Duologies
08-03-2009, 04:31 PM
More often than not, if a film is popular, there will be demand for sequels. Many times it will get two sequels and stop there, sometimes sequels are never made despite the demand... And honestly, on rare occasions a film will get one sequel and stop...
Duologies are a rare occurance in horror as well as film in general, because more often than not a film will either fade to some point or become a franchise to some extent. Plotwise a film usually either wrap itself up in the first movie or wait until about 3 films to have a real "conclusion" (If there is a for-sure conclusion in horror at all
). Film-series with only 2 films in them can be made for a few reasons;
Predator, for instance, had Predator 2 and stopped until it's crossover with Alien. The reason for this could have been creative drought, but was more likely brought on by lack of success from the sequel. A lack of success could have easily led to the belief that further films could not top the original, especially when they had the same basic premise (So also a consequence of creative drought).
Along the same lines of creative drought or even creative unwillingess (Or general inability) to continue a story, a duology can consist of the second film being a prequel. Prequel duologies have been done at least twice, both in recent times; The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake and Vacancy are the examples that immediately come to mind, though they are likely not the only ones.
Then, branching out from the "lack of success" idea there is sometimes the case of a sequel that is seemingly made in the hopes of making up for lost funds from the original film. I would imagine these are usually made to supplement high-concept-low-gross movies (Happily Ne'ever After 2, Superbabies...), but horror has a good few sequels that seem to fall into this category as well: Think Pumpkinhead, which was a commercial failure due to release delays, or House of the Dead. In some ways these can even help the original film in the mind of the public, for instance Pumpkinhead became a new classic horror creature, and House of the Dead 2 is often thought superior to it's predecessor.
Some sequels are simply made to cash in whether the originals had success or not, sequels that are made to get extra cash instead of make up for lost money. It seems to me Stephen King films are very prone to becoming duologies despite him seemingly having nothing to do with the sequels; Carrie 2, Pet Sematary 2, Return to Salem's Lot, and even Lawnmower Man 2 (Even though it only shares a title with the King sotry) have been made from successful Stephen King stories, to limited success of their own. Another example is Wes Craven's The Hills Have Eyes 2, which though he himself directed it, Wes Craven said was made only for the money.
Perhaps the base and most common "duology occurence" is simply when after a successful original and a sequel being written, a film is meant to be a trilogy, but due to insufficient drive on someone's part for a third film, we are left with a cliffhanger. Judging by their endings, this seems to be the case with The Dentist, Cabin by the Lake, and Fright Night. These films despite being fairly well done (And not exactly made to make big bucks to start with), are wide open for third installments that to this day have just never happened. Sometimes this can tie into creative drought or lack of success, and if and when long-awaited sequels are finally made they are sadly lackluster (think Beyond Re-Animator, Mother of Tears or Creepshow 3). Sometimes this even has to do with the death of a cast member (RIGET is the big example, and the Dr. Phibes series also applies IMO), which is perhaps the worst case scenario.
What do you guys think of duologies? Do you have any favorites? Maybe theories of your own as to why some film-series close at such a little-used stopping point?
Duologies are a rare occurance in horror as well as film in general, because more often than not a film will either fade to some point or become a franchise to some extent. Plotwise a film usually either wrap itself up in the first movie or wait until about 3 films to have a real "conclusion" (If there is a for-sure conclusion in horror at all
). Film-series with only 2 films in them can be made for a few reasons;Predator, for instance, had Predator 2 and stopped until it's crossover with Alien. The reason for this could have been creative drought, but was more likely brought on by lack of success from the sequel. A lack of success could have easily led to the belief that further films could not top the original, especially when they had the same basic premise (So also a consequence of creative drought).
Along the same lines of creative drought or even creative unwillingess (Or general inability) to continue a story, a duology can consist of the second film being a prequel. Prequel duologies have been done at least twice, both in recent times; The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake and Vacancy are the examples that immediately come to mind, though they are likely not the only ones.
Then, branching out from the "lack of success" idea there is sometimes the case of a sequel that is seemingly made in the hopes of making up for lost funds from the original film. I would imagine these are usually made to supplement high-concept-low-gross movies (Happily Ne'ever After 2, Superbabies...), but horror has a good few sequels that seem to fall into this category as well: Think Pumpkinhead, which was a commercial failure due to release delays, or House of the Dead. In some ways these can even help the original film in the mind of the public, for instance Pumpkinhead became a new classic horror creature, and House of the Dead 2 is often thought superior to it's predecessor.
Some sequels are simply made to cash in whether the originals had success or not, sequels that are made to get extra cash instead of make up for lost money. It seems to me Stephen King films are very prone to becoming duologies despite him seemingly having nothing to do with the sequels; Carrie 2, Pet Sematary 2, Return to Salem's Lot, and even Lawnmower Man 2 (Even though it only shares a title with the King sotry) have been made from successful Stephen King stories, to limited success of their own. Another example is Wes Craven's The Hills Have Eyes 2, which though he himself directed it, Wes Craven said was made only for the money.
Perhaps the base and most common "duology occurence" is simply when after a successful original and a sequel being written, a film is meant to be a trilogy, but due to insufficient drive on someone's part for a third film, we are left with a cliffhanger. Judging by their endings, this seems to be the case with The Dentist, Cabin by the Lake, and Fright Night. These films despite being fairly well done (And not exactly made to make big bucks to start with), are wide open for third installments that to this day have just never happened. Sometimes this can tie into creative drought or lack of success, and if and when long-awaited sequels are finally made they are sadly lackluster (think Beyond Re-Animator, Mother of Tears or Creepshow 3). Sometimes this even has to do with the death of a cast member (RIGET is the big example, and the Dr. Phibes series also applies IMO), which is perhaps the worst case scenario.
What do you guys think of duologies? Do you have any favorites? Maybe theories of your own as to why some film-series close at such a little-used stopping point?
âThe Fright Night remake is a film which taps into the audienceâs deepest rooted fears, such as those of vampires throwing motorcycles at them. I dread the thought of a vampire throwing a refrigerator or a deskjet printer or... Iâd better stop before I give myself nightmaresâ
![[-]](http://talkhorror.com/boards/themes/dim/collapse.png)
