What a writer can learn from bad movie sequels.
what to leave out. how to create better characters. create a better story overall.
As a writer, you step away from writing to watch movies to learn from them. You learn about the three-act structure, character arc and theme to help with your writing. But Hollywood loves making sequels, but there’s a problem with them, most of them are bad.
We have to ask the question why? What is it about sequels that make them disappointing?
In this blog, we will be asking What a writer can learn from bad movie sequels...
WHAT A WRITER CAN LEARN FROM BAD MOVIE SEQUELS
Table of Contents
We watch sequels hoping they’ll be as good as the original, but the majority of the time they fail to deliver. Is it even possible for Hollywood to make great sequels? Or are we doomed to watch bad sequels time after time?
The big problem is bad sequels fail to do what the first movie successfully did and that’s to challenge the lead actor’s safety. Give them an internal struggle, something personal to fight for. At no point in the first or sequel should a protagonist ever feel safe. If they do then the audience will not fear for their safety. They will not feel nervous or concerned for the protagonist. In the end, the audience simply will not feel anything. Leaving the movie lacking tension. The audience needs to know what the protagonist cares about and how it’s being threatened.
WHY CAN THE HERO NOT WALK AWAY FROM THE PROBLEM
If you want to make a successful story, figure out what your lead character cares about the most. The one thing that means everything to them, then threaten to take it away. Make them fight to keep it. Make sure what your lead character values the most is under attack. Something they cannot walk away from. They need to feel propelled to act. They cannot walk away from the problem, or the thing they care about will be taken away. Sadly a lot of sequels fall to do this.
What makes a story great is when both the protagonist and antagonist are after the same thing. But only one can have it. The good guy wants something for a good reason. But the bad guy wants the same thing for bad reasons. Just like how Indiana Jones wanted the Ark to keep the world safe, but the Nazis wanted it to take over the world. This creates tension as you watch the movie wanting to see how it ends. But in sequels the bad guy wants something that the good guy doesn’t care about, leading to a lack of tension throughout the movie. Leaving the viewer not really caring.
THE AUDIENCE HAS NO EMOTIONAL INVESTMENT
In a sequel where the good guy isn’t having what they value most being threatened the audience cannot care. They have no emotional investment into the movie.
In most sequels, the lead character doesn’t have to struggle for anything. Everything is safe. Their job, love life, family, nothing is a stake like it was in the first.
THEY HAVE TO OVERCOME IMPOSSIBLE ODDS
We need to see the lead actor struggle. Have to overcome impossible odds, inner negative thoughts. Tough obstacles like they did in the first movie. Scriptwriters fail to include this in the second movie.
Spider-man 2 however does not make this mistake. Peter Parker has many problems throughout the movie, dealing with relationships, job, his aunt and school. Throughout the whole movie he’s being tested from all sides. Making us care. He was tested in the first, but even worse in the sequel making us care. We want to see him succeed. A bad sequel would’ve had him doing nothing but trying to stop the bad guy. Having everything in his life great, nothing stressful to worry about. Leaving us not caring for him.
TAKE YOUR TIME WRITING AN AMAZING NOVEL
One of the big problems with sequels is how fast the producers and writers come up with an idea. You can tell right away the idea was thought up in a matter of moments. The original idea took months if not years to come up with. The writer took their time. The original had depth, emotion, life and interests. But the sequel script was written in weeks. (Or worse, days) as though they didn’t care. They just wanted to get something out there so the audience will pay to see it. Lacking everything the first movie had going for it. We started off seeing a great original movie with emotion and depth that took months to write, only to have an empty pointless sequel.
Producers need to think long-term. They need to have amazing ideas for sequels ready to go in their mind, so if the first is successful the second movie will be just as great. So the character’s storyline carries on. The problem with most movies is the characters story arc is finished by the end of the first. There’s nowhere to go with the second. So the writer ignores the character arc of the protagonist and focuses on the “problem” of the second movie. Leaving the protagonist to be the most boring part of the story. The audience can tell it’s a well-written planned-out sequel, not something thought of in a few minutes.
WE NEED TO SEE SOME KIND OF CHARACTER ARC
Great movies have great character arch for the lead actor. In the original we see change, we see the weak becoming strong or evil turning good. It’s what the audience likes to see. But in the sequel nothing like that happens, the protagonist is just along for the ride. They do nothing. They don’t change; they’re the same by the end, as though they’re not needed. The audience loves movies where there’s a character arch, but most sequels lack them.
Look at the change in Michael in “The Godfather.” Michael goes from being in an American military uniform not wanting anything to do with the family, but by the end we see him looking like the devil, in a business suit. Sitting in the chair looking soulless. We have seen the change come over him. The audience likes seeing something like this happen.
