After the "Avatar" sequel was finalized and "Frozen" launched, it was a surprising fact that all the annual box office tops of the 21st century became series movies.
Of the 19 films, only Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Avatar, and Frozen are not "sequels".
Because they already have a fan base, sequel movies take less risk than original movies.
And compared with the "original movie" that tells a new story, the sequel movie is much easier to make, just need to take out the characters recognized by the audience, continue to write their stories, and then give more growth, get a new villain, it is a "new work".
Whether from the perspective of market considerations or production efficiency, the proliferation of sequel movies in Hollywood is an inevitability.
However, most sequel films are difficult to surpass the previous works, and the excessive number of sequels has led to a decline in the overall quality of world movies, and the overall reputation of new century movies is obviously not as good as that of the 1980s and 1990s.
From a big data analysis of Douban scores, it can be seen that the average rating of world movies has dropped rapidly since the end of the 90s.
(Image source and data collection: Jane book author mrlevo520)
It is unrealistic to force studios not to continue making sequels and to develop more high-quality new stories. Being able to make the sequel high quality is already a good result.
If most sequels can reach the level of Blade Runner 2049, there is no need for viewers to boycott the sequel.
The question is how do you get it shot?
There are three main points worth noting.
< h1 class = "pgc-h-arrow-right" > (1) worldview expansion</h1>
For the continuation of the old story, the continuation of the original role is naturally an important part.
But no matter how popular a role is, there will always be a "tired" day, there is no feeling of shooting the second and third parts, and the box office reputation of the fourth and fifth parts begins to decline, and it is not enough.
Two typical cases are the Pirates of the Caribbean and the Resident Evil series.
"Pirates of the Caribbean" has completed a grand story in the first trilogy, but in the fourth part it has become a "fanfare", the worldview has not expanded but has shrunk, the fifth part has simply and rudely made a villain revenge story, the male protagonist Captain Jack has not undergone a greater test, and the excitement of the film is of course greatly reduced.
The first part of "Resident Evil" pushed the whole world to the end, the second and third parts have actually fallen into the situation of pattern duplication, and by the fourth part, the audience finally can't sit still, although the box office has improved, but the word of mouth has been adjusted to the passing line. By the fifth part, it had become a completely bad movie.
Originally, the ending of the fifth part rarely pushed the plot to the climax of the "Zombie World War", so the sixth finale should be very interesting, right?
Who knew that "Resident Evil: Final Chapter" still let the heroine Alice directly enter the single-player monster adventure mode at the beginning, and the series has another word-of-mouth hit.
Both series are sustained by the charisma of the actors, and if Johnny Depp and Mira Jovovich are no longer starring, the filmmakers will only have one option left, reboot.
Holding a character for gold will only lead to more unsatisfactory sequels. Unless, of course, the character's world is constantly changing and expanding.
The Marvel Cinematic Universe relies on a gradually expanding worldview to avoid excessive reliance on popular characters. Even if the soul figure Robert Downey Jr. announces his withdrawal, the story can still go on in a fiery way.
Because the audience can focus on the actors, the characters, and also pay attention to the development of the Marvel world.
Without the Avengers, who will protect the planet?
The hero's crossing opens up parallel universes, how will it affect the original universe?
The unknowns are attractive enough.
"Blade Runner 2049" did not want to continue the story through the old characters from the beginning, and the creators first considered what happened to the male protagonist Offica in the previous game, but what happened to the world where Blade Runner was located after the ending of the previous game.
So in the opening subtitle, the director gives a macro story framework, trying to make the audience interested in the fate of the whole world.
Because of the birth of replicant human beings, human beings have been able to more safely and open up more extraterrestrial colonies.
Replicants took the place of humans to go to the dark and dangerous universe, and over time they developed a rebellious consciousness. Replicants are smarter and stronger than humans, but they are fewer in number and have a shorter lifespan, and even so, humans still hope to exterminate replicants and avoid the danger of being eliminated by new species.
In order to explain things more clearly, director Dennis Villeneuve also enlisted help to produce three prequel short films.
In Blade Runner: 2022 Dark Havoc, the replicants created a global blackout that prevented humans from accurately hunting them through computer data, and the remnants of the old replicants continued to survive.
In Blade Runner: Dawn of the Replicants 2036, Wallace created replicants who completely followed the instructions and forcibly persuaded the government to lift the ban on replicants.
"Blade Runner: 2048 Nowhere to Escape", because of a brave act, an old model replicant revealed his identity, leading to the main plot of "Blade Runner 2049".
The old replicant community was willing to be arrested and killed like this?
What impact has the rise of Wallace on the world?
