This film is complete: no sequel required

In response to The Daily Post’s writing prompt: “Missing Sequels.”

“If you could create a sequel to one favorite (standalone) movie, which would it be? How would it build on the original?”

I tend not to like sequels. Too often they are disappointing, or downright dismal. I don’t known that any of my favourite films is a sequel, or indeed has a sequel that I like. It is the same with books. Dune by Frank Herbert, for example, is a masterwork. Yet its five sequels plummet to the gutter.

A film, or book conceived in several parts, is a different thing. The Lord of the Rings, works since it was conceived effectively as one large book. Similarly, I am a fan of the Harry Potter series. Though my favourite is the first, and my least liked is the last.

A good film is crafted to stand alone. It is entire and complete. As such it neither needs, nor benefits from, continuance. It has said all that it needs too. And nothing more. No sequel is required.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s