7 Film Series That Should’ve Been Tied To Concepts, Not Characters

It makes sense to have film franchises built around specific characters. We liked them in the first one, we enjoyed seeing them tangle with that earthquake or werewolf or quakewolf or whatever, so let’s see what happens next! But the problem is that the events of the initial entry are such that it’s odd to befall the same person (or group of people) again. And again. SPEED 2: CRUISE CONTROL isn’t just crazy because one of the leads was involved in a bizarre set of adrenaline-fueled circumstances, but that the second bizarre set of adrenaline-fueled circumstances also involves runaway vehicles that can’t be stopped (also she’s dating a carbon copy of her old boyfriend and…the whole movie is flawed).

In some cases, it makes sense why these weird situations keep happening to the characters—spies and superheroes make it their business to run afoul of such criminals and make targets of themselves in doing so. But other times, it should just be the concept that ties everything together. FINAL DESTINATION has some shared casting (not counting Tony Todd, but that dude should be in everything always, so whatever; also he may or may not be playing Death incarnate, so leeway is allowed), but mostly it’s a concept of angsty death, pissed that it got stood up and setting up intricate Rude Goldberg mechanisms to kill people in elaborate and awesome ways. (You could argue this is true for a lot of slasher franchises, though technically the protagonists become Jason/Freddy/Leprechaun so it doesn’t work) FAST AND FURIOUS went this route for a bit, which allowed it to expand to new locales with new characters and then re-coalesce with FAST FIVE. And concept franchises can do that - they can basically have a few different adventures with different groups, and then do a sort of “Best of the Best” amalgam cast for a later installment.

People sometimes refer to these as anthology series—what John Carpenter wanted to do starting with HALLOWEEN III. Make a film that takes place at Halloween but with different characters. Unfortunately, he already made two with a well-established mythos so it was too late.

BUT the concept can still work. Imagine how different things would be if these movie franchises while it makes sense that they sought to hang it on a character, had followed their core concepts instead of their stars.

7. THE HANGOVER

Admittedly, this one is already on thin ice. The literal structure of the first HANGOVER (and, the carbon copy sequels that followed) ensures that it gets less crazy as the film goes along—moving from complete confusion to a total recollection and then back home at the wedding. By necessity, the comedy is going to deplete with each ticking second since the initial premise literally fades away.

But it’s still possible to have different groups of friends/families/coworkers wake up after some crazy night and retrace steps, put together a mystery, and all of that. No more “here we go again” eye-rolling, but a brand new assortment of personalities that have to work together (or not) to sort out what happened before. Again, this can get murky if sex enters the story (haha…consent), but it would allow for new threats and unexpected curveballs to produce brand new jokes.

6. HOUSE PARTY

This is also low on the list, mostly because the original three Kid ‘n’ Play HOUSE PARTY films kind of work as a series of escalations with bigger parties and such.

But, to provide longevity, it could have spanned outward into other neighborhoods. Maybe Play becomes a “House Party” guru who loans out his services to teens everywhere.

Or it could be totally unrelated and just feature other places where a big party needs to happen under stringent circumstances. That’s usually more of a plot point of a comedy than the main focus of a movie, but it could still expand to colleges, other nations, other neighborhoods, on Military Bases, the White House, and on and on. Rather than constantly find the same two people presented with an opportunity to throw a crazy (but forbidden) party, there could be other folks that do this and then it culminates in all of the Party Animals working together to throw the greatest, biggest party in the history of the world…without getting into trouble.

5. KICK-ASS

Another series low on the list, and not just because “two movies” does not a franchise make. KICK-ASS is a pretty entertaining film based on a pretty crappy comic book. The sequel tries stuff…the idea of real-life superheroes spawning real-life supervillains is great (and yes, it’s also part of THE DARK KNIGHT), but it’s terribly written (based on an even worse comic) and most of it falls so damn flat. But why not just check out other would be costumed crimefighters?

The opening of KICK-ASS (and a lot of the plot of KICK-ASS 2) is about how Kick-Ass (man, I am sick of typing that) inspired a bunch of people to suit up. So why not just check in with those other people? Different cities with different issues. Maybe one vigilante realizes that there’s not as many muggings to stop, but notices gentrification or corporate crime on the rise, so he takes them on. Or maybe someone opens a school to train these homespun heroes, and it becomes a funhouse mirror version of FIGHT CLUB or even an unexpected commentary on the over-funding and over-militarization of police. You can have new fight styles, tech, etc. And not be stuck with the milquetoast white fanboy who is more apt to be the poster child for a school shooting than someone righting wrongs in society.

4. HOME ALONE

Again, I GET IT. You can’t look at the cash cow that is Macauley Culkin in the ‘90s and say “you’re going in another direction”.

But the idea of kids having to contend with being HOME ALONE (already a pretty bougie concept given numerous latchkey kids, single parent households, and more where children have to spend significant time by themselves) in different scenarios could lead to more variety. At the very least, the villains from the first one wouldn’t run into their nemesis in New York City randomly. And we wouldn’t have that pigeon lady haunting our dreams.

But as a concept franchise, now it becomes all sorts of different possibilities. Maybe a group of kids were separated from their parents during traveling, and now they have to stop some terrorists at the airport. Actually, a HOME ALONE entry that’s UNACCOMPANIED MINORS meets DIE HARD 2 would be tight. Or, as it was the ‘90s, maybe they get stuck in the mall over Christmas but also burglars or some other thing to fend off.

Maybe it’s siblings learning to work together. Or another lone kid but appreciating what his parents do. Or something wherein children are bereft the safety net of parental protection, but find a way to forge ahead while also indulging in a bit of kid power fantasy.

But it’s weird to have the kid that gets forgotten keep getting forgotten, and not have the second HOME ALONE end with him suing for emancipation or running away or something. Maybe the parents that spent a fortune and found their house trashed and at the center of a police investigation should keep an eye out on that one kid they “misplaced”. Meanwhile the cast of Hey Dude got stuck at Nickelodeon Studios during a hurricane while some theme park animatronic robots have gone haywire?!? No contest which one is better.

3. THE EXPENDABLES

Hey! Look who’s topical all of a sudden!

There’s a caveat here - technically you need to have some characters repeat in the other films and technically different characters already show up and fall off in this series. But let’s get one thing straight - no one is an expandable in the movie. Unless you’re a below the line actor (or Stallone’s agent sexual harassed you), you’re not going to die or not show up in the other movies. I get that this franchise was a pretty fun way to get action heroes from prior eras to come back together. And also a way for Stallone to hang out with the other Hollywood Republicans—why else is Kelsey Grammer in EXPENDABLES 3? Who is like “you know what this action movie needs? The voice of Sideshow Bob”? (MONEY PLANE being the lone and obvious exception)

But THE EXPENDABLES could’ve been action hero version of Suicide Squad. First of all, no matter what, the whole fucking series is flawed cuz none of the protagonists of note die except a lesser Hemsworth. So these dudes need to be dropping like flies. And I know they’re all tough guys, so have the deaths be some badass sacrifice play or something. But once you start culling the line-up, then different people can pop in each entry. You have an operator that puts together a team (get Mickey Rourke back; I’m sorry he’s no Frasier, but he’s just as good), and then that team goes out and most of them die. Or are…you know, expendable. Survivors can come back in sequels which mixes and matches different folks. And if you need Stallone to leave through the whole thing, then his character focus can be survivor’s guilt and the other Expendables are weary of the fact that he always lives, making them suspect him of doublecrossing people. But every EXPENDABLES movie should be a new batch of badass action folks, most of whom will die in spectacular fashion onscreen, sharing the screen for a bit and creating a weird sort of lineage/band of brothers that way.

2. GHOSTBUSTERS

This one. This is the one that pisses me off to no end.

Technically only three of the four GHOSTBUSTERS movies (I’m including AFTERLIFE) feature returning characters from the first 1984 entry. Yes, all the surviving actors appeared in the 2016 film but as different characters and also was a major distraction. But this one…they introduced the solution to sequels for GHOSTBUSTERS IN GHOSTBUSTERS!!!

Behold:

Just in case you missed it…

Franchise!!! That means multiple locations with different staffs. So instead of our plucky Ghostbusters - the paranormal specialists plus over-glorified yet still unfairly overlooked day laborer Winston Zeddemore - starting off GHOSTBUSTERS II having fallen out of favor with everyone they saved previously (off screen, no less), the sequel would be a new group in a different city (it clearly would have been L.A. or Chicago for the second entry).

Then you can have a brand new group of comedic actors fighting different ghosts in different places. Maybe Aykroyd has to go to supervise or Winston is there for a sweet training montage. Or all of the Ghostbusters from all the places must gather together to stop some new paranormal threat. Instead, it seems like it’s constantly acting like GHOSTBUSTERS (1984) didn’t happen, resetting for the next one, and ignoring that the world now knows about an afterlife (which, fun fact, WOULD FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE EVERY ASPECT OF PEOPLE’S LIVES ON EARTH).

1. DIE HARD

If GHOSTBUSTERS is the one that angers me the most because it is so obvious and literally set up within its own universe, why isn’t it number one? Because the DIE HARD franchise exists and it makes me sad.

DIE HARD is great. I think it’s actually a thinly veiled neo-con fantasy in almost every aspect of its storytelling—but it’s a terrific movie and an amazing action film and perfect for the holidays or any time of year. DIE HARD 2…exists. Moving on. DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE is a ton of fun, with a clearly superfluous tie to the the first entry and also is very obviously built from a script that wasn’t originally meant to be a John McClane adventure. That pattern of Frankensteining screenplays into DIE HARD vehicles would repeat with the next two entries, LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD and A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD. And they are awful.

Despite my glibness, DIE HARD 2 isn’t really awful. I personally love Renny Harlin’s direction and there’s a ton of great moments in it. But it’s too much of the same - Christmastime misadventures with a lone cop (who no one believes) up against a well-armed and well-trained group of badasses while the hero’s wife is in jeopardy. Sounds like the writers who should’ve TRIED HARDER. Boosh.

Somehow McClane keeps ending up in these pesky situations. WITH A VENGEANCE is the only one where he is directly drafted by the villain into the fray, so the rest are all just “wrong place, wrong time…right man for the job” shit. But even ignoring that, what sold DIE HARD is that John McClane was an “everyman”. Not really, of course, but he was your average joe living out so many ‘80s white dudes’ fantasies of shooting foreigners at the office. That also was shown by giving him a very simple, but powerful, handicap: no shoes. Some of the most effective scenes in John McTiernan’s film are McClane in pain from injuries to his foot—including slowly, agonizingly pulling glass out which results in him limping around in torment as he tries to save Holly.

But, since DIE HARD is now following one character and not the concept of an individual up against impossible odds, the threats McClane faces have to intensify. So, too, do his abilities to over come them.

And that’s how the everyman in the wrong spot now finds himself straddling a Harrier jet or getting bombarded by radiation in Chernobyl.

Escalation in an action series requires great foes and setbacks. The man once hobbled by broken glass is now an international wrecking machine that feels no pain.

It would be cool to check back in with part 4 with McClane getting called out by Simon like in DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE. Or all the DIE HARD protagonists must team up to stop a crew of equally badass soldiers. But instead, it’s a Boomer fantasy of a man getting even more powerful with age and crushing foes beneath the very feet that once made him so human. Argyle wept.