A few weeks ago, I was sitting in a movie theater, waiting for Rogue One to start. Before it did, however, I had to sit through a long stream of trailers, which included: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2, the Power Rangers reboot, the Spider-Man reboot, Cars 3, and the newest Fast and Furious movie.
See the trend? Even the movie I was going to see was basically a sequel to the Star Wars prequel trilogy. Here's the thing, though: I don't actually hate sequels or reboots. If a series can still grab my interest, I don't care whether or not I'm watching the first movie or the fifth. There are some sequels I like more than the original, actually, such as Home Alone 2: Lost in New York, Toy Story 2 & 3, and Captain America: The Winter Soldier (although I am quite fond of The First Avenger as well).
Unfortunately, there are also sequels I don't think we need (I'm looking at you, Fast and Furious 8). But how do we make a distinction between spin-offs and tie-ins that are useful and those that are pointless? Ultimately, I think it comes down to the viewer's perspective and their view of originality.
In my opinion, a sequel is good if it: A) responds to questions from fans, B) provides needed closure, C) furthers character development, D), makes viewers consider the series itself in a new light, E), carries on the theme of its predecessor(s) while also telling its own story, and F), is not made for the sole purpose of selling merchandise and making revenue. Of course, not all sequels satisfy all of these requirements, but I'd consider even just one to be a start.
If you want a relevant example of the difference between a good sequel and a poor one, look no further than Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, and The Cursed Child. The former gives fans a look at the wizarding community in North America (as well as Grindelwald's plots), introduces characters that we genuinely care about and get attached to, and feels just as enchanting as the Harry Potter movies without having the same themes of adolescence or the weight of prophecy. In my mind, it's amazing because it gives fans what they didn't even know they wanted: a new and exciting adventure.
The Cursed Child, however, falls flat in its attempts to satisfy fans. It twists the characters you know into two-dimensional versions of themselves, making Ron seem like a simpleton, Harry, a terrible parent (when his time with the Dursleys should have motivated him to be the opposite), and Hermione, a strict control freak. It also shows Snape as a hero, despite fan's boisterous protests, claims Cedric Diggory could've been a Death Eater in another timeline, and tries to convince us that Bellatrix and Voldemort hooked up (which isn't just highly unlikely, it's also highly disturbing). It takes the best parts of the original series and twists them around, while leaving its flaws intact.
Sequels aside, let's take a look at reboots. I have the same basic guidelines for them as I did with sequels, with one addition: it can be watched separately from the original series and still be satisfying. Teen Titans Go, by my standards, is a terrible parody of its parent work. Doctor Who's revival is quite the opposite, as it brings the show into the 21st century while still maintaining the quirky science and magic that define the series. Avatar: Legend of Korra falls somewhere in the middle, as it's a good continuation of Avatar: The Last Airbender with its own unique attributes, but doesn't feel satisfying apart from the original.
As far as movie reboots go, I'm excited about Spider-Man Homecoming, despite the fact that it is a little soon for a reboot after the last series. See, I think the past two Spider-Man film series both felt incomplete. Toby Macguire was a good Peter Parker, and Andrew Garfield made a good Spider-Man, but they couldn't capture the whole role successfully. I think Tom Holland can (and I think it was a good call to cast a lesser-known actor in the role, because it shows that the directors care more about finding talent than finding a big name).
I will admit that it's a disappointment not to see Miles Morales, Jessica Drew, or Earth-65 Gwen Stacy take the screen, but that doesn't mean I'm disappointed to see another Peter Parker. To be honest, he's the only part of Captain America: Civil War that I really loved.
Also, Spider-Man: Homecoming has a pretty diverse cast, which is a breath of fresh air in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, where (so far) there are only about five memorable African-American characters and even fewer of other minorities. And I'm glad that I won't have to sit through a film that replays Peter's origin story, because I'm over it by now. He gets bit by a spider, Uncle Ben dies and it's his fault, we get it. Flashbacks are fine, but seriously. WE GET IT.
I think the two main complaints about sequels, reboots, and continuations of any kind are that they lack originality and are created only to make money. And to be honest, I won't deny the latter point. We live in a capitalist society, guys. Most movies are designed to sell us products, unfortunately.
As for the question of originality, I'd say that asking for a totally unconventional, unconnected, unique plot is a pretty steep order. I think it's more realistic to look for movies that make you look at the world around you (and their own series) in a new and relevant way.
And, when all else fails, watch what you like, and don't listen to the critics.
