Why are sequels typically darker than the original?

[flawed_ethics]

I'm writing my sequel, and something that's been troubling me (or troubling my characters, at least) is that the plotline is much bleaker than it was before. The situation is only six months removed formy characters, and I guess if you really look at it, the new conflict isn't any more daunting than the first was. It just seems that way. Things in the world seem darker for them than they did the first time around.

Which got me thinking - is this generally true of sequels? LOTR is a much more grave situation than the Hobbit. Even in movies, sequels come off as darker - Back to the Future 2 had more disturbing elements for McFly than the original did.

There's other mediums where this trend seems apparent, but I'll save my breath. Why is this? Are we, as authors, not content to rehash the same conflict and resoultion, and therefore act to complicate our characters lives? Are we challenging ourselves, seeing how troubling we can make the world we've created, and whether it will survive the stress we impose upon it?

Or am I just full of it? Either way, sound off if you have something to contribute - I'm curious to see what others think.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Funny. I'm in the middle of a similar thing and it's six months removed from the first as well. Mine keeps going the route of trouble also, but as the first was the beginning it just seems natural that problems down the road should crop up. Still, it makes one wonder if the audience will be as understanding. No matter, the bliss of a new relationship must ebb and flow as all other things so I'd say it's probably natural.

good luck.

~lucky

 

[kellycummings]

A good sequel needs to up the ante and many times the only way to do that is to put the characters in situations that are more dire. It isn't always the case but as you pointed out, it seems to be the norm. Sometimes darker is better though. The Empire Strikes Back is a good example. Also, some of my favorite books are the "Prey" series by John Sandford and a couple of those are sequels to previous entries and each time the second is darker and for the most part, better. Just my opinion.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I don't think my sequels are any darker than th originals. In most cases a sequel will seem darker because you are pushing to make this story "as good as the first" and often times in your own mind it isn't so you stretch and a darker element adds more drama.

I think a lot of times sequels are darker because the author over writes. I think this is also why many squels suck big hairy moose c***. The Empire strkes back and indianna jones and the temple of Doom jump to my mind. I can think of precious few movies where the sequel was even on par with the original, the Godfather being a notable exception.

Interestingly the sequel's sequel is usually very good. I think that's a case of the author ralizing how badly they forced part two to try to make it "all that with sprinkles" and just get back to writing a solid story without reaching.

-Colly

 

[kellycummings]

I think a lot of times sequels are darker because the author over writes. I think this is also why many squels suck big hairy moose c***. The Empire strkes back and indianna jones and the temple of Doom jump to my mind.

-Colly [/B]

Oh, come on now! The Empire Strikes Back was much better than Star Wars. I'll agree with Indiana Jones though, the second one did sorta suck but they got back on track with the third one. Also agree with Godfather 2, it's always been one of my all time faves.
I think it's easier with books, although it's not done nearly as often. An author can take their time with a book to make sure it's good. Harry Potter is a good example. They have gotten continually better. Ok, maybe the fourth one wasn't as good as the others but it didn't suck.

 

[shereads]

LOTR was never really intended as a sequel to The Hobbit, which was not a favorite book of Tolkien's but an amusement for his children and his publisher. I don't think the "sequels" concept really applies here, either for LOTR as a Hobbit sequel or for the second and third books/films as sequels to the first. The story was always concieved as one tale that grows progressively darker, reflecting the lost innocence of Tolkien's generation of young men. He had lost many friends in WWI but was most deeply affected by the war's effect on those who returned home - Frodo, disillusioned, burdened with secret guilt; unable to enjoy a world he has saved for others. Return of the King is a sequel only because nobody would have sat through a 10 hour film.

A similar light-to-dark progression takes place in a single volume, T.H. White's King Arthur story, "The Once and Future King." The first quarter of the book has all the fun and magic of a children's story, complete with talking animals and animated teapots - in fact, Disney made a children's animated film of the first part of the book, "The Sword In the Stone." But in the book, the innocence ends when Arthur's childhood ends. Not only does the mood of the story darken, chapter by chapter, but the presence of magic - in the person of the wizard Merlin - disappears bit by bit. Until, by the end of the story, when Arthur is old and alone and faced with the prospect of killing or being killed by his own son, there are only his nostalgic memories of his mentor and the magic he was shown in childhood.

