The Curse of the Franchise: A Review of the Sequel

The sequel: Some people hate it; some people are, er, a little more open to the concept. I know very few people who will openly admit to loving it. Most often, of course, it depends entirely upon the type of film that preceded it, and whether or not its plot, preferably open-ended, lends itself to a continuation, and whether its central characters provide enough substance and generate enough interest to justify that continuation. As is often the case, however, sequels are unfortunately produced solely for the purposes of monetary gain. You only have to look at Disney’s dire direct-to-video distribution to see that. The truth is, however, that the majority of theatrically released animated sequels are most often at the very least half-decent, which makes our generally negative perceptions of them all the more unfortunate. The trouble is that they almost always go one step too far. Sometimes more.

 

1. It Ain’t Ogre ‘Til It’s Ogre

Take Shrek, for example, Dreamworks/PDI’s second and arguably best effort. Garnering substantially more interest than its 1998 predecessor, the deliciously dark and criminally underrated Antz, the 2001 Disney-lampooning fairy-tale comedy about a lone green ogre who rescues a princess saw unprecedented success for Dreamworks Animation, lapping up enough appraisals to spawn a 2004 sequel. Albeit less original and groundbreaking than the first movie, Shrek 2 nonetheless represented an enjoyable and hilarious extension of the Shrek universe, as Shrek, Fiona and Donkey travelled to the kingdom of Far Far Away to meet the in-laws. The new characters were memorable, engaging and proved to be surprisingly strong alongside the initial ensemble. Some reviews at the time even praised Antonio Banderas as Puss-In-Boots, claiming he stole the show. In all, this was a worthy sequel, and a welcome addition to Dreamworks’ animated canon. But then their success came to an abrupt end, at least in terms of originality. What made Shrek 2 such a good sequel was that it served a purpose, which is something 2007’s Shrek the Third sorely lacked.

 

While nonetheless sporadically amusing throughout, the film, which concerned Shrek’s attempt to locate an heir to the throne as his substitute, proved uninspired and, at times, cringe-worthy. Not even Eric Idle in the role of Merlin could pull this lacklustre snoozefest from the mire of mediocrity. With bland characters, a bland storyline and a bland script, Shrek the Third, while not the hideous ogre most made it out to be, proved to be, well… bland.

 

And yet the saga continued. Despite having proven that they were essentially out of ideas, three years later Dreamworks released Shrek Forever After, additionally (and thankfully) branded The Final Chapter. The eponymous hero’s fourth (and hopefully final – you never know!) outing saw him make a deal with Rumpelstiltskin, permitting  him access to an alternate universe to get his old life back to how it was before he rescued Fiona. Naturally, and expectedly, due to some overlooked fine print, chaos ensues as Rumpel uses Shrek’s wish to terminate him and become Far Far Away’s new ruler. At first glance, the plot may not appear all that inspired, and I have to admit that the film’s opening scenes hardly instilled me with confidence. Shrek and Fiona’s scenes together had become old and tired, and the humour was decidedly lacking, almost nonexistent, in fact. However, as we were introduced to the alternate universe, I sensed that they’d stopped trying to make Shrek funny, and had instead opted to go for a darker, adventure-based, more serious conclusion to the franchise. While it still paled significantly in comparison to the first two films, it maintained a surprisingly engaging plot and almost dreamlike, enchanting, autumnal atmosphere. All the same, I can’t help but feel that they went at least one Shrek too far. Shrek Forever After wasn’t bad as such – it just didn’t have much of a point.

 

While I’d hardly say any of the Shrek films are particularly ‘bad’, the latter two features presented a significant drop in quality. The plots weren’t nearly as engaging and the humour was lost or cheapened to nothing but lowbrow toilet humour. They were still fairly decent, yes, but paled so much in comparison to the first two movies that they risked tarnishing the very name of Shrek. But the Shrek movies aren’t alone. Dreamworks can’t resist sequels, it seems. Madagascar (2005), which was no more than a mediocre affair in the first place, spawned two follow-up films, while Kung Fu Panda (2008) and How to Train Your Dragon (2010) also followed suit. You can hardly blame Dreamworks for their dependence on sequels. Animation is a business, and like anyone, they need to make a profit, although it is far more refreshing to see something original.

 

2. Sequels That Cut No Ice

 

Another franchise that springs to mind when discussing declining quality is Blue Sky’s Ice Age. The first movie, about an unorthodox group of prehistoric animals trying to return a human child to his ‘herd’, had at least glints of greatness. It fell short of being a masterpiece, but nonetheless maintained an engaging, funny and at times heartfelt story. Its sequel, Ice Age: The Meltdown, though not exactly the worst I’ve ever seen, felt a little light on all counts, so much so that it barely qualified as anything more than ‘average’. The follow-up sees the three friends Manny, Sid and Diego escape the valley in search of refuge from an imminent flood. Along the way, they meet two opossums, Crash and Eddie, and their ‘sister’ Ellie, a mammoth who believes she is also an opossum. While Ellie’s backstory had more serious, emotional undertones, it seemed somewhat incongruous amid the rest of the film’s rather comical atmosphere. In fact, the idea that she genuinely believed she was an opossum was just completely unbelievable (and yes, I am fully aware that I’m complaining about a lack of realism in a film about talking mammoths). In retrospect, the follow-up was decent but it was as though they were trying a little too hard to be creative. In all, it left me feeling a little cold (pun intended).

