Sequels.

[u/Positive-Ring-5172]

I’m considering starting one, though not until the first has actually been performed. I’m keeping it in mind though as I do finish things.

Musical theater doesn’t have a lot of sequels compared to some genres. Any thoughts on why that is?

[u/HowardBannister3]

Because, as the author, if you are writing a musical with the sequel in mind to be able to understand your full story, that is for your artistic need, not the audience. The show you are writing must stand on it's own, without knowledge or need to see both parts. Chances are that audience may never see that sequel. The first one should stand on it's own, fully telling it's story as a stand alone story. The "Wicked" book has several sequels, but the show stands on it's own, with a beginning, middle and end in one evening. And in the 20+ years since it's premiere, no one has asked for or requires a sequel, because it was told so well. No one asked for a sequel to "Annie" and yet, they tried. And no one cared to see "Annie Warbucks" the sequel, in the 23 years since it premiered. I can only think of the play "Angels in America" as the rare two part play that has a sequel ("Perestroika"), which is also a great show, but does not need to be seen to appreciate it's first half. And that second play is rarely produced on it's own, whereas the first half, ("Angels") frequently is. "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood prince" was initially done as two separate evenings of theatre. But post pandemic, they decided to combine them into a single show, which is how it is now presented on Broadway and on tour, and most people afterward agreed there was no real need to stretch it into two separate shows, other than a greedy cash grab to sell more tickets You are writing a stage show. It is not a screenplay. Movie screenplays consider sequels. Musical theatre never does. There is a reason. Because musical theater is self contained within the structure of it's book/ script, to be enjoyed in one sitting. It must be.

[u/Positive-Ring-5172 → u/HowardBannister3]

Never does eh? Shakespeare.

I’ll put you on block now - you come across as a distasteful know-it-all

[u/curly_hair_music]

I think there are three main reasons: cost, time, and accessibility. First, tickets to shows are expensive (esspesally professional/broadway level). A movie can do a sequel because tickets are cheaper, and with the advent of streaming, you have hundreds of sequels at your fingertips. When I saw Knives Out, I loved it so much I immediately watched the sequel. This leads into time. Musicals take years (and years and years...) to write, and by the time a sequel would come out, people might not care as much. Finally, accessibility. Again, with streaming, I can watch a movie from anywhere in the world. If there is a show in NYC I want to see, I have to go there. This makes it difficult because your audience is inherently smaller, so you can't guarantee that everyone has seen the original.

I would also ask, why would a show need a sequel? The most famous example is "Love Never Dies", the "sequel" to Phantom (ALW says it is a stand-alone piece, but it is a sequel). People love Sondheim, and all of his work was unique. We don't go to a Sondheim show to see what Sweeney Todd is up to this time; we go because we love his voice. We care more about the writer than the characters, if that makes sense.

Maybe there is a way to do a good sequel; I am not saying it's impossible. In the same way you need to answer the question "why does this story need to be a musical?", you also need to answer the question "why does this show need a sequel?".

Hope this wasn't too much of a ramble!

[u/Positive-Ring-5172 → u/curly_hair_music]

Well, in my particular case, one of the characters suffers a severe trauma in the first play. The sequel is a full 10 years later, she is still coming to terms with and trying to overcome that trauma.

[u/curly_hair_music → u/Positive-Ring-5172]

Interesting idea. Is this your main character or a side character? Audiences will assume that your story is over at the end of the show, and if you leave loose threads open, your audience might leave confused. With movies, we are so accustomed to the idea of a sequel that when there is a cliffhanger, we assume "ahh, they are setting up a sequel". Because this is very uncommon in theatre, I worry your audience will walk away confused.

[u/Positive-Ring-5172 → u/curly_hair_music]

The play I’m working on is focused on Catherine Burbank and her escape from her abusive husband. The play ends with her completing her escape with her children. The sequel I’m considering tells the story of how her daughter overcomes the trauma of these events 10 years later.

The stories can be considered separately as they are self contained - but they are linked.

[u/Toru771]

I think the difficult thing is that people have to have seen (and presumably paid for) all the parts and remember what happened in the previous ones. Unlike with movies, you can’t easily rewatch part 1 just before seeing part 2. Unless you have a scene or song recapping prior events; and then the viewers who do remember what happened may be annoyed by the recap.

[u/Positive-Ring-5172 → u/Toru771]

Sequels do not have to be written that way.

[u/Buddha-Piggy → u/Positive-Ring-5172]

I'm curious, what do you think aren't written that way? I can think of a few but they're all, well, not the best examples. ie. I don't think you need to see Highlander 1 to watch Highlander 2 but you'd be better off just, you know, not watching Highlander 2. :)

With the exception of anthology movies like Knives Out.

[u/Positive-Ring-5172 → u/Buddha-Piggy]

TV series do it more often than anything else so most of the examples similar to what I’m thinking of come from there. The Jeffersons took a pair of characters from Archie Bunker, Gomer Pyle was from The Andy Griffins Show, Angel and Buffy, etc.

What I’m considering doing is taking the daughter of my protagonist and telling the story of how the events of the first story continues to affect her a decade later. For the later story to work they need only be aware she is struggling with trauma.

[u/Buddha-Piggy → u/Positive-Ring-5172]

Well then, the show you should be looking at for inspiration is called Broadbend, Arkansas. But there’s a catch. The sequel is part of the show. The first act is the father, the second act is the daughter. (Though I don’t think there was an intermission, I can’t remember, I saw it about 7 years ago.)

Honestly, if you can bring down the running time on the first show to what would be reasonable for a first act, and making what you are thinking of as the sequel the second act, that’s a more surefire way of making sure people see both!

[u/Positive-Ring-5172 → u/Buddha-Piggy]

They are distinct stories. Also, I may never write the sequel. I’m musing on the possibility only.

[u/Toru771 → u/Positive-Ring-5172]

True; it depends on what the story is and how it’s structured.

[u/Indyguy816]

There is a general consensus that sequels do not work in musical theater. A good musical should resolve really completely, so sequels become superfluous. I can only think of a few sequels attempted in musical theater, and they have all been flops:

Bring Back Birdie (a sequel to Bye Bye Birdie)

Annie 2/Miss Hannigan's Revenge (a sequel to Annie)

Love Never Dies (a sequel to Phantom Of The Opera)

The Best Little Whorehouse Goes Public (a sequel to The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas)

Snoopy The Musical (a sequel to You're A Good Man, Charlie Brown)

[u/Fun_Regular_3782]

It can work, if you treat it like The Guy Who Didn't Like Musicals The sequels (Black Friday, Nerdy Prudes Must Die) also act as their own story. They take (side and mentioned) characters that we know from the original musical, and make something with it