In the final pages, when King Arthur meets a young page boy who reminds him of his childhood self - and orders him to abandon the battlefield and tell the world what he knew of those who are destined to die the next day - the reintroduction of innocence and naivete is such a welcome relief, the reader is able to share the old man's hope for a brighter future that he will never see. It's a more accessible book than LOTR, but it's effective for the same reason: like life, innocence is lost in steps, and inevitably. And in the end, there are no magic answers but only an offer of hope.

When you speak of sequels, I think of writers and film-mkaers taking advantage of the success of the original by coming up with something that wasn't part of the original story. I can think of only two cases of a sequel actually improving on the original - Aliens was a better movie than Alien; after that, the series went into exploitation mode; and the Godfather series, which never seemed to lose its lustre.

More often, though, I think sequels do a disservice to the original story. It happens more often in a series of films, because different directors and producers get involved and try to top each other, or simply don't have the pride of authorship that made the original so satisfying.

They may tend to get darker because it's difficult to keep up the suspense when a story has already had a satisfying ending. But just as often, sequels aren't darker but simply emptier of meaning. If you've never seen the original, low-budget "Rocky," you might have as much contempt for the over-exploited series as I do. Stallone as an unknown independent film-maker - before he found out he was Sylvester Stallone, Auteur, Thespian & Action Hero - created a sleeper film with the help of some friends that was one of the most touching and surprising little movies I've ever seen. I'm not a boxing fan, but you didn't need to be one to love Rocky. The ending was just as it should be: Rocky loses in every way except the one that matters most to him; his dignity is redeemed and winning the title doesn't matter. Every Rocky film after that was an insult to the original, a denial of its premise. The "prequels" to the original Star Wars trilogy are an inexcusable sellout - The originals had ironic humor; the second group of films is so busy pandering to 12-year-old boys and trying to market products that all the charm of the originals is forgotten. I know they made money, and i can only assume that George Lucas needed money badly enough that he didn't care how trite the films were as long as the merchandising worked.

Question: When you Lit authors write sequels, what is your motive? Are you and/or your readers so attached to the characters that you feel compelled to find a new story for them? Or do you make sequels only when you feel the first story was incomplete? Do you write - and end - a story with the intent of turning it into a series, or does that decision usually come later?

 

[shereads]

many sequels suck big hairy moose c***.

That's what I was trying to say about Rocky II through Rocky XIIIVI, but I didn't want to plagiarize you where you can see me do it.

 

[Weird Harold]

I'm writing my sequel, and something that's been troubling me (or troubling my characters, at least) is that the plotline is much bleaker than it was before. The situation is only six months removed formy characters, and I guess if you really look at it, the new conflict isn't any more daunting than the first was. It just seems that way. Things in the world seem darker for them than they did the first time around.

It sounds very much like you're writing the middle part of a trilogy.

The middle part of a trilogy is often the most down-beat part of the story because the setup is done in the first volume, and the happy ending has to be saved for the third.

 

[kellycummings]

A similar light-to-dark progression takes place in a single volume, T.H. White's King Arthur story, "The Once and Future King."

I love that book!

and the Godfather series, which never seemed to lose its lustre.

two words: Part Three; one more word: sucked


The "prequels" to the original Star Wars trilogy are an inexcusable sellout - The originals had ironic humor; the second group of films is so busy pandering to 12-year-old boys and trying to market products that all the charm of the originals is forgotten.

I agree with this but also have to defend Lucas who said from the beginning that he was making the movies for '12 year old boys', his words. He also said that they were never meant to help 30somethings relive their childhood.

I really need to find a hobby. LOL
[/B]

 

[shereads]

I was old enough during the first Star Wars series to appreciate the best bit of dialogue in the trilogy:

Harrison Ford is about to be flash-frozen and possibly killed by a giant evil slug-thing, and his verbal sparring partner, Carrie Fisher, says the words every woman in the theater has been waiting for:

"I love you!"

And he answers, "I know!"

