Frazz by Jef Mallett for May 26, 2024

I recently spotted a book on my shelf. Hadn’t read it in about 60 years. It was like reading a brand new book!

My gripe is not with sequels, but with movies that incorporate well-known characters only to hype their own movie.

I’m currently doing a slow reread of a book that I read 13 years ago, immediately after its release. I’m having a hard time convincing myself that I HAVE read it. So much is unfamiliar.

…or so much that you missed…

MOST sequels are poor because the director / movie company is attempting to recreate what caused the first one to be WORTH a sequel. So there’s very little originality… including the actors.

Can’t step in the same river twice, eh?

This comic makes more sense to me if they were talking about reboots rather than sequels.

I’m re-reading a book I read 47 years ago, " A Fish Dinner in Memison" by E.R. Eddison.

I sort of remember it but there are so many incredible details that it is an absolute pleasure to be reacquainted with it!

I know I live in North Florida but my popup ads while reading this are live quail cages and leakproof underwear (scratches head).

Because the equivalent would be re-watching the movie, not making a sequel.

Books have sequels, and those often aren’t very good either.

Not so much sequels as why do we need a new Batman and Superman every few years

Just watched the two sequels to Smokey & The Bandit. Even the cat left the room..

The late, great Roger Ebert defined it this way – “Sequel: A filmed deal”.

does this have something to do with stepping into a river?

The Outlander series, the Kent Family chronicles, and The Earth’s Children Series are kept on my shelves. In addition, I have kept about 100 individual books that were worth it. I’m rereading the Kent Family series now. Usually, it takes about 10 years before it seems new again. I’m looking forward to senility, so it will all be new to me. When you find something that is really really good, why take a chance on something that probably isn’t?

You’re no longer the same person you were when you started reading this sentence.

I hope I’m still alive when Caldwell grows up!

I think the point is we change, not the work we are revisiting, and so we see things differently. Chew on that, fellas.

OK, I’ll bite. Why DO you dump on movie sequels? Just can’t go a day without finding SOMETHING to criticize?

Very insightful. Thank you.

I would love to reread a few James A. Michener novels, but they’re somewhat lengthy and I fear that by doing so I might miss out on something newly published in my time left…

So many books, so little time …

I can relate. I think I’ve reread Terry Pratchett’s “Going Postal” 5 times now and it hasn’t gotten old. Of the books in the Discworld series I’ve read, that one’s a masterpiece.

Yah. But as good as Jackson’s LOTR movies are, I do wish they could have included “The Scouring of the Shire” as in the book, but leaving out Tom Bombadil can be looked at in several ways.

And we’re back to a kid making a bad assumption in the first panel. If “we” always dumped on sequels, there wouldn’t be any. Not all books are good. Not all sequels are bad. Not all cartoon characters are smart.

I gotta give Caulfield credit on this one : he nailed it.

Love is more beautiful the second time around?

I usually love this strip as it is very insightful and its author, Jef Mallett, has a brilliant wit. But this one has me perplexed. By definition a movie “sequel” means a continuation of the original story, not a repeat, which would instead be called a remake. So their entire discussion should be about movie remakes, not sequels…

“My definition of good literature is that which can be read by an educated reader, and reread with increased pleasure.”

—Gene Wolfe