How Sequels Ruin Stories; 10 mistakes you must avoid!

Devlin Blake Author

Explore how sequels can harm beloved stories. Discover 10 critical mistakes writers must avoid to preserve the essence/impact of the original story

Transcript: 

Hey there, novelteers! Welcome back

Let’s talk sequels. Have you ever noticed there are a LOT of bad sequels out there? And I mean a LOT.

And the fact of the matter is, I have a sequel sitting on my hard drive right now for a book I’ve already published.

And despite the fact I’ve already gotten it edited, and bought it a cover, I’ve decided to not publish it.

Why?

I’ll ruin the first book.

Some sequels will do that.

So what makes a sequel ruin the story that came before it, and is it inevitable that that will happen.

No, it’s not inevitable. And in this video, I’m going to show you the 10 mistakes that cause sequels to ruin their stories.

And when you’re writing, remember, sequel or not, to stick to the same writing structure. If you need a little help writing your book, you can download my free guide at the link below.

I’m going to start off by saying I have a lot of respect for Tim Burton, who, (with the exception of Batman, which isn’t his original property,) has never made a sequel.

His stories are perfect stand-alones that rise or fall on their own merits. He has a distinct style and certain elements that are present in every story, but his movies are not sequels to each other.

(Which is why I’m really hoping Beetlejuice 2 doesn’t get made)

Oh, and spoilers for the movies btw, but I’m guessing you knew that.

Mistake 1: Changing Genres

I admit, I’m a Jurassic park fan. Part of that is because I never actually grew out of my obsessed with dinosaur phases. I watch PBS eons for fun for gods sake.

But have you ever noticed that none of the Jurassic Park movies live up to the first one?

There’s a reason for that. It’s because every movie after the first one, switched genres. The original Jurassic Park movie was a disaster movie. The disaster in question just happened to be dinosaurs instead of a more natural disaster like a flood or an earthquake.

A disaster movie’s story stencil focuses on people more so than monsters, and can even evoke a sense of wonder, which the first movie did. It also focuses more on escape than defeating the big bad, because you can’t defeat a disaster, only survive it.

Every movie after that has been a cross between an action movie and a creature feature where the monsters go around eating as many people as possible and the heroes must stop them. There’s no real focus on the characters, no real attempt to escape, only defeat, and much like a slasher movie, you’re only watching to see monsters kill people.

And while it’s true these movies have been lucrative, they also haven’t been good. I know that you want to do more than just sell books, you want to leave a legacy where people talk about how great your books are for centuries to come.

Avoiding switching genes can help make that happen.

Mistake 2: Throwing Out The Rules Of The First One

Ahh, Ralph Breaks The Internet. I’m conflicted on this movie; it was everything the emoji movie wanted to be and failed at. As a stand alone movie, I find it cute and even clever in spots.

As a sequel, it’s an abomination, and here’s why.

It not only made the first movie worthless, it broke every rule the first movie set up. The number one rule in the Wreck It Ralph universe is no game jumping. Turbo game jumped in the first movie and that made him the villain.

Ralph game jumped in the first movie, and Felix was worried about their game getting turned off because of his absence.

At the end of the first movie, Vanellope had taken her rightful place as a major player and princess of the game. She was even on the outside of the console for pete’s sake.

Yet, in the second movie, her abandoning her game and jumping into another was not only encouraged, but celebrated as the right thing to do. Yes, they tried to downplay it by making her a background character and not one you could play, but even in universe that leads to problems.

One, Vanellope’s game now doesn’t have her any longer and will likely be unplugged. Two, She’s undoubtedly trademarked since she’s on the graphics for the game. So either the trademark owners will sue Slaughter Race for stealing their character, or in an effort to avoid that the game will either be unplugged or reset to factory settings, which will wipe her out either way.

This is a horrible outcome for a world that set up the rules so well in the first one.

Shame on Disney for this.

Mistake 3: Resetting The Status Quo

This can also be done by resetting the hero or even the events of the first story itself. Nothing’s worse than making everything the hero went through not matter.

And while Star Wars suffers from this a little, no matter how often the good guys win, fascism keeps rising up, that’s not egregious. I mean, it would be in real life, but in real life that actually happens. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

That’s not what I’m talking about here. I’m talking about stories that made the first story or stories worthless.