 

[kellycummings]

I was old enough during the first Star Wars series to appreciate the best bit of dialogue in the trilogy:

Harrison Ford is about to be flash-frozen and possibly killed by a giant evil slug-thing, and his verbal sparring partner, Carrie Fisher, says the words every woman in the theater has been waiting for:

"I love you!"

And he answers, "I know!"

Ya know, whenever I see something in print or on tv that deals with movie dialogue, that line is almost always mentioned. A true classic.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Question: When you Lit authors write sequels, what is your motive?Are you and/or your readers so attached to the characters that you feel compelled to find a new story for them?

I'm motivated by both, I think. A few readers planted the seed, but I probably would've continued the saga at some point in time, anyway. Fun characters almost demand to live on, versus being left to die at story's end.

Or do you make sequels only when you feel the first story was incomplete? Do you write - and end - a story with the intent of turning it into a series, or does that decision usually come later?

I don't think the first story was incomplete, but compelling characters motivated a desire for more of their story to be told. Sequel is probably not the best way to look at it when writing, as I've recently learned. To live up to or repeat such a thing only comes off as trite and is, as you mentioned, normally a total failure. Having said that, I'm openly admitting this contradicts my next point entirely.

As far as stories in series: I think I'd rather know ahead of time that several stories exist in my mind...if for no other purpose than to be able to drop little hooks and hints about future dealings. Attempting a continuation where one wasn't previously designed is a bit of a nag.

~lucky (not the authority on this sort of thing...where's Doc when you need him?)

 

[shereads]

When a series has been planned as a series, the first chapter often leaves us frustrated. I typically hate cliffhanger endings, because dammit I want to know NOW what happens. Cliffhangers work, of course, but it's nice to have a satisfying ending for each part of the series - that's what I liked about the first two Alien films. I have no idea whether "Alien" was planned as the first of a series, but the original ending with the best of both worlds: fully satisfying on its own - hell, you're exhausted by the end and so grateful that Ripley and the cat finallly get to take a nap - but there are so many wicked possibilities for their future that the second film was welcome. (I was convinced after the first movie that the kitty cat had the alien in its tummy - there was a hint earlier on that the monster had cornered the cat when it was trapped in its cage, which didn't bode well for poor Ripley and the cat nap).

After the second film, they stooped to gimmicks like bringing Ripley back from the dead; shaving her head; anything new that might bring a few die-hards back to the theater.

Number three was so boring, we left halfway into it. Never saw the fourth, but I heard it was a big hairy moose cola, like CT said.

 

[kellycummings]

Number three was so boring, we left halfway into it. Never saw the fourth, but I heard it was a big hairy moose cola, like CT said. [/B]

I'm a huge fan of the Alien films and agree with you about the first two. I sorta liked the third. More the idea of it anyway. It had a good premise but didn't quite work. If you look into it you'll find that the director was seriously pissed at the studio because they apparently forced him to make a different movie than he had in mind.
What you heard about the fourth is true. Big giant hairy moose c***.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

I don't much care for unsolved stories either. I meant hooks more as tiny tempts and foreshadowing pertaining to future happenings. Being able to plan that sort of thing has a great deal of merit.

As for shaved heads and rising from the dead...please, promise me if my stories ever stoop to such things you'll slap me silly. And be sure to throw in a word or two about how the story sucked big hairy moose cola.

I'd really appreciate it.

~lucky

 

[lucky-E-leven]

I was convinced after the first movie that the kitty cat had the alien in its tummy - there was a hint earlier on that the monster had cornered the cat when it was trapped in its cage, which didn't bode well for poor Ripley and the cat nap.

Was this the reason you went back to see the second?

~lucky

 

[kellycummings]

As for shaved heads and rising from the dead...please, promise me if my stories ever stoop to such things you'll slap me silly. And be sure to throw in a word or two about how the story sucked big hairy moose cola.

~lucky [/B]

Is it ok if we shave below the neck?

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Is it ok if we shave below the neck?

At first, I laughed out loud. Then some really bad memories came to me about when I used to work in retail selling lingerie. Just so happened it was a military town and thus full of European women that soldiers had married and brought home. No problems here, except that when fitting a woman for a bra it is necessary to be extremely close to her and...

