When I was 13, I started my five-year obsession with the “Beetlejuice” franchise. I bought merchandise, watched the 1988 movie countless times and learned every song from the musical version.
My mom even took me to see the musical off-Broadway, and I cried from excitement before the show started. To say I was equally as excited when the “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” movie came out this month would have been an understatement.
That excitement lasted until I actually watched it. I sat in the theater on opening night, September 6, wore all of my merch and prepared myself to be amazed, but I left the theater feeling underwhelmed.
I probably should have known to significantly lower my expectations for “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.” I can’t recall a time where I was truly impressed by a sequel after such a classic — let alone one that came out 30 years after the first movie. While it has always been a trend to pump out sequels to old classics, “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” proved that it’s time to stop disappointing fans and let classic storylines rest.
Classic films transport viewers into worlds of new topics, characters, settings and ideas—many of which are completely unique to their cinematic universe and offer the audience a fresh experience.
This was the case when “Beetlejuice” came out in 1988. Even though I wasn’t alive to see it on opening night, I still remember the first time I watched it. I was eight years old and staying up way past my bedtime in a hotel room. My mom turned on the TV, and “Beetlejuice” was on.
I was amazed by and obsessed with Winona Ryder as Lydia Deetz and kind of grossed out —but in a good way —by Michael Keaton as Beetlejuice. The edgy and comedic themes, along with Keaton’s iconic performance, made the film stand out among all the others I had seen as a horror-obsessed child.
I can’t exactly say the same for the sequel.
In “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice,” the same characters, jokes, tropes and storylines from the first movie were overused and easily tired. This time around, the best Beetlejuice joke was a grimy “spilling” of