A question of sequels

There are some movies that have been made in this world that stand apart from all others. Not for any other reason than it was so gosh darn awful that it is good. It is a great movie because of its awfulness and not in spite of it. The movie Clerks sit squarely in the status of a “so bad it is good” movie.

Generally these movies have some redeeming quality or another to them that bring them into a cult status. Occasionally, there are those that were actually good, but nobody wanted to see the movie either because of its title or subject matter. Personally, I love bad movies. I think that creating a movie so bad that it is good is an art form unto itself and should be rewarded (and not with a raspberry), but maybe a sub-category at the Oscars for best cult film or some other such nonsense.

Which leads me on to the subject of sequels. Should a bad movie, even if it manages to make it to cult status, have a sequel? Would it still have that magic spark to it that made it a “so bad that it is good” movie? Well, we will soon find out with the release of Clerks 2.

Technorati tag:

2 Responses to “A question of sequels”

  1. Should a bad movie, even if it manages to make it to cult status, have a sequel?

    Why not? Conventional wisdom holds that sequels are always inferior to the original, but then the people who are conventionally wise seldom go to cult movies anyway.

    Besides, there are a few cases of mainstream Part II films that were improvements on the original: Star Trek, The Godfather. This is not to say, however, that I want to see Plan Ten from Outer Space.

  2. “there are a few cases of mainstream Part II films that were improvements on the original”

    Ah, but then it no longer fits into the category of “so bad that it is good.” In theory, the sequel would have to be worse than the original and still manage to have some redeeming quality to maintain its status. Otherwise, it is just another movie.