One Too Many

Sequels seem to blossom like daffodils in spring. Yet, they are often deeply disappointing - why?

Lady Gaga and Joaquin Phoenix in Joker: Folies à deux, available via Vanity Fair © All rights belong to their respective owners. No copyright infringement intended.

"I guess we have to watch Joker: Folies à deux because Lady Gaga is in it," my friend texted me when the film came out. To which I replied, "Obviously." Lady Gaga was the sole reason I agreed to watch this sequel. I dislike musicals and was convinced Joker didn’t need a follow-up. Spoiler alert: I was right. The scenario is shallow, and revisiting Arthur’s character manages to strip away all the ambiguity and intimacy that made the first film so captivating. Making it into a musical was somewhat bold, but feels more like a poor attempt to stand out.

If you didn’t get it by now, I disliked this sequel. Which made me wonder - why do sequels so often fail to capture the magic of their originals?

Part of the answer lies in why these films get made in the first place. Hollywood’s habit of capitalizing on the success of standalone films by greenlighting sequels explains itself by money. Cinema, like every other industry, is first and foremost seeking profit. And sequels are the goose that keeps laying golden eggs. In 2024, the top 10 highest-grossing films at the domestic box office were all sequels, reboots, and remakes. To give you an idea, Dune: Part Two engrossed 282 million and Inside Out 2 no less than 652 million! Sequels usually out-earn their originals, proving that nostalgia sells. But sequels often disappoint the audience, so much so that Rolling Stone made a list of the most disappointing sequels of all time. When going through the list, one can notice the most common pitfalls restraining sequels from living up to the original film: repetition and disconnection with the audience.

Let’s start with repetition. An important feature of successful films is innovation. When Jaws (Spielberg, 1975) was released, the public was fascinated by the film’s use of suspense, suggesting the shark’s presence with a minimalist musical theme. Hence, sequels struggle to generate this innovative aspect because they’re built on something existing. In Gladiator II, the scenario is the same as in the original film: the hero finds himself in slavery, fights as a gladiator, and tries to achieve the noble task of freeing Rome from evil emperors. The only major change is temporality, as it’s set a few decades later. In Home Alone 2, the story is the same as in the first one, but this time, the location has changed from Chicago to New York. These recycled narratives don’t offer innovation; instead, they remind the audience that ‘this has been done already’.

Paul Mescal in Gladiator II, available via Vogue © All rights belong to their respective owners. No copyright infringement intended.

When repetition isn’t the problem, disconnection with the audience might be. An aging or changing cast often disappoints audiences, as happened with Grease 2, which had an almost entirely new cast, and an impressively low score of 36% on Rotten Tomatoes. In other cases, audiences might have simply moved on. Being released 16 years and 18 years after its predecessors, The Godfather Part III didn’t captivate the audiences. After almost two decades, the film appeared as old fashioned; it wasn’t what the public craved anymore. Directors, too, can lose touch with the original film’s fanbase. When a sequel misses the element that grasped the public in the first place, the result is disappointing. In Joker: Folies à deux, the scenario revolves around Arthur’s trial, focusing more on the court than on the psychological aspects of the character, which mesmerized the public in the original film.

Some stories just aren’t built to sustain sequels. Joker was one of them. Forcing a continuation not only feels unnecessary but also reveals Hollywood’s willingness to prioritize profit over artistry. And let’s not even get started on reboots and remakes (cough Wicked cough). Yet, despite my grumbling, I don’t regret seeing Joker: Folie à Deux. Why? Because I love hating films. This one handed me a golden opportunity to do so.