MOST VILLAINS ARE BORING
Another problem most sequels have is weak villains. They’re boring, cardboard cut out, who only want to “rule the world.” They’re not interesting. We don’t care about their needs. Or why it’s important to them.
It’s been said; a movie is only as good as its villain. Some of the best movies have great villains. These antagonists feel justified in what they do. We understand their actions; even if you agree or disagree at least you understand them. But writers come up with average or boring villains for sequels, ones who have no reasons for their actions. They’re bad for the sake of being bad. Even Hitler of all people felt he was justified in his actions. He thought he was the good guy. Great villains in movies believe themselves to be good, but in sequels, they know they’re bad and don’t care.
NEVER MAKE THE VILLAIN “LOOK EVIL”
Some villains in sequels even walk around with a cold look in their eye, never smiling, wearing black, trying to look like a stereotypical villain. It makes the movie look silly. Bad people in life do not walk around “looking evil.”
Another important fact is in original movies the protagonist and antagonist interact with each other. Some of the best movies have the two of them talking to each other, like in Harry Potter and Die Hard, However, in sequels, the protagonist is barely in the movie and the only time they see each other is at the end.
MOST PROTAGONISTS LOOK BORED
In a lot of sequels, the object the antagonist is after is a pointless object. Something the audience doesn’t care about. Just some object they want to acquire to “rule the world.” Leading the protagonist to walk towards them at the end looking bored and having to stop them. The object means nothing to the protagonist; therefore it means nothing to the audience.
In a sequel things have to double up with bigger threats, more to lose, higher stakes, more emotional investment from the protagonist. Making things worse for the lead actor. Making things scarier, more danger, have everything they care about come crashing down. Just like in (2004) Spider-Man 2. But sadly, in most sequels, the stakes are not higher. In fact, everything they care about is not being threatened. The protagonist can walk away at any time. The audience doesn’t feel any connection. If the protagonist has no emotional investment neither will the audience.
IN SEQUELS HEROES HAVE NOTHING TO OVERCOME
In most original movies the protagonist has to look within and find inner strength to overcome the obstacles, but in sequels, they have nothing to overcome. They’re only responding to what’s happening around them as though bored.
A great movie, be it horror, action or drama is all about the audience relating to the protagonist’s inner struggle. Having to overcome self-dough to defeat the bad guy. We relate to someone’s inner struggle. We see ourselves in them, but sequels lack these things.
YOU NEED TO PULL THE READER INTO THE NOVEL
Great movies have this way of pulling the audience into the movie to a point where you’re not watching it, but experiencing it. As though it’s happening to you. But sequels make you feel as though you’re sitting in the movie theatre just watching. You’re not pulled in. You do not feel as though it’s happening “to you.” You feel as though you’re watching events happen to other people. A sequel needs to pull you in as the first did. In the “Godfather part 2“, you felt pulled into their world as much as the first movie.
In “The Exorcist” the little girl’s life is at stake. Time is running out. She will die if they cannot free her from the demon who’s possessed her. You can feel the time limit tension. The core of the family is being threatened. Everyone in the movie has an emotional investment. Father Merrin’s emotional investment in having to battle the same demon from his past. Father Karras has to deal with his mother passing and the demon knowing about it. The mother fears her daughter dying.
WHAT EMOTIONAL INVESTMENT DOES THE HERO HAVE
But in the sequel, “Exorcist 2” it’s hard to understand what emotional investment anyone has. They all looked bored. You cannot tell what anyone is after. Who’s the good guy and who is bad. What is the time limit? What’s being threatened? Does anyone care about the outcome? Everyone is standing around watching the events happening. This leaves the audience bored.
A great movie, be it original or sequel has to give the protagonist something big to overcome in order for them to live peacefully. Everything important to them has to be challenged. They have to find their inner strength to overcome. You cannot make a movie where the lead actor is watching the events take place to others. Where the stakes are high to someone else. If the lead character feels safe then the movie will not work. This happens a lot in sequels.
THEY HAVE TO FACE OFF AT SOME POINT
In most sequels, the lead villain is not connected to the hero. The villain is after something else while the lead character is a bi-standard. But in the first movie, the hero had to face the villain in order to win. They are bonded together. Like how John McClane and Hans Gruber were in “Die Hard.” only one could win. They had to face off with each other in order for someone to win.
But in most sequels, the lead villain wants something and the lead actor has to stop him. Not because it’s personal, but because they have been asked to or it’s their job. but nothing ties them to it the villain or outcome. Leaving the audience bored, like in “Ghostbusters 2”.
WHAT DOES THE HERO VALUE?
In the movie “Men in Black” we see agent Jay having to give up his life in order to become an agent. He needed to look within and ask if he truly wanted the job. But in the sequel, he basically standing back watching as the antagonist “Serleena'” wants to take over the earth. The audience feels nothing for the lead actors because what they value is not being challenged.
However, the “Harry Potter” movies are different. They get the sequels right. The audience is fully engaged in all the movies because they care about the outcome. Harry Potter’s life is always in danger. A ll his friends’ lives are in danger. Hogwarts is being threatened. At no point is Harry Potter sitting back watching events happen to other people. He’s at the heart of all the events. Lord Voldemort is after him. The audience can feel the tension in all the movies. The two of them are forever connected in all the movies. They both cannot live, one has to go.
THE AUDIENCE ISN’T FEELING A CONNECTION
In 1996 a movie was released based on “The Brady Bunch” TV show. It did well at the box office. The fans loved it. Of course, there would be a sequel. But the writers had to come up with something quick. So they came up with the idea of con artist wanting in the house to get a rare statue. It doesn’t sound too appealing. It felt like a rushed made up on the spot storyline. Needless to say, the movie didn’t go over to well because the audience wasn’t connected. The lead actors had no emotional ties to the events. They were just letting the events happen as they watched.
If Hollywood wants to make great sequels they need to challenge the lead actors. Make them the center of the story. Do the same thing in the second movie as they did in the first. Have the lead villain and lead actor have a connection to each other.
THEY NEED A POWERFUL INNER CONFLICT
In “Toy Story 2” we see this in the first movie, Woody is in conflict. There was a conflict with him feeling like he was going to be replaced. He thought his owner Andy was going to replace him with Buzz Lightyear. But in the sequel, he didn’t just stand around. In fact, he had a powerful inner conflict about going back to his old friends or staying with his new ones.
He could’ve stayed with his new friends and lived happily with them. Or go back to his old friends but miss his new friends. By having this inner conflict he wasn’t sure what to do. The audience felt the inner conflict as well. The audience was pulled in. Most people say the second one is better than the first. Why? Because the inner conflict for the second is higher than the first.
THE GREATEST CONFLICT HAPPENS TO THE HERO
In most sequels, the protagonist would not have anything bad happening to them. They would be watching as new characters go through conflict. Nothing would be threatening their safety. There would be no inner challenge as in the first. Everything would be safe for them. But in Toy Story 2, the greatest conflict happens to the star. Drawing the viewers into the conflict in a greater way.
A sequel that got it right was “The Godfather 2.” We see the lead actors at the center of attention. They’re causing the story to go forward. Whereas in “The Brady Bunch” sequel they were watching events happen, then reacting. They’re not making anything happen. In the first Godfather movie, it was about family. The second Godfather movie was about the destruction of the family. No one was sitting back watching new characters do things, they were the stars. The audience had an emotional investment in the sequel. The inner conflict was coming from within.
FLASHBACKS WILL SLOW THE BOOK DOWN
Most movies do not have flashbacks, they slow the movie down. But “The Godfather 2” had one. And it was just as good as the present-day storyline because the flashback was about Don Corleone. It wasn’t just his life story. It was the inner conflict he had to go through. He wasn’t just watching things happen. He was the focal point of the flashback storyline. The audience had just as much of an emotional investment with the Don’s back-story as they did with Michael’s present day.
We saw the younger Don dealing with his own inner struggles with trying to raise a family. We cared about how he had to overcome the inner battles to raise his kids. Watched as the modern-day Corleone family had to deal with inner conflict. How the power and money were destroying them on the inside. How Michael was losing his soul to the devil. He started out in the first moving doing what he did to protect his family. But in the sequel, we saw how it was all about money and power. We were pulled into the heart of the family and their pain.
HAVE TO HAVE MORE AT STAKE THAN THE FIRST
Fans cared more for “Star Trek 2.” more than the original. But why is this? What was different from the original to the sequel? In the sequel, the crew’s lives were in danger. In the first, they seemed safe. Trying to figure out what “V’ger” was. But in the second they had to deal with Khan who wants revenge on Captain Kirk. By having their life in danger we found ourselves caring about them. More was at stake. More was invested.
When you look at successful movie sequels they’re about challenging the lead actors. The rules do not change for the sequel as the first movie. However, bad sequels have nothing bad happening to the stars. They’re only watching the events happen. If there is a time deadline, it only affects others, not themselves. We need to care as we watch. We need to feel. Most sequels fail to make this happen. If the lead actor fails to look within to overcome, we the audience fail to feel. Hopefully, Hollywood will learn this and make better sequels. There’s no need for sequels to do badly. As a writer, you can learn from these mistakes when writing your own novel. About giving the characters stakes and threatening the things that means something to them. Making the reader care about the outcome.
you might be interested in these blogs…
THE BIG NO-NO WITH MacGUFFINS IN NOVEL WRITING
APPLYING COMPLEX PSYCHOLOGY TO YOUR CHARACTERS
WHY STEPHEN KING IS NOT A HORROR WRITER
