In 2024, four sequels to movies over 24 years old are either set to be released or have already been released. These movies are as follows: Gladiator (2000), Twister (1996), Beetlejuice (1988), and Alien (1979). Other than Alien, none of these movies have had sequels since their original releases, and it’s bringing mixed feelings to moviegoers.
The first of these sequels to come out was Twisters, the sequel to the 1996 classic, Twister. The film earned itself a 6.7/10 on IMDB and a 75% on Rotten Tomatoes. The second of these to release was Alien: Romulus, which raised a 7.4/10 on IMDB and an 80% on Rotten Tomatoes. The next was Beetlejuice Beetlejuice, which raised 77% on Rotten Tomatoes and 7.1/10 on IMDB. The final movie is yet to be released, but still highly anticipated by some. Upon seeing the trailer for Beetlejuice Beetlejuice, one high school student, Sophie Beltz, was “apprehensive, but optimistic,” while an adult who was around to see these movies when they were in theaters, Philip Clemons, said they “looked interesting. [It] reminds me of the first movies.” With them being a good deal later than the original movies, the original casts are likely out of the question to return to these sequels, although fans may be happy to hear that Tim Burton, Michael Keaton, Catherine O’hara, and Winona Ryder are keeping up their places in the making of the second Beetlejuice movie. Avid Gladiator fans however, may not be as excited, as Russell Crowe isn’t part of Gladiator II at all.
No matter how excited people are for the sequels, there’s still the question of “why?” Why are these movies being made now, over two decades after their initial releases? Many viewers, including Clemons, saw these movies when they were new, and they feel the sequels were only made for “money and nostalgia.” Even Beltz seconded this theory. It seems that even if the movies do turn out well, production studios can’t hide the fact that it’s an obvious cash grab.
If that’s true, should these movies have been made at all? People may enjoy them, but it seems that they’re only made for financial gain. Clemons said, “Movie sequels can be better, but it has to make sense.” And does this truly make sense? Beltz said that “if it’s for money, it’s pointless.” So these films weren’t something people seemed to be particularly anticipating, or at least, not at this point, twenty years after their initial releases.
After twenty-four years, people’s interest in these movies has died down. Both older and younger viewers agree that these sequels were made to appeal to nostalgia and make a cheap buck. If these films were made even ten years earlier, it may have been harder to notice, but waiting this long has caught the attention of the public. The ratings may be good, but both older and younger generations can see that they’re grasping at straws. Appealing to nostalgia to make a few more million isn’t always the way to go.
