That’s a good point, Cellphone; Shrek 2 is about as good a sequel to a romantic comedy as you can get. But of course all of the Shrek movies are action/adventure as well as rom-com, which helps a lot. Still, the concept of a near break-up because of parental disapproval and one of the couple doubting his/her worth is an adequate premise for a rom-com sequel. Bridget Jones 2 worked on a similar theme, but was less successful because Bridget Jones’ insecurities lead to their break-up, making her appear somewhat whiny and thus unappealing.
But the simple fact is that romantic comedies sink or swim on the unresolved romantic tension between two people. If it’s resolved, you have to find some other source of humor and the movie ceases to be a romantic comedy and becomes just a comedy instead. If you unresolve it, you have to find a way to do so without alienating your audience from either character, and that’s not too easy.
And, shijinn, you’re right. Every sequel to a new action movie requires a new quest as well, and Aliens 3 was deeply dissatisfying to many of us because the whole point of Aliens was wiped out within a couple of minutes of the start.
Oo, good one. I wonder which RomCom sequel would dare to start the movie off by killing the guy that the heroine hooked up with in the previous movie, much less her adopted daughter too.
Is Sex and the City in the RomCom tradition? There’s a sequel out for that one.
What I think would end up happening would be that it switches from romcom to kidcom or something. So it becomes an extended TV, family sitcom, or else as you said risks making one of the characters unlikable, or just makes the formula strained.
The second Zorro movie with Banderas and Zeta-Jones wherein their “break-up” is pretty contrived and unbelievable. You never really think they’ve broken up and never doubt they’ll get back together.
At least the Shrek movies can add magic so a spell can undo the first movie altogether if need be. But a typical romcom without any fantasy or action elements would have to find a really good story to make it work.
Well, I would like to see the sequel to Garden State where it is demonstrated that falling in love with the first girl you meet after coming of years of drug-induced stupor probably isn’t the basis for a lasting relationship.
For making a sequel to a romantic comedy it seems to me you have three fundamental choices:
Break them and get them back together. In other words, the same emotional arc as the first movie. From another genre the National Treasure movies go this route with the B-story romance between Nicolas Cage and Diane Kruger. In the second movie they experience the exact same relationship progression as in the first movie.
Break them up and move on to new people. The Indiana Jones approach to movie love. But then you’re just making a brand new romantic comedy with half the couple that brought you success in the first one (unless you show them both getting new people but either way you’re abandoning the chemistry that you’re looking to repeat).
Make a movie about what comes after the initial falling in love part. But then you don’t have so much of a romantic comedy any more. But you could, I suppose, have Sleepless in Seattle segue into Meet the Parents. I don’t know why this doesn’t happen much but maybe it is because it is also changing the formula that inspired the sequel in the first place so why not just do a new movie and avoid the increased above the line costs of a sequel.
I’m surprised we don’t see more of this. I think the “obvious” way to make sequels to happy ending RomComs is to make movies about the follies of married life / raising kids a few years down the line.
Father’s Little Dividend and its pseudo-remake Father of the Bride 2 essentially made Pregnancy the go-to sequel to Marriage (though again, neither version, while possibly chick flicks, were really romantic comedies)
I’d also say that romantic comedies, with few exceptions, aren’t really blockbusters. They do respectable enough box office, but don’t generate the types of grosses or interest that would lead a studio to stake large sums of money to revisit the premise.
As for Sex and the City and Bridget Jones, which some people mentioned above, those already had built-in audiences that were interested in the characters long before they hit the big screen - SATC having been a hit TV show and Bridget Jones a bestselling novel. Most romantic comedies, on the other hand, are just standalone stories that the screenwriters pulled out of their asses.
How about a “sequel” with different characters? OK, you had Alice and Bob meet under improbable circumstances and eventually fall in love, now let’s see how Carol and Dave react and how their relationship develops in the same circumstances.
Who’s going to watch Shrek 3? Mom and Dad with Kids. Nerds who like decent CGI. 20 somethings for the witty dialogue. Anyone on a date. And whoever watches Rom Coms.
Who’s going to watch Generic Rom Com 2: Electric Boogaloo? At best maybe 1/3rd of the original audience.
To be successful, sequels/franchises need to bring back both the original audience and appeal to first timers. When Harry met Sally for the Third Time isn’t going to do that.
Comedies generally do not get sequels. Part of humor’s success depends on surprise, the innumerable Scary Movie, Airplane and Naked Gun movies notwithstanding, because the sequels are not funny.
I was thinking the same thing. Note that Sunrise doesn’t end in a Happily Ever After, so the sequel neither invalidates the first movie nor treads on quite the same ground.
It helps that the characters are a decade apart from their former incarnations, too. They are still memorable, but not really living the same story again.
Take a wander through the romance section of a bookstore sometime and you’ll see why. As people said above, they don’t want the happily ever after invalidated. Most romance books on the scene are the same way. All those sequels? There is some theme tying them together but it’s always different people. Dark Hunters, Spies, even students (and ultimately the headmistress) of a school for young women. I can’t stand to read the ones that go on and on and throw new people into the starting two which drag them apart only to end up together at the end but to do the same thing in the next book. Why would I want that in my movies?
I agree with others that it is generally because the end of the first implies Happily Ever After but I would have loved to see the movie “When Harry Wed Sally.”
The characters were so great in the original there was lots of room for a sequel there.
When Harry Met Sally has a spiritual sequel: Forget Paris. Except for the different character names and the fact that Debra Winger rather than Meg Ryan plays the female lead, it’s basically the answer to the question “What happened after Harry & Sally got married?”
The story is told in the form of competing anecdotes. Cynthia Stevenson plays a woman who has just joined the circle of Billy Crystal’s friends and is being told the story of how he met his wife. She gets really into the story, and thus vexed by the constant interruptions, and at one point screamed, “You will finish this story without interruption or ASSES WILL BE KICKED!”
It bothers me a little that I only saw this movie once and still remember it. But I love Cynthia Stevenson.