"Community" season 4!
"Community" season 4!
"Community" season 4!

So here's the problem with sequels:

1. They are cash cows, so the studios like 'em. Established characters, usually cheap to make, and people go see them, even if they suck.

2. Certain movies are so perfect on their own, and create such a unique niche that a sequel comes across no better than a straight to DVD ripoff. The Matrix is a good example. First movie rocked, new worlds of thought, excellently told, awesome effects, but by the first sequel, we were already tired of all of the bullet time effects and needed a whole new perspective on the story to make it worthwhile. This did not happen.

3. There is a magic timeframe. If you act too fast, people see it as a money grab. XXX was a great example, they were shooting the second one before they even knew if the first one would be any good... Conversely, if you wait too long, the premise is 'aged', the same characters and jokes aren't funny, the same plotlines aren't as dramatic, etc... Nobody cares about the jokes after 20 years, the movie is a classic, but making a sequel just doesn't work.

If there isn't the perfect combination of factors, the sequels almost always suck horribly. There are great sequels, of course, but it's because they didn't wait too long before movies, they found ways to age the story and the characters to be fresh again, and they didn't come across as trying to use your wallet as an ATM. The original Star Wars trilogy, the 1st 3 Indiana Jones movies, and the Back to the Future movies are all examples of successful sequels. Just like I don't want to see a new Bill and Ted movie, I don't want to see a sequel to Beetlejuice.

Fireproof: One other thing to note: Nine out of ten good sequels were planned along with the original movie, or at least the door was left open for the sequel to exist. The crappy ones are often those that were planned later and spend the entire first act retconning/casually dismissing important bits (especially from the end) of the first movie in order to make the plot of this one work.

/See MIB II, Highlander sequels, etc.


IMHO, MIBII wasn't horrible, but it definitely didn't have that magic element the first one had. Highlander sequels most definitely sucked, but the TV show was actually pretty good, definitely better than the sequels. Wish I'd gotten in from the beginning, but I didn't really have much hope. My loss...

Khellendros: Why do you even need the original cast (beyond Keaton)? Maybe as a cameo, but you're talking about an entire amusing mythology based on an overly bureaucratic afterlife filled with misleading forms, unposted rules, and tons of red tape. Beatlejuice is just a crazy mercenary contractor that breaks the rules. The family from the first movie was just a single case of newbies entering the system and feeling lost. There's so much that can be explored beyond that.

Likely this will totally blow, but there is potential. It's not played out, and it's a moderately original idea/universe.

I agree, Keaton is necessary, but everyone else could be tossed...

Although, Winona Ryder encountering Beetlejuice as an adult, and maybe having forgotten about everything might work.

I'd rather not have the movie than gamble that this will suck, though...

Beetlejiuce would make a good theme park ride, I'll give it that.

Oh shiat, in the musical "Monster Show" bullshiat, they have Beetlejiuce alongside classic Universal Monsters like Dracula, The Wolfman and Frankenstein. And they just closed the Jaws ride....

As for a sequel, how can they re-cast the originals, since everyone's a ghost?

Mikey1969: IMHO, MIBII wasn't horrible, but it definitely didn't have that magic element the first one had. Highlander sequels most definitely sucked, but the TV show was actually pretty good, definitely better than the sequels. Wish I'd gotten in from the beginning, but I didn't really have much hope. My loss...

MIBII was cool when it actually had Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones on screen. Except when they were trying to get TLJ's memory back, which was half the movie.

Highlander is the very definition of a film that had no need for a sequel. In fact none of the sequels made sense given the premise.

Mikey1969: So here's the problem with sequels:

1. They are cash cows, so the studios like 'em. Established characters, usually cheap to make, and people go see them, even if they suck.

2. Certain movies are so perfect on their own, and create such a unique niche that a sequel comes across no better than a straight to DVD ripoff. The Matrix is a good example. First movie rocked, new worlds of thought, excellently told, awesome effects, but by the first sequel, we were already tired of all of the bullet time effects and needed a whole new perspective on the story to make it worthwhile. This did not happen.

3. There is a magic timeframe. If you act too fast, people see it as a money grab. XXX was a great example, they were shooting the second one before they even knew if the first one would be any good... Conversely, if you wait too long, the premise is 'aged', the same characters and jokes aren't funny, the same plotlines aren't as dramatic, etc... Nobody cares about the jokes after 20 years, the movie is a classic, but making a sequel just doesn't work.

If there isn't the perfect combination of factors, the sequels almost always suck horribly. There are great sequels, of course, but it's because they didn't wait too long before movies, they found ways to age the story and the characters to be fresh again, and they didn't come across as trying to use your wallet as an ATM. The original Star Wars trilogy, the 1st 3 Indiana Jones movies, and the Back to the Future movies are all examples of successful sequels. Just like I don't want to see a new Bill and Ted movie, I don't want to see a sequel to Beetlejuice.

elvisaintdead: "Community" season 4!
"Community" season 4!
"Community" season 4!

You know who else didn't have a Season 4?