Sarah Connor in the Terminator franchise was always considered ‘the mother of the resistance’ for four movies. Not to mention she was one of the few women ‘badasses’ in movies at that time.

For four installments, we watched her grow, watched her learn. We watched her turn from a damsel in distress into a hardened warrior who was worthy to be the mother of the resistance. Someone who was capable of raising John Connor into the leader he was meant to be.

In Terminator Genisys, that all changed. She was back to being the damsel in distress not to give the audience the fun of watching her grow again, but in order to significantly change her character and downplay her involvement in order to make the men in the story look more badass.

Now forgetting the obvious misogyny at play here, this also made the first four movies not worth seeing since you’re now dealing with an alternate timeline that had nothing to do with them.

That is the opposite of how a sequel or a franchise should work. A good sequel has each story building on each other, it doesn't just throw out everything and start over.

Mistake 4: Thinking A Reboot Is The Same As A Sequel

Now, sometimes a story goes completely off the rails and thinks that a reboot is the same as a sequel.

It’s not.

Ghostbusters 2016 is a really great example of this. Forgetting for the fact that they genderswapped all the roles for no other reason than they felt like it, It didn’t hold up as any kind of valuable addition to the Ghostbusters franchise at all.

For starters, the original Ghostbusters films had a unique blend of science fiction, comedy, and supernatural elements that captured the imagination of audiences. However, this version failed to recreate the same magic and spirit. It lacked the nostalgic charm, tone, and overall execution that made the original films so beloved.

Another issue that affected the story was the weakness of the humor. In the original, the humor, which is a crucial aspect of the franchise, relied on character development, wittiness and innuendo. However, this one relied heavily on slapstick and crude jokes, most often at the expense of the well-crafted wit and comedic timing of the first two.

The lack of three dimensional characters was also an issue. Ray, Egon, Winston and Peter felt like actual three dimensional characters, real people. None of the women in the 2016 movie felt like anything other than a two dimensional stereotype.

But of course the main issue was this reboot basically ignored the continuity established in the original 1980s Ghostbusters. Instead, it offered a new universe where the events of the original films did not occur, which erased the established characters and their accomplishments, making the first two films worthless, which we’ve already discussed is the wrong thing to do if you want to keep your audience happy.

Personally, I have a theory as to why this movie flopped, and while it has to do with all of the above, it also really doesn’t.

You’ll notice it has nothing in common with the original movie, and that’s why it flopped. My theory, which I have no way of proving, is that it was never meant to be part of the Ghostbusters franchise and that it was always intended as a standalone movie.

It’s just too different from the franchise and doesn’t fit in. But somehow, someone somewhere thought this would be a good idea to rewrite a standalone movie into the franchise and force it to fit in where it really doesn’t.

And that’s why it’s so awful.

Don’t do that with your sequels.

Mistake 5: Remaking The First Movie

Home Alone is a Christmas Classic. Everyone loves it. You know what’s not as well loved? Home Alone 2; lost in New York.

Sure people might watch it for the nostalgia factor, but it’s not as good as the first one and here’s why…

It’s the same movie set in a different location.

Kevin learned nothing from the first movie except how to set better traps and become sneakier.

His family learned nothing from the first movie, and after leaving one of their kids behind for several days, you would think they’d have extra precautions in place for not letting that happen again, but nope.

If you’ve seen the first movie, you’ve seen this movie, and that’s exactly the problem. There’s nothing new or different about it. There’s no reason to watch it over the first one.

And that’s a problem that a lot of sequels have. In an effort to reclaim their lightning in a bottle, they tell the exact same story again.

Same characters. Same plot. No growth at all.

There’s no reason for your audience to be interested in that kind of story. It has no real payoff, nothing surprising, and very little funny about it, since funny often relies on subverting expectations and your reader has already seen these jokes.

For a sequel to be considered ‘good’ it has to rise above what the first movie was to be even better.

For a better example, let’s look at the Legend of Korra from Avatar the Last Airbender. True, it was NOT as good as the original. But it wasn’t bad either. It followed the same concept of an Avatar that needed to learn something, but the thing they needed to learn was entirely different.

Anng was a peacekeeper in a world that needed a fighter. For the sequel, they flipped that on its head, making Korra a fighter, in a world that needed a peacekeeper.

That’s how you do a sequel correctly. And we’re going to ignore the plot issues it had because that is part of good storytelling, like my guide explains in the link below. As a sequel concept, it was spot on.

