I've used this exact analogy with friends before also using the Beatles as an example and I usually add the provision that Paul McCartney makes a guest appearance on the first album to "legitimize" the new effort. Of course we would never accept it as a true Beatles album since the whole band as well as George Martin and his engineers are no longer involved.
Take books as another example. Would we accept a sequel to Lord of the Rings written by anyone other than JRR Tolkien? I certainly wouldn't. Or sequels to any Stephen King novel not written by him?
So if we wouldn't accept it from the music world, and we wouldn't accept it in the book world, why are we okay with it in cinema and television? Do the same standards not apply? Has there been a sequel where it did work? I'm asking this as an open question, not simply a rhetorical one.
You know, when the ancient Greeks would put on plays, they went out of their way to let people know it was a play. Their theater was fully intended to be a farce of life—they didn’t want their audiences blurring the lines. While I don’t think we should take the same approach they did, I understand the sentiment. So many people get so invested in fiction and fantasy that they forget what it is—entertainment. That’s, to me at least, why some people allow the additions to Star Wars. They’re too invested in this other galaxy, in the brand of Star Wars, that they don’t allow themselves to step back and just appreciate them—or critique them—for what they are. I mean, I think this site is better off than a subreddit dedicated to Star Wars, because this site is mostly based around the props, costumes, and models of movies. Most here at least understand part of the making of that goes on behind the scenes, pulling back the curtain to see the wizard pulling levers.
For me, I appreciate good stories, and good storytelling. It’s why I love the OT. I don’t love Star Wars because I grew up with it. I’ve said it before—I was in the target audience of the prequels. When I was a kid, Revenge of the Sith was probably my favorite SW film, and Empire my least. Nowadays, as I have grown and matured and learned more and learned how to appreciate storytelling, my opinion has totally flipped. The OT were simple, mostly grounded stories told well, with passion put into the groundbreaking effects and production design. It’s why I’ve become less and less interested in “Star Wars” content through the past few months, starting with TROS. Nothing about that…product…appealed to me. Not only did I think the story was poorly told, I thought the concepts themselves were bad, and clearly came from non-creative places. They were born of the desperation of a company that spent $4 billion on a property they don’t understand, with a deeply divided fan base. But there are others that set different standards, that have different expectations of movies. Some are content to merely escape for a few hours, and not think too hard. I’d say power to them, except we no longer live in an age where I find that acceptable. Nowadays, with nostalgia being the big selling point, and with its biggest proponent becoming more and more of a monopoly every day, they have the power to put out lower and lower quality stuff. They don’t need to exert themselves. They don’t need to take risks. They can just string together some half-baked action, some glossy CGI, and a threadbare Alex Kurzman-level script, and as long as it has some things that people recognize, or bears the name of a popular franchise, it’ll get a free pass from a larger and larger audience. Once upon a time, I’d say fine. Enjoy your Michael Bay Transformers movies. But when that level of cavalier-filmmaking becomes the norm in Hollywood, when this risk-averse, nostalgia bait, low passion content gets continually pumped out with fewer and fewer options like those films from before that really stood out and stand the test of time? I get bummed. And I’ve been called a gatekeeper and a snob for saying “the prequels are bad” and “how do I know what’s even good” and “what makes a good film is subjective”. I’d disagree. What makes a film personally entertaining or appealing is subjective. But when something is made well, when it has passion and effort and hard work put into it—it’s good. I don’t have to watch
The Shining to know it’s not my cup of tea. That doesn’t mean I don’t acknowledge the artwork behind it. So some people (a lot, apparently) enjoyed TROS. That doesn’t make it a good movie (or even, you know, deserving of being called a movie). It just means they enjoyed it.
. James Bond is definitely one where it has worked with different actors, directors, writers.