 

However, the film I hold wholly responsible for giving the Ice Age series a bad name is their third outing, Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs. I understand that it’s an animated film, and that realism is hardly at the top of their list of priorities, but COME ON!! Were they that hard-pressed for ideas that they had to resort to a film that featured dinosaurs? I appreciate, as well, that they were fully aware of what is essentially a major anachronism, being as they at least acknowledge their extinction in the film, but that doesn’t make it any better! I could barely deal with a mammoth thinking it was a possum. Now I’m supposed to believe dinosaurs are alive?! I suppose it could have been worse. Anachronisms aside, it’s still somewhat enjoyable. Ish. Although there is a noticeably increased focus on side character comedy relief Scrat, which, let’s face it, is never a good thing. A further sequel followed… Let’s move on, shall we?

 

The Ice Age films, when viewed collectively, amount to little more than a mediocre set of films, which is especially a shame since the original was in fact very good. Even its sequel had its moments. But then, from that moment onwards I’d personally like to pretend that the last two films didn’t happen. As it turns out, there’s also one final instalment due for release in summer 2016 to look forward to. Yay.

 

3. The Toys Are Back In Town

 

As is evident so far, while I’m generally rather lenient when it comes to sequels, I’m not a huge fan of the franchise, and, I think, with good reason too. However, I’m willing to make a few exceptions. As I’ve said before, if the film serves a purpose, I have no problem with it. Recently, Pixar, once renowned for their originality, have been going sequel-crazy. Some are of the opinion that this is partly due to the influence of Disney, having purchased the company in 2006. Since, the studio has released their first ‘dud’, Cars 2 (2011), and Monsters University (2013), a rather ordinary and forgettable prequel, and I can’t say I have high hopes for the upcoming Finding Dory either. But 2010’s Toy Story 3, I’m delighted to say, exceeded my expectations.

 

Having grown up with the first two movies, released in 1995 and 1999 respectively, I have to admit I was rather anxious when I heard there was to be a third instalment. The first film, Toy Story (1995), was a phenomenal success. Based on the idea that toys come to life when nobody’s around, the world’s first computer-animated film focussed on the misadventures of a cherished cowboy doll named Woody. Jealous of new arrival Buzz Lightyear and the attention his owner Andy gives him, Woody soon lands himself and Buzz in jeopardy with the neighbourhood bully, prompting them to find a way to overcome their conflict and return home. Essentially, it’s a buddy movie, and it lends itself well to a sequel. Toy Story 2 (1999), the equally impressive follow-up, sees Woody kidnapped by a greedy toy collector, prompting the other toys to embark on a rescue mission. Aside from some clever allusions to the original and representing a clear continuation of the first film, the sequel also boasts a new and engaging plot, new environments, and some rather intelligent and logical character development.

 

The third film, which was released more than a decade later, was just as impressive, if not more so. The plot, which saw what was left of Andy’s toys imprisoned in the ironically named ‘Sunnyside’ daycare centre, was fresh and exciting, not to mention intense and emotional. The ending in particular tugged at the heartstrings, while the intensity of the incinerator scene was nothing less than overwhelming. But what is there to say about Toy Story 3 (2010) that hasn’t already been said? We all know the animation quality is outstanding, the voice acting is top notch, and the pacing is near-perfect. But is there anything bad? At a push, one might argue that it relies too heavily on the first two films for emotional impact. In addition, though this is merely a personal opinion, I felt that ‘the monkey’ should have been alluded to far earlier than he was in the film. But that’s just my being nitpicky. In truth, that’s all I have in terms of flaws. There’s no doubt about it. The Toy Story trilogy is one of the finest collections of films I’ve ever seen. Now that is how you make an animated sequel.

 

So there you have it, guys: three animated film franchises observed retrospectively, and none of them are especially bad. Perhaps we’re a little too critical of the sequel, claiming it to be devoid of originality, when it fact, more often than not, they serve a purpose. All the same, with the amount of follow-ups and trilogies we’re bombarded with nowadays, to view the sequel as an idle cash cow is nevertheless somewhat understandable. Regardless, as Toy Story has proven, the sequel has the potential to build on the foundations of the original, providing us with further character development, new environments, and engaging plots. In this respect, I fully approve of the sequel. Long may it, erm, continue, so to speak.