Mistake 6: Not Evolving The Story

The hobbit trilogy did horribly when compared to the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. This is true even though the first trilogy was a huge commercial success and they brought back the same director for this one.

Now, I could mention budget issues, or the story being rushed as reasons for its failure, but even with twice the budget and twice the time, it was never going to live up to the original for one simple reason.

It’s not actually a sequel.

Because of the order that the movies came out, you’d be forgiven if you thought The Hobbit trilogy was a sequel to Lord of The Rings, but in reality, Lord of the Rings, book version, was a sequel to the Hobbit.

And as a book, Lord of the Rings did everything a good sequel should do. It brought back favorite characters, it expanded on the world without overexplaining. It raised the stakes in just the right way.

And that’s why The Hobbit flopped.

As a movie, it was always going to flop because Lord of the Rings expanded on the world of the Hobbit, not the other way around.

When done correctly, a good sequel will always build and expand on the existing world. A good sequel cannot be taken out of order and still make sense.

And this one didn’t. That’s why it failed. To see a sequel done right, read (don’t watch) The Hobbit BEFORE you read/watch Lord of The Rings.

Mistake 7: Randomness

I admit, I’m a Frozen fan. I even like the sequel. Unlike Ralph Breaks The Internet, I don’t have a love/hate relationship with it. I even appreciate that the writer's attempted to take it in a new direction by exploring a different narrative and expanding the mythology of the world.

However, this resulted in a sequel that felt disconnected from the first film. The introduction of new themes, tonal shifts, and underdeveloped character arcs contributed to a perception of randomness that really has no place in a sequel or any well written story.

For starters, Elsa was not the hero of the first movie; Anna was. It was her love that drove the action. The action in frozen 2 seemed to be driven more as a plot slave than by anything the characters did or did not do.

This brings up another point; which is the story didn’t know whose story it wanted to be. It seemed to be trying to give Anna and Elsa equal time, and that actually does not work. While a story can have multiple protagonists, (Game of Thrones) it can really only have one main character. The character arcs were underwhelming and even though I loved the song the next right thing, it didn't’ feel organic to the story, but rather shoehorned in.

And let’s talk about all those new characters. Likely, there will always be some new characters in a sequel. That’s how sequels work. But that doesn’t mean shoving the formerly main characters to the side, the way they did with Krstof and Sven in this movie.

After all, people WANT to see more of the characters and the chemistry they fell in love with; that’s why they bought a ticket. Failing to give that to them, the way this movie did, is setting your fans up for disappointment.

The tonal shifts throughout the story were also jarring. While both movies explored deeper themes like identity, self-discovery, and the consequences of past actions, this one took a more introspective and darker tone. This was quite different from the first story which balanced its heartfelt moments with humor and catchy musical numbers.

This tonal shift gave it a more emotional texture that felt disconnected from the lightheartedness of the first film. And while it didn’t technically change genres, it certainly felt like it did.

Mistake 8: Overexplaining

Ok, back to Star Wars. There’s just so many sequels to pick on. The ones I’m focusing on here are The Force Awakens, The Last Jedi, and The Rise of Skywalker. These movies made the unforgivable to fans mistake of attempting to dive deeper into the mechanics and origins of the Force, it had an unintended consequence of demystifying and diminishing its appeal.

The original trilogy established the Force as a central element of the Star Wars universe, but left much of its nature and origins to the imagination of the viewers. This air of mystery and ambiguity surrounding the Force played a significant role in capturing the imagination of audiences and becoming a defining aspect of the franchise.

Many fans felt the explanation was not only unnecessary but contradictory to the established lore. For example, the concept of Rey being born with a powerful affinity for the Force, without any clear lineage or training, diminished the significance of Anakin Skywalker's chosen-one prophecy and Luke Skywalker's journey of self-discovery and training.

These explanations seemed to disregard the established lore and character development, leaving some fans feeling disconnected from the franchise. Remember what I said earlier of making the hero’s journey worthless?

Additionally, by attempting to demystify the Force, the sequels inadvertently reduced its impact as a storytelling device. The sequels introduced new Force abilities that were previously unseen and seemed to stretch the limits of what the Force could do. While innovation and expansion can be positive, some fans felt that these additions were arbitrary and undermined the established rules of the Force, making it feel inconsistent and less believable.