In the face of the arrival of a new type of replicant, will the human community continue to resent, resist, or change its attitude?
Not to mention the new audience, at least the old fans of Blade Runner have a new focus.
In the "Blade Runner 2049" film, the plot not only successfully got rid of the previous killer hunting down replicants, but also the uprising of the old replicant crowd, Wallace's ambition to create an army of replicants, and the two major branches of Wallace's ambition to create an army of replicants added to the follow-up story.
It is thanks to the expansion of the worldview that Blade Runner, which originated in 1982, has come to life.
A larger world can spawn more new characters and storylines, and can have more room for innovation, just like planting a tree and constantly growing new branches.
A flower always withers quickly, but a tree can often stand the test of time.
<h1 class= "pgc-h-arrow-right" > (2) new story</h1>
Of course, there are also examples of expanding the worldview, but still getting worse and worse.
The Terminator series, after the brilliance of the first trilogy, tried to seek a different creative direction. In Terminator: Genesis, the writers expanded the more complex timeline and opened up the original worldview.
But the reputation of the movie can only be said to be mediocre, so what is wrong?
The problem is the "over-exploitation" of old stories and old characters.
2019's Terminator: Dark Fate has realized that continuing the story of Connor's mother and son has lost its meaning, so it opens up a new story for Dani. Unfortunately, the plot is still caught in the old routine of hunting and protecting.
Stubbornly continuing the old story and old characters will not only bring about the problem of aesthetic fatigue, in case it is not written well, there will also be contradictions with the previous work, and the character design may collapse.
X-Men: Dark Phoenix is a bitter lesson.
If you want to continue to write a classic movie, it is even more careful, because a small mistake may lead to the historical infamy of destroying the classic.
So it would be unwise for the Blade Runner sequel to continue Dika directly, and instead of surviving on a storyline, it would be better to reopen a new story.
The quality of Blade Runner 2049 is that the film tells a new and complete story.
Blade Runner K is tasked with hunting down the old replicant who revealed his identity in "Nowhere to Escape 2048", and on the way, he finds a chest containing bones, thus beginning a tortuous and bizarre detective journey.
He was once caught up in doubts about his own identity, and the plot reversed several times before he came to the truth.
In the end, K, as a replicant, made a humane life-and-death decision.
Since it is a sequel, it is not okay to completely abandon the old story.
No matter how good K's story is, it must be related to the plot of the previous game.
Using Rachel's bones as connection points, the plot of the previous game is cleverly brought into the new work and continued.
It's just that the old storyline is hidden, and the K in the new storyline needs to be solved step by step.
Simply put, Blade Runner 2049 has a clever plot structure.
K's new story as a bright line plot;
Dika's old story serves as a dark plot.
The combination of light and dark of the new and old stories complements each other, avoiding the existence of a "super long trailer", perhaps this is the correct opening mode for sequel movies.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" > continuation of the (3) theme kernel</h1>
Having only done the first two things, Blade Runner 2049 isn't enough to be called the "best sequel" of the 21st century.
Pushing the film to the level of God is the expression of the theme.
The opening of new stories is not arbitrary, it needs to be purposeful. The purpose is to continue the theme of the previous game.
The reason why "Blade Runner" is called a science fiction masterpiece, on an equal footing with "2001: A Space Odyssey", relies on an effective exploration of the philosophy of life.
Through the vision of replicants, a question that is difficult to answer runs through the plot.
Why are humans human?
The distinction between replicants and humans can be distinguished from the beginning by a "human test".
But when replicants have memories, the "humanity test" fails.
So to have memories is to have emotions, is that human?
Yes, and it seems not.
It is debatable whether the memory of the replicant is implanted, and whether the emotions that come with it are "true".
But replicants have their own experiences, and even if the old model of replicants only has a short lifespan of 4 years, they can have their own memories.
In the pursuit of a longer life, the classic villain replicant Roy finally understood the meaning of life and wrote a tear-jerking "song in the rain".
At this time, people finally understand that the difference between whether a person is human or not is not the length of life, but what they know what they have experienced and what they want to do.
Roy, the replicant, knows what he has been through and accepts his fate. Everything he went through was true. Whether replicants are human or not may no longer matter.
Blade Runner 2049 continues the exploration of life and memory.
Replicant K realized in his own experience what he wanted to do. He is a tragic character who doubts whether he really exists, and this doubt also leads to the core proposition that replicants are not human beings.
But when he decides to act according to his own will, he becomes human.
Because when you do it, things (memories) are real; to love, feelings are real. Whether you're human or replicant.
At a time when these replicants are more human than humans, and human beings themselves are becoming less and less human, the reflection brought about by the Blade Runner series is shocking and lasting.