"I Can't Believe This is Happening Again!"

In my recent journeys around the Internet, I have noticed an interesting comparison taking place between one film that is about to be released and another which was released all the way back in 1992. I am talking, of course, about The Hangover: Part II and Home Alone 2: Lost in New York. Of course, this is not the most favorable of comparisons for Todd Phillips’ latest film. Home Alone 2 is not remembered for its originality. It’s remembered for taking the entire plot of the first film and re-hashing it beat-by-beat; only this time in New York City rather than suburban Chicago. While I have yet to see The Hangover: Part II, everything seems to indicate that Todd Phillips and company have chosen a similarly redundant path. Instead of placing the characters in a new, interesting situation, they seem to have taken the script of the original and only changed a few nouns. For instance, Las Vegas becomes Bangkok, baby becomes monkey, and missing tooth becomes face tattoo.

What makes these films so problematic is that the audience is supposed to accept that the characters are likely to make the same stupid mistakes twice. I don’t know about you, but if I ever got blackout drunk in Las Vegas—so much so that I lost my best friend, married a prostitute and angered an Asian gangster—I might make a point of never drinking again. Doesn’t quite seem worth it at that point. Likewise, had I ever gone on vacation and left my son at home, I would never let him out of my sight again. No one is dumb enough to fall into these traps twice.

Despite all this, I have some sympathy for the writers of these movies. The Hangover and Home Alone are not films meant to spark franchises. They were one-and-done deals; the sequels only became attractive once the cash started rolling in. When sitting down to write a sequel to movies like that, you’ll be hard pressed to think of anything that takes the story in Dark Knight-like directions. It’s awfully hard to expand these characters when there really isn’t all that much to them in the first place. These films are more or less betting on the audience’s willingness to go on the exact same ride again. Sometimes this works. When you go to a theme park, you go on your favorite roller coaster or thrill ride a few times; not just once. You may know what’s coming, but you love every second of it.

How have we gotten to this point where otherwise unnecessary sequels have become commonplace? I believe it began back in the ’70s, when Steven Spielberg refused to make a sequel to Jaws, saying that “making a sequel to anything is just a cheap carny trick.” (Obviously, he’d change his mind on these matters down the road.) Yet the studio soldiered on without him anyway, and the result was the Jeannot Swarc-directed Jaws 2. This is one of the earliest examples of a sequel which merely seeks to replicate the original while adding nothing new. In this film, Chief Brody once again insists that there are shark attacks occurring off the coast of Amity Island. Yet once again the people in charge of the town refuse to listen to him. Then once again Chief Brody must set out to sea to kill the evil beast. However, Jaws 2 ended up being not all that bad; particularly when compared to the abominations that are Jaws 3 and Jaws: The Revenge. Both of those films could be subjects of future Adventures in Atrocity posts.

While movies like Home Alone 2 and (presumably) The Hangover: Part II hope to be redundant without anybody noticing, some sequels have attempted to comment on their own uselessness. One example of this is Robert Zemeckis’ Back to the Future Part II. Here is a film which intentionally follows the plot of the original almost beat-by-beat. Several scenes are clearly meant to mirror sequences from the first film, and often the dialogue is nearly identical. Through this intentional repetition, Back to the Future Part II becomes something of a clever meta-commentary on the entire ridiculous notion of sequels. As it simply repeats its own predecessor, it comments on the fact that nothing could ever be as good as what had come before. The film has its weak points—it occasionally drifts into dark and unpleasant territory—but it’s far smarter than a lot of people give it credit for. The Scream series also accomplished this, though the more “meta” material eventually became the least interesting part of those films.

These days, it seems like a lot of sequels are able to improve on their predecessors rather than detract from them. This has proven to be particularly true in the world of superhero films, as most origin stories come with endless sequel ideas already built in. It’s these big-money franchises that keep Hollywood alive. We’re just lucky enough to live in an age where Hollywood’s best minds are willing to work on these films. Things only become problematic when Hollywood attempts to create sequels to films that do not require them. In the case of Home Alone and The Hangover, nothing more was supposed to come of these stories beyond the first film. Yet the box office results dictated that there simply must be more. While this is a bad creative decision, I will admit that it will do nothing but put more money into the pockets of those involved. And more power to them.

As frustrated as I may be with films like The Hangover: Part II, it is a near-guarantee that it will be financially successful. If it continues to follow the Home Alone path, the third film will likely feature an entirely new trio of protagonists. Then the fourth will go straight-to-DVD. In fact, I could see The Hangover spawning an expansive home media series the likes of which we have not seen since American Pie. So, be sure to mark your calendars on June 13, 2017. Because that marks the inevitable DVD release of The Hangover 6: Inebriated in Istanbul.