Sequels especially movie sequels often get a bad rep for being boring money makers and they never seem to live up to the original content. Some examples of these sequels are the ones that Disney makes for many of their franchises. But there are also sequels that aren't so bad, such as a book I recently read, Parasite Pig. So I wondered, what makes a sequel good, and what makes them bad?
I think first we need to take into consideration the difference between sequels and series. Sequels usually come after a story that was already wrapped up. The main plot was resolved and usually, nothing needs to be added. In the original content, there's not just story telling, but world building and character development. These things are usually lost in sequels because they are simply not needed, but without them, the story turns out to be rather lackluster. Also, in most cases, sequels just do not need to exist. The original story is fine on its own and sequels just have more shenanigans the characters go on.
Series are different to sequels in the fact that you usually have to read the whole series to complete the story. One example is Harry potter. Although each book has it's own story, together they tell the main story and build up into the end. Unlike sequels, the books need each other to complete the series. Another thing is that series are usually planned out to cover a story through multiple books or movies, but sequels are usually just slapped on to milk a popular franchise and make the big bucks.
Parasite Pig is considered a sequel to Interstellar Pig, a sci-fi novel written by William Sleator. It follows the journey of the main character, Barney, and his adventures on a planet called Jakoot. Although the book is a sequel, I didn't think Parasite Pig was an awful read. I found it quite enjoyable actually. I think its because this book still introduces new concepts, and new characters instead of telling a story in a world already set in stone. I think the Interstellar Pig on its own could be a nice book but the ending is a bit abrupt and leaves you wondering about the future, so I think Parasite Pig is a suitable sequel that can soothe some of the reader's curiosities.
But these are just my random thoughts about sequels. Maybe people do like sequels and that's totally fine. I just like to dissect things and make sense of why I, or other people, feel a certain way.
By Maggie
Awesome post! I totally agree with you on the fact that a lot of authors/ directors create sequels just because the first movie/book was good and they want to make big bucks. I usually don't read sequels because I feel like they'll ruin the first book, but Parasite Pig sounds pretty interesting and I'll definetely check it out soon.
ReplyDeleteI agree that sequels are usually tacked on after a story is complete, but you could use the word to talk about later books in a series too, I usually don't though. I also think that sequels often don't continue with the exact same story as the original book like maybe they follow side characters or are set many year later, or earlier in the case of prequels.
ReplyDeleteThis was an interesting post! I agree that some sequels are made just to make money. I usually don't like sequels because sometimes they add new things that don't match up with the first book or movie. Sequels are nice though sometimes because you get to see characters you already know and may enjoy in a new plot. It was interesting to hear your thoughts on it!
ReplyDeleteLove your post! I never realized there was a difference between sequels and series :P. I'd have to agree with you on sequels. I usually struggle to read sequels and series, because after the first book, nothing new is being introduced (I have the same problem with movies). Never heard of Interstellar Pig before; might have to check it out.
ReplyDeleteI agree on the part that authors and directors sometimes make sequels for the money. Parasite Pig sounds pretty interesting, so I might check that out. Some sequels are fine because you get to see the characters from the first book again in a different plot, but I think it just depends.
ReplyDeleteWell-written post! I think you have a lot of good points. I agree; sequels can either be rewarding (as you get to spend more time with characters and world that you enjoyed) or disappointing (possibly ruining your good image of the first book). I feel like this is the same with popular TV shows, where the second season is make it or break it. After the first season doing extremely well, the second season either decide whether the show continues to make more and more seasons, or if it ends there. I find that trilogies are always cohesive, because it is always written to be a trilogy. Some series like Magic Tree House end up continuing forever for profit, without attempting to add original ideas.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree that a lot of sequels are just to milk a series or a franchise out for money, but sometimes they are actually good, so I might have to check these two books out. It seems pretty interesting and I'm glad I chose to read it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this post. A key difference between sequels and series is that before in a series installments are left open ended and you usually have to plan out the arc before you start writing, but sequels are not always expected. This is good to point out as a lot of people don't always realize. When I think about it, I have not read a lot of good sequels to books as I mainly read series, so it was nice to know that there are some out there.
ReplyDeleteGood explanation of the differences between sequels. A good sequel builds off the first while introducing new ideas that don't undermine the original's storytelling. Many "cashgrabs" just have the characters go into a new adventure and forget everything they learned or went through in the previous novel. They don't expand on personalities and don't develop characters further, instead having them repeat things in a new coat of paint.
ReplyDeleteI really liked this explanation! Sequels have a harder time being good exactly because it has to make another story out of a movie or book that already has a concluded story. It seems like we see less series these days because it is easier to make a sequel to a story that has already proven to be able to sell. Series require setup and a commitment to the whole series.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Coleman above me, sequels are usually bad because the author never intended to divide the story in two parts. Unless the sequel was intended originally, it will usually just seem like extra filler that were only made to make money. Especially for action films that goes through the hero's journey, if the first film already completed the journey, the second will just repeat it with minor change.
ReplyDeleteAh yes, the sequel money grab. I agree with you that sequels usually never live up to the original. I think that if an author really does want to expand upon their world and their characters, they will write at least three books. Movies usually suffer from this sequel problem more, and I think it's because big companies are behind movies. If a movie does very well, why not make another one to get even more money? Oh the sequel flopped? Never make another one. It's a shame to see interesting worlds and characters recycled for a money grab.
ReplyDelete