Whenever Ben Shapiro takes questions after a speech, he invites those who disagree with him to come to the front of the line. Whenever I take questions after a speech, I invite those who disagree with me to sit quietly and try to figure out where they went wrong.
But in fact, I’ve always been very comfortable with differing opinions. As correct as mine so often are, it would not be a very interesting world if everyone signed on. But now and then, I do stumble on an opinion that bothers me. For instance: the idea that a sequel can be better than the original.
Just to be clear, I’m not talking about trilogies — a single story played out over three. And I’m not talking about a series in which a character — like Sherlock Holmes, say — deals with different events. I’m talking about a franchise, where the first story is so popular that the storyteller can see his way to making a fortune by pretending it didn’t end when it ended.
I’m not philosophically opposed to such sequels. It’s understandable that people who enjoy the world of a story might want to see more stories that take place in that world. It’s understandable that writers and filmmakers want to make a fortune. But almost always — so often that you could almost leave out the almost — the first tale in the franchise is made great by a spark of originality that by definition can never be recreated.
Some examples.