In the end, the decision to explain and expand upon the Force in the Star Wars sequels was divisive among fans. While some appreciated the attempt to explore new aspects of the Force, many others felt that it detracted from the mystique and allure that had made the concept so captivating. The Force went from being an abstract and powerful energy that fueled the Star Wars universe to a set of mechanics that could be dissected and explained, which undermined the franchise's legacy and damaged the sense of wonder associated with it.

The Star Wars went from a soft science universe to a hard science one, and that actually has two different fan bases. Since their fan base up until this point was made up of soft science fans, (people more into magic pretending to be science,) they upset a large portion of their audience.

Pulling the rug out from under people like this is similar to switching genres.

Mistake 9: Planning For More Sequels

One of the main problems with sequels is that it’s never just one sequel. Sure, some movies/stories might only end up with one sequel (House, the second story comes to mind,) but once stories get to the sequel stage, one more sequel is never simply ‘the plan’.

The plan at this point is to launch a franchise which means many many more sequels. This leads to cliffhangers both in the plot, and sometimes even at the ending. It also means the sequel can’t stand on its own as it’s trying to be part of a bigger universe.

Matrix Reloaded comes to mind when I’m talking about this. And yes, I know that movie has had many sequels, but none of them have actually been good. They simply rely on the nostalgia factor to pack people in the theaters, and this doesn’t work for books.

It barely works for movies.

"The Matrix Reloaded" introduced numerous new characters, storylines, and concepts, but failed to provide satisfactory resolutions or meaningful progression for many of them. The film ended with multiple unresolved plotlines, such as the fate of certain characters and the overall outcome of the war against the machines. While cliffhangers can generate intrigue, the sequel left too many loose ends without providing adequate closure, which frustrated audiences who expected real resolutions.

It focused too much on expanding the mythology and introducing new concepts, leaving little room for significant character development or coherent storytelling. As a result, it relied too heavily on viewers' investment in the first film, failing to provide enough substance to stand alone as an engaging and complete story.

Star Wars: Episode V -The Empire Strikes Back actually suffers from the same issue, but since that one was always meant to be one half of a whole, it’s a little more forgivable. However, if Return of The Jedi never got made, that story would be horrible on it’s own. After all, the villain wins, which makes the triumph of the first movie, worthless, (which I’ve already covered.)

Your sequel needs to be a coherent and successful story on its own, even if your audience has never read the first one, or even if they never read the next one.

Mistake 10: Waiting Too Long To Release A Sequel

This technique is something movies can get away with and books can’t.

Ok, who am I kidding? Movies barely get away with it.

They’re thinking of making a sequel to Beetlejuice now, nearly over 30 years after the original.

And if they do, it’s simply not going to work for several reasons.

One, even if you get Tim Burton to direct it again (remember how I said Batman was the only sequel he’s ever done?) he’s not the same person, or director now, that he was back then. So it’s doubtful the full flavor of the original can ever be recaptured.

Two. Back when Beetlejuice first came out, it was new, it was different; no one had ever seen anything like it before.

Today, that’s simply true. It’s been an animated TV series, it’s been a comic, it’s been fanfiction, it’s been merchandise, it’s been knocked off, it’s even been a Broadway show.

Not to mention it’s been parodied and copied for well over 30 years at this point.

Everything that made it new and different is simply not new and different any more.

So the sequel will never be able to captivate audiences and leave a lasting mark on the culture the way the first one did.

And books are even worse at recapturing their magic, because while movies can rely on expensive special effects, books can only rely on the power of their words and characters, and that doesn’t change much from one generation to the next.

For another example, look at ‘And Just Like That’ the sequel series to Sex in The City. When the original first came out, it was empowering because there was nothing else like it. But we as a society have evolved from that time period and its attitudes. So now, not only is it NOT empowering, it actually feels uncomfortable and rather disempowering.

If you’re going to do a sequel to your story, which I don't recommend because most sequels aren’t good, (And stories meant to span several installments like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings, are not sequels, they’re ologies.) you need to release it fast enough that its core concepts haven't’ soaked into the culture yet while still staying true to your original story and its magic.

Download your FREE guide now

Step-By-Step Plan Your Best Selling Novel in One Hour (or less) 

… so you’re Amazon 'hit-publish' ready

DOWNLOAD FOR FREE

Categories: : storycrafting