Yes, please do shave below the neck. Everything one can see when being fit for a bra, at the very least. Please. It is not only a service to your SO, but those poor peons who must wrap a measuring tape around you with your arms raised.

~lucky (bound to have nightmares now )

 

[kellycummings]

At first, I laughed out loud. Then some really bad memories came to me about when I used to work in retail selling lingerie. Just so happened it was a military town and thus full of European women that soldiers had married and brought home. No problems here, except that when fitting a woman for a bra it is necessary to be extremely close to her and...

Yes, please do shave below the neck. Everything one can see when being fit for a bra, at the very least. Please. It is not only a service to your SO, but those poor peons who must wrap a measuring tape around you with your arms raised.

~lucky (bound to have nightmares now )

Speaking of hairy pits.....

Does anyone remember when Madonna had those pictures in Playboy and Penthouse many, many years ago?
I remember all the guys drooling until they actually saw the pics.

I know that in many cultures women don't shave and that's fine, their choice, but I just can't understand it.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Speaking of hairy pits.....

Does anyone remember when Madonna had those pictures in Playboy and Penthouse many, many years ago?
I remember all the guys drooling until they actually saw the pics.

I know that in many cultures women don't shave and that's fine, their choice, but I just can't understand it.

I never saw them, but the image is a little humorous right now. Damn this imagination.

I suppose I don't mind the non-shaving so much, but it is definitely not for me. It just seemed really unsanitary to me at the time, and truthfully it still turns me off.

It was explained to me once, by a Russian friend, that the reason for not shaving was due to the cold and I guess I can understand that for your legs, but I have never once suffered from frozen pits. Probably just me, though. Usually is.

~lucky

 

[snooper]

Why are sequels typically darker than the original?

New toner in the printer? Just a thought.

 

[shereads]

Was this the reason you went back to see the second?

~lucky

No. I saw it because my future ex husband wanted to.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

In some sequels you can actually see the writer(s) getting sick of the characters. That could be part of it.

---dr.M.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Sher wrote:

Question: When you Lit authors write sequels, what is your motive? Are you and/or your readers so attached to the characters that you feel compelled to find a new story for them? Or do you make sequels only when you feel the first story was incomplete? Do you write - and end - a story with the intent of turning it into a series, or does that decision usually come later?

For me writing a second story is almost always a matter of the people who regularly read my work and send feedback asking for more of the characters. My original story, One Night at the Jefferson was titled one night, it was a discreet idea, carried as far as the person it was written for wanted and had she not brow beaten me into posting it, it would have been not only all of the story, but most likely an end to my writing as I did it for her enjoyment alone, with no thought of writing more.

I got tons of feedback on it and many people asking to know more about the characters, so I wrote a part two and haven't really stopped writing since. I did learn something from that. I now strive to end any story with a happy ending, but I also try to leave it open to another chapter in the lives of the characters if there is a lot of interest. Some stories, however are told, and I would not try a sequel for love nor money. Simply because the characters have stopped speaking to me, they have told thier tale and there is no more. Irish Eyes is a perfect example of a story that is left open, seems to be just an introduction to the characters, but will never see more. The characters had their say, and have ceased to speak to me. And that is always my final arbiter. If they are done, then I am done. As wierdly metaphysical as that sounds.


-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

In some sequels you can actually see the writer(s) getting sick of the characters. That could be part of it.

---dr.M.

Sir Auther Conan Doyle grew to absolutely hate his most famous creation, Sherlock Holmes. I read an interview with someone who said the man literally cackeled with Glee when the story where he offed Holmes went to print.

You can grow weary of characters. it seems to me a vry interesting and little discussed phenomena that the writer, who has absolute control of the character and world, quite often grows tired of the character where the readers still adore him.

I know for me writing a story with charactrs I am weary of becomes drudgery rather than ecstacy. Interestingly, i think I could write about some of my characters for a long time before getting tired of them, but the characters that is most tru of are those who live in a world of my creation. Be it fantasy, drk future or sci fi. I guess expanding the world through their adventures keps it fresh.

-Colly