Heroic tragedy and Luke’s demise (terminator, indiana jones etc.): sequels destroying beloved characters (Cioran, 83)
Shakespeare’s heroes always die. Yet the modern tales provide blissful endings. These tales have left the door open for sequels. The character reemerging in a second story. A story that derails the character and makes them a shell of their former selves.
Shakespeare’s tragedies tell wholesome tales of heroes who attempted to conquer their fate. To chart a new destiny. Though in many respects successful, they met their doom at the end. The hero was sacrificed in order to bring his image to the forefront. The hero praised for his skill and remembered for his bravery. The hero is no longing living but his memory is engraved in the audience’s mind. The marvel of his plays was not solely the intriguing plot lines but the character investment. The audience became so enthralled with the character. Following alongside him in his treacherous journey. Rooting from from the sidelines. Only for the character to meet his demise at the end. An end to a worthy protagonist. Mourning over the loss but praiseworthy for his ability. A harsh ending but a legend to persist to the end.
Their demise engraves their legacy. They are engaging characters who invite the audience into their missions. Their death is a signal to their beauty. Their death is itself mesmerising. Their legend is codified in the art of literature. Their fate sealed from the start. Their legacy to be written in the plot. They begin and end in the storyline. There is no hope for the beyond. Concentration is on the momentarily spectacle. Just as an actor is a character on stage and then off stage resumes his personhood. So too the heroes are actors for the setting. They fit the plot and that is it. There is no desire for the future nor estimation of the sequel. Tragedies fit the one and die. What is relevant is not the end but the cause for the end. The hero’s journey is even swept up in the possibility of survival. Forgetting their inevitable demise. Yet the aspiration undermines its integrity.
Happily ever after was a periodic phenomenon. While there are examples since the eighteenth century, the Grimm brothers had some awful endings building off the stories of Perrault. Disney introduces the happily ever after to encourage the tale for young children. The gore of the Grimm’s stories are screened for children. The grand movement to teach fairy tale for children transformed fairy tales into innocent plots. Disney’s push in this direction provided an estimation while still ending the storyline. Yet that wouldn’t be for too long. Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty both had sequels. Happily ever after thought denotes the end only provided an outlet for more consumption. A possible storyline to carry over. Happily ever after leaves the door open to ponder what happens next. It will end okay but there may be some ruffles in the middle. It intended to end the tale but consideration of the next stage. What was Cinderella’s life as a princess? How was Aurora’s life as a mother? Curiosity entails more investment in the characters life. Their life is beyond the presented plot. Tragic heroes die marking their end but not so the case for the Disney princesses. Their tale continues inquiring of the next saga.
The idea of the novel sequel began in the nineteenth century but ancient books may also fit this theme. The Bible, Epic of Gilgamesh and Homer’s Epics (though the mythological prose may deem the difference). Recycling characters through their journeys. Yet it is in the modern era that this style is imprinted in fiction. Oresteia is an Ancient Greek trilogy. But its persistence is much more noticeable today. Going beyond the trilogy to seven book series. Contrary to the ancient prose, the modern format was an economic motivation instead of an intellectual one. The ability to recycle characters with new story lines made living possible. Beloved characters in new situations. Just recall the countless number of Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew books. Always the detective books that could surmise a new plot for the brave protagonist. Quite episodic and not necessarily flowing. Storylines that didn’t mesh with the previous book. Selling books didn’t necessarily mean carrying past memories into the upcoming books. The intention of the sequel is to do the exact opposite. It is to relate the second book to the former. For there to be a serialised connection between the two. Had you not read the first book, the second would be unfamiliar and confusing.
Given the prestige of recycled characters for more profit the 1900s saw some of the classics branching out to new adventures. Straying from a single storyline for pluralistic possibilities. The Wizard of Oz, The Martian Chronicles, Sherlock Holmes. Comic books followed up on this trend selling dozens of copies that fell into the episodic genre. Cervantes killed off the protagonist in Don Quixote to ensure no third parties would reuse his characters. A way of voiding stealing characters. Cervantes was providing an end to his character. It was his creation and thus for him to do with as he pleased. The tragic hero may have been of use to prevent others appropriating their characters but the philosophical aspect still remains given Shakespeare could’ve reused his characters. If writers could afford to write more than one book or even more profit from their characters it was well worth keeping alive. A tactic to ensure the utility of a character’s strengths. Whether or not the sequels were linked to their predecessors was of little concern. What mattered was the character’s continuity. The world of the protagonist didn’t change and that was the key to the readership.
Serial writing is most credited to Dickens who popularised it during the victorian era. He wrote his books in instalments. While today such a book of his has been compiled into a single cover, at one point it was published in newspapers every month a new chapter. David Copperfield was once a monthly issued instalment to eventually be codified into a single compilation. The same goes for Les Miserables and Middlemarch. The advance of technology and possibility enabled Weir to translate his blog into a best seller. This serial style of writing boiled over into writing book series instead of extended manuscripts. Instead of publishing eighteen parts over two years in a newspaper, place a single book on the market followed by a cliff hanger. One Harry Potter book is a quarter of The Count of Monte Cristo, but firmly around the size of David Copperfield and Middlemarch. Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones while with some episodic tangents demonstrated a serial link between their books. Continuity is successful as well as it is evolutionary. The author must be aware of his previous work and eradicate all potential contradictions. Unlike James Bond, beginning the Lord of the Rings in book two misses the mark. The first book is necessary to understand the characters.
Harry Potter by and large is the most famous example. Other recent examples would include Percy Jackson and The Hunger Games. Yet this model of serialising in film goes back to WWI and The Fall of the Nation. In novella sequels to Gulliver’s Travels like The New Gulliver not written by Swift do represent a shine in the sequel department. In contrast to Dickens, this was after the book was published and seeking an alternate setting. Frankenstein’s Son and and Dracula’s Daughter were sequels but did not follow an original movie. They ran similar storylines but were not serialised. Movies like The Godfather have new storylines like James Bond but connect to the previous film. It is an entirely new mission to be ended at the tide of the movie but it is still linked to the former. This comes up with many serial movies such as Indiana Jones, Jaws, The Incredibles and Frozen. The use of the sequel is to reuse the old characters with a new plot. Their growth from the previous film is noted but it is aligned for the new adventure. Even some trilogies fit in this category that of The Dark Knight and Superman trilogies. The same character is rehashed but by the end of each film the setting has ended and a new movie begins.
Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are the exception. Though A New Hope does end in episodic fashion, the survival of Vader only beckons more to be seen since Lucas wasn’t sure of the reception. To some extent the first one had to be ended in such a manner in the hopes that it would be the last project. The Empire Strikes Back ends on a cliffhanger. The same can be said of Lord of the Rings. It is only in the third movie that Aragon becomes king and Sauron defeated. In the same manner, Voldemort is only defeated in the seventh book of the series. It is this type of storytelling over books that separates from individual movies. These movies are akin to long television series. The mother isn’t met till the end of the ninth season of How I met Your Mother. Even with episodic notations, the ultimate goal is not reached till the end. The story is building to something and must be reclaimed. The Blacklist is followed through seasons to figure out Red’s identity. Until that mystery is solved the series isn’t over yet. There may be a lot of episodic pandering but the ultimate aim is present. The hero’s journey must be accomplished.
The completion of a project embeds that character in the mind of the reader. In many regards it is the lack of sequel that keeps the character alive. Recycling James Bond or Doctor Who works because of the nature of the sequel. The episodic nature keeps the character fresh. There are rare links to preceding tales and live by their own accord. It is the continuous use of the same actor that inquires a reboot. The changing actor also changes the storyline. It is a fresh face to observe and enjoy. It is obviously episodic and entertaining. The same goes for comic books and their film adaptations. Changing batman keeps the story fresh and the plot interesting for different generations. The lacking link furthers the character’s divestment. A character can only go for so long. Characters are mortal insofar as they are written linearly. If written in a serial manner they follow the mortal coil, yet in the episodic realm it is fragmented bits that can be from whenever. Each storyline depicts a varied memory. The plot is temporary before moving to a different time period or universe.
A series can last long. The Fast and Furious franchise is at number ten but it is finite. The actors are aging and the storyline is blurring. The Transformers franchise has muddled in its inability to create new storylines from its linear development. Characters reflect societal rules and are mortally redundant. Yet the sequel factor in its serial nature seeks to build off the the predecessor. Yet its accomplishment is generally deficient. There are exceptions but many originals cannot outdo the originals. They flop in their incapability to measure up. The first storyline was captivating the second is mortifying. Iron Man 2 and 3 paled in comparison to the first while The Dark Knight was better than Batman Begins. The Joker storyline was more compelling and executed better. The same goes for the Godfather II over the original and The Empire Strikes Back. The originals left something to be desired and the sequels capitalised on their originals beauty. Toy Story and Indiana Jones both did well fell off and redeemed themselves by the third movie. Providing a beautiful ending to a trilogy. Even if the episodic material is strong. It is the rebooting later on that destroyed the movie.
Characters do their thing and then move on. Indy’s final moments with his father completed the series just as Luke blowing up the Death Star or batman’s death. The new batman worked because it didn’t bring Bale out of retirement to tell a new story like they did to Hamill and Ford. Their characters were a shell of their former selves. The new Matrix centred around a new character after having defeated evil twenty years ago. The issue for these reboots is prolonging a story already ended. Doing the characters an injustice by reviving the evil they rid. The end was the end. The characters survive and are beloved for their bravery. Bringing him the glory and fame. That is the end. All is well, happily ever after. Nope, not so fast. A new evil arises. Their entire plot line in vain. Their actions meant nothing. They are now crummy and old. Mentoring the youth on an evil that they seemingly never erased. The heroes failed and their characters shattered.
Sequels work if they are different from the original. Indiana Jones develops through the movies. Even though Nazis return for part III, the introduction of his father and quest to assist bring a new variable. The same can be said of Return of the Jedi and the Palpatine vestige. Though the lagging elements of the sixth movie find parallels with The Dark Knight Rises in their finale of fighting an enemy similar to the original. It is the middle movie that is unique. Since they need to close up the trilogy and the storyline, the plot has some identical pieces as it races to finalise the timeline. The failure of the new Star Wars trilogy against the prequels is the direct consistency between the new and the original. It is the same storyline albeit different characters. Rey is Luke Fin is Han and Luke is Obi Wan. They have different personas but they are the same type of people. The prequels present an alternative metric one with an evil lurking behind the shadows one that builds up to an empire not a parody of the same. Bringing back Palpatine secured this ridiculous reincarnated retconning.
Obi Wan’s death in the original fits into the series, since his feats of his youth are then eased in his early exit. His mentorship beyond the grave demonstrates a shift in development. He has ceased fighting as a warrior and instead has evolved into a sage. Luke does nothing of the sort. Rey rarely struggles and the mentorship is attempting to be there but sitting on the side doing nothing. The absent Luke does diverge from the Obi Wan character but it decimates his great prestige. Killing Luke off would’ve been better than his wallowing. He was still around and yet not around at the same time. Luke’s absence is the extreme of change. There is no continuity. Change needs to be balanced. A hermit dealing with the blow of his failures works but to bastardise him into a supporting role that diminishes his view ultimately kills the franchise and dooms his legacy for younger viewers. The same goes to the elderly Ford bastardised in both Star Wars and Indiana Jones while somewhat redeemed in Blade Runner 2049. It is alright to elderly and at times a sidekick mentor type but not to become a wriggly old tiresome individual to watch.
The failures of the previous two Indiana Jones movies do well to erase the growth in the former films. The third movie ended the trilogy and the newer ones brought the same themes with worse action. The over the top cartoony aspect, the nuked fridge and of course the aliens. While it isn’t as bad as the most recent one it does prove that sometimes a franchise meets its end and moving on is the necessity. The same can be said of the matrix. Neo is just a shell of himself catering to an overpowered protagonist. The enemy was dealt with it and that is the happily ever after. The opportunity to see what happens after is credible but it is a door left open that need not be opened. Just because more can be speculated doesn’t mean it should. Sometimes it’s time to hang up the cape. They reached the finality. Though if a sequel is to be spawned the sequel must meet the original in some regard. Obi Wan being a main character made sense given his eventual mentorship. His friendship with Anakin only bolstered his importance. The transition from warrior to mentor was smooth something that was disoriented with Luke because it was the same ideal done worse. If Luke was given a pivotal role alongside a second character like Rey it would further his resolve and interest.
Luke was dead from the get-go. His appearance was hard to watch. While there are divergent theories that could have been tried. One being the good guys and bad guys working together against a new enemy or the bad guys helping purify the imperfect good guys as done in The Mandelorian. Disney’s decision for new characters broke with the past. It created a new limelight without letting go of the beloved characters. Had none of the beloved characters been screened then it wouldn’t have received the ire it did. It would be annoyed at the poor writing. Yet to take the beloved characters and make them inferior and suppress them to fools underscored a disastrous intent. It wasn’t about the story it was about a personal desire. Control over Star Wars and thus an ideological bind. A sequel may have worked. It may never be up to par with the original but it could have made waves and well received. Instead it burned the bridges. It attempted to banish the past for a monstrous new world. One that cares little for development as well as for legacy. A revolutionary paradigm that focuses on cheers and power.
The sequel turns the tables on the main character. Testing the limits of the audience’s patience with the variance of the protagonist. How many ways can he be stretched. How can he be empowered and expanded. A perfect storyline is extended with much caution. The horizon is creeping up. The fairy tale ending is halted. Instead the fairy tale ending is challenged with a new story. The hero is now at a new struggle. One not foreseen. His peaceful persistence is forced otherwise. A director awaking the zombie from his peaceful slumber. Restless forcing him into a new role away from his his genuine personality. A zombie addicted to the new set without care for the audience’s input. The sequel must provide a new adventure that allows the character to evolve. For the fairy tale to end more progress. His happily ever after has not been achieved. The former ending was the first successful mission. Balance between caution and risk. Evolve with integrity.
