Seeing Sequels to Movies I Hated

I know I've written about this before but feel it needs reiterating: The idea that there are people who see movies, feel underwhelmed, and then say, "But you know the sequel is gonna be really good," is  beyond idiotic to me. It isn't that they needed to love a movie in order to see its sequel. It isn't even that they found a way to become invested enough in the story or characters or both to return. The idiotic part comes from the assumption that the first movie is often underwhelming but just wait for that next one, man!

Seriously? Have we become so addled by mediocrity and cynical marketing that we accept our own stupidity as justification for why our entertainment fails to work?

What bothers me even more, however, is when the people who act this way treat me as if I'm the crazy one when I say there is no way in hell I'm seeing a sequel to a movie I hated. Why would I? Why would anyone? That's anywhere from ninety minutes to over three hours of my life I'll never get back. Why the hell would I want to subject myself to that again? And more importantly, if I'm not invested after the first movie, why should I care what happens in the second one?

For years, a friend of mine has been doing this level best to convince me to see the sequels to a movie I absolutely despised because he sincerely believes I will say the second one was the one the filmmakers should have started with. When I reply that that would just piss me off because I spent time watching the first one, he seems baffled by my response.

That film series, along with the rest, is listed below in where I have compiled several examples of movies I saw whose sequels I do not ever plan to watch even for free:

The Matrix Reloaded: I found the first movie derivative, trite and poorly acted.

It: Chapter 2: Worst movie I saw in 2017. A total rape of the source material by a hack filmmaker and a terrible cast of bad actors.

The Second Pirates of the Caribbean: Come on! Have we met?

Frozen 2: (See Pirates reply)

The Hobbit 2: Not saying Jackson lost his mojo but it was nowhere on display in the first Hobbit film.


You'll notice some of these films are more than a few years old and only one hasn't yet been released. There are others but these are good examples. There have also been films whose sequels I swore I'd never see but did because of my investment in the character(s) via other interpretations, but even then I feel dirty and was pretty disappointed.

I was recently asked if I was going to wait to see the second "It" when it was released on DVD and I merely shook my head. At some point, with the exception of this post, I came to the conclusion that there really is nothing else to be said~

The Sequel to Top Gun: Playing Devil's Advocate.

You'd be hard-pressed to find anybody who is more excited about the "Top Gun" sequel than me. I still remember sitting alone in that theater surrounded by an enthusiastic audience, watching what would become one of the defining movies of my generation. Obviously, I loved it. Still do. I even bought the soundtrack, I rented the VHS, and I re-watched it often. In fact, it was probably my most watched non-science fiction film until I saw Oliver Stone's "Platoon," which I consider the defining film of my generation.

But "Platoon" wasn't fun or cool. Okay, it was kind of cool to teenagers because we knew next to nothing about Vietnam, but overall it was tragic and emotionally draining, as were"Hamburger Hill" and, for those who liked it, "Full Metal Jacket." "Top Gun," on the other hand, was fun.

Described by its director as rock 'n roll in the air and by one of its producers as "Star Wars on Earth," the Tom Cruse star vehicle captured the Reagan era zeitgeist better than any other film of the time. And while I recognize that isn't necessarily a good thing in retrospect, it was nearly impossible to not get caught up in some part of it if you were there. Was it a masterpiece? I suppose that depends on how one defines the word in relation to moviemaking but, for what it was and what it was designed to do, I would say yes.

It was.

This may seem like a specious comparison, but in many ways the film reminds me of "Casablanca." Not because of its story or plot but because of its cultural relevance and inherent re-watchability. The two movies couldn't be more different regarding subject matter but they both feature two conflicted male protaganists struggling against external and internal forces and a strong female protagonist whose love both complicates and compliments his struggle.

It's also about a guy who has to make an all-important choice at a critical moment and makes the right one in the end when it counts. Imagine if Rick hadn't decided to help Ilsa escape Casablanca or if Maverick (Cruse) wasn't able to overcome his PTSD during the aerial combat scene at the end and Iceman had been left to fend for himself. They would have been two very different, possibly more realistic movies that probably would only be remembered by cinephiles. However, Rick and Maverick both do what's right when it needs to be done. Despite all my cynicism and desire to write darker-themed stories, I still recognize the need for the occasional crowd-pleasing moment.

Then there's the love story. Normally, I am turned off by love stories in movies because the vast majorty of them feel tacked on, mere audience manipulation based on market research. The love

story in "Top Gun" is integral to the plot. It's part of what helps Maverick grow up and realize there is more to life than just his "need for speed." It also feels like a genuine attraction between two people who were destined to meet but not necessarily destined to stay together. Respectively, the audience never truly knows if Rick and Ilsa ever reunite after the war, nor whether or not Maverick and Charlie (Kelly MCGillis) truly get back together at the end or simply spend a little time together before once more going their separate ways.

In a time when movies were usually designed to tell one story and then end, sometimes ambiguously, this was not a setup for a sequel but rather an ending designed to create speculation and discussion. And that is the magic of a single movie with no follow-ups. When the elements of a film come together beautifully, it's rare that a sequel is able to recapture the magic.

And that's why "Top Gun: Maverick" has a bit of a steep hill to climb. What made the first movie great was its ambiguous ending. Life went on, Maverick was in a better place emotionally, but whether or not he remained a Top Gun instructor or "got the girl" was left up to the viewer to decide. With this sequel coming out next year, we now know he did not do either of those things. We don't know why yet but does it really matter?

The glorious, up-in-the-air, Casablancaesque ending will now be replaced with a new story that may or may not exceed or equal the first one. And since it is a sequel, it will most likely feature a relatively definitive ending, especially considering how many years have passed between films. 

Again, I'm mostly excited to see it. In fact, I can't stop watching the trailer. A part of me always wanted to know what happened to Maverick even though the final minutes of the film appeared to make that pretty clear. Perhaps I'm a little upset because what I inferred from the original film is no longer true. All the decades of assumption and comfort are now gone, maybe even rendered pointless. 

Even writers need to be reminded that that's how art works. I get emotionally invested in things, too.  The idea of a "Casablanca" sequel is loathsome, even when thinking about it happening when the actors were still alive. This is in spite of a damn good novel by Michael Walsh that proved it was indeed possible! So there is a small part of me when it comes to "Top Gun" that says, "You nailed it on your first go-round. Why tempt fate?"

Still, I'll be helping them do exactly that next year when the film is released so it must not bother me that much~