Hollywood is all sequels and reboots, and people apparently want more original content (but don’t go and watch it). It’s made me wonder where the sequels are in theatre, as whether it be for musicals or plays, sequels seem much less common. What makes Broadway and the West End different?
The power of sequels
To backtrack a bit, why do people like sequels? I think it’s that sequels are a nice comfort blanket for those craving the familiar. They’re a nice way to experience new content without having to invest in too many new characters.
They’re also a great way to continue the journey of beloved characters. Think back to Star Wars: The Force Awakens and the hype that generated seeing Han, Luke and Leia again. Likewise, Frozen II had a lot of hype and anticipation around it, with the original a cultural phenomenon now, and a dedicated World of Frozen land at Disneyland Paris.
As I mentioned earlier though, many also dislike sequels for a lack of originality and creativity. That’s a topic for another day, but should theatre go down the road of continuing stage stories more?
The state of theatrical sequels
As I mentioned earlier though, many also dislike sequels for a lack of originality and creativity. That’s a topic for another day, but should theatre explore continuing stories as movie sequels do?
These are somehow very far and few between, with Wikipedia only acknowledging 28 sequels, though there are clearly more.
True sequels
A famous example is Love Never Dies, the sequel to The Phantom of the Opera, which follows the continuing story of Christine Daaé. Now, this didn’t go too well, receiving mostly negative reviews, with arguments that it’s detrimental to its famous predecessor. It’s coming back for a Concert soon and it’ll be interesting to see how it’s received nowadays!
Bring Back Birdie is another high profile case, which received similar criticism, as the sequel to Bye Bye Birdie. Annie had two sequels, with Miss Hannigan’s Revenge being the first, and also the worst of the two. Annie 2 was attempt number two at a sequel and was much better received, despite not making it to broadway.
More recently (11 years ago, I’m old), The Rocky Horror Show received a sequel with Shock Treatment in 2015, based on the 1980s movie. This followed many original characters from the classic musical, and apparently was received decently overall. It’s one I want to catch sometime! I’d be remiss to also not mention Wicked, which is a prequel-sequel of course to The Wizard of Oz, both of which are stage adaptations based on books.
This is far from a comprehensive list of theatrical sequels as you can tell, and note how many of these adapt sequels which already exist on the screen or in literature. This also doesn’t count shows from other parts of the world. I’d love to hear of other examples!
Sequels to on-screen media
What is common in stage shows that act as sequels or spinoffs to existing on-screen media. These are not musicals, but two appropriate examples of this include:
- Harry Potter and the Cursed Child – a sequel to The Deathly Hallows, playing out exclusively on stage and via a screenplay release.
- Stranger Things: The First Shadow – a prequel to Stranger Things, focusing on Henry Creel and events relevant to seasons 4 and 5 of the show. We are big fans of this show!
While not sequels to stage shows, this is an insight that the stage isn’t opposed to continuing stories. We can talk about stage adaptations and spin offs another time.
Disney sequels
Disney are very well known for sequels on the screen, and that doesn’t really translate to the stage. This is a real shame in my view as Frozen II is a better movie than the first, which is a hot take, and could be a spectacle on stage with its darker tone and more effects.
We have High School Musical 2, a staged version of the High School Musical sequel, which also has a stage show in itself. This can be classed as a theatrical sequel here, and I’m pleased the best movie in that trilogy got an adaptation.
Beyond that, Disney likes to do some sneaky workarounds to include sequel movie content on stage. Camp Rock: The Musical is essentially an adaptation of the first and second movies in the franchise, with songs and storylines from both. Descendents: The Musical is also similar, featuring hits from the movies as well. This is a clever approach to this, sticking to a singular iconic story, while including everyone’s favourite songs across multiple movies. This also saves on developing multiple stage shows, with everything inside one package.
Shrek: The Musical does this more subtly, with the production including a Puss in Boots and a Fairy Godmother cameo, both only featuring in the second movie. Let’s hope this gets a musical adaption as this is also the best Shrek movie!
Why no stage sequels?
Why is there such apprehension, seemingly, on doing stage sequels? I think part of it is sequels in general whether it be book, TV, or movie tend to release years after their predecessor. Before checking out the sequel, you often have to revisit the original to remind yourself of what happened. If an original musical ends its run 3 years before the sequel musical launches, it’s going to be tough to revisit it unless a community theatre group happens to put on that production nearby. This also makes theatrical sequels less accessible to new audiences, as it’s tough for them to stand alone as their own story.
The safest option, therefore, is to stick with the single shows and make them something people want to revisit. For movies or TV adaptations, Disney’s approach with including songs from sequels in the original’s story makes a lot of sense and you effectively create a playlist of the best songs in that stage show. The stage can still be used to adapt more stories relating to a franchise, as the Harry Potter and Stranger Things shows illustrate with a ton of success, money, and eyeballs watching along.
Last but not least, theatre doesn’t need to join the movie discourse of “stop making sequels!”. It’s too exhausting to go there, though please still adapt Frozen II just for me.
Chris.
Leave a Reply