the characters within it. If a character went through a full arc last time, a new arc must be found that builds off of who that person is. One should always ask: "after all that, what's next?" That's literally the premise of "Dragon 2", as it follows Hiccup grappling with his future after uniting Vikings and Dragons on his homeland. Having mastered flight, whole continents are open to him now, and with that comes new discoveries and new people. A looming war brought on by a Dragon Master named Drago Bludvist propels the plot, but really it's about Hiccup coming into his own as a person, after realizing his talents in the first film. It's really about deciding how best to utilize your abilities now that you're aware of them.
Couple that with the reveal of Hiccup's mother and his grief of taking over as the new chief, and you've got a winning story that organically builds off the first film. The best part is that the movie keeps the focus squarely on Hiccup's journey, but consistently delivers in the action department. It ups the ante considerably, with new dragon species and a full-on fight between two giant alpha male dragons. It's thrilling stuff, the kind summer blockbusters are made of. There are scenes that make you laugh and cry in equal measure, some of which are incredibly dark. Despite that, the film never gets too serious, always remembering to have fun and revel in the unique fantasy world it's created. Truly, "How to Train Your Dragon 2" is a wonder to behold, especially as a sequel.
And then there's "22 Jump Street." Like "Dragon", I had zero expectations with the original, and found it to be one of the best comedies in years after seeing it. The key to both the original film and its sequel's success is the full awareness that it's not needed. While the first film was a sly satire of Hollywood's excessive need to remake old properties, the sequel sets out to make fun of the very nature of sequels themselves. From an early conversation between Tatum and Hill with their captain, it's clear this was the intention. The characters themselves complain how they're given the exact same case, and how their superiors expect similar results despite there being different variables. The film just takes off running from there, playing with our expectations from the first film to deliver a movie just as funny as the original.
I adore meta-humor, and this film is simply loaded with it. You can't really go wrong with an unnecessary sequel that knows it's unnecessary. The jokes on the college lifestyle all hit, but the real success is Tatum and Hill's chemistry, which just keeps growing from the original. Like "Dragon 2", the filmmakers knew that the key was organically exploring where the characters would go after the first, but what makes this film unique is that they pulled something both funny and sincere out of a premise that wasn't needed. Again, it knows it's a cash-in sequel, so it makes fun of the very concept of cash-ins, to great effect.
While the entire film references this, the greatest example has to be the credits. In an attempt to comically one-up the sequel hook of the last film, "22" explores every sequel idea imaginable. From flight school, medical school, and semesters abroad to space, dance, and ninja academies, the final few minutes are a laugh riot. We basically get Jump Streets 23-40 and above here, spoofing not only the cash-in sequel trend, but the very idea of film franchises as well.
Where "Dragon 2" took the concept of the "bigger and better" sequel and executed it seriously and to great effect, "Jump Street" delivered a riff on the premise itself, then guaranteed a franchise couldn't happen by exercising every possible sequel idea at once. The best part is while it's fairly ridiculous, the imaginary sequels play into the theme of the film, solidifying Tatum and Hill's friendship and assuring the audience they'll partner up for many more missions to come. I don't use the term "brilliant" often when it comes to movies, especially comedies and ESPECIALLY comedy sequels, but this fully earns it.
It blows my mind that a kids film and a comedy can so perfectly capture how to make an excellent sequel, and yet "Dragon" and "Jump Street" do it. They are a testament to good storytelling and film-making. They make me believe that Hollywood can build off the strength of original works, instead of simply cashing in on them. They are, without a doubt, some of the best films I've seen so far this summer. Simply put, Michael Bay should take notes when the inevitable Transformers 5 comes out in a few years. Then again, such films will always make money, and Hollywood will always want to churn out crap to feed the masses (and their wallets). But as long as films like "Dragon 2" and "22 Jump Street" exist as a balance, there's hope for good Hollywood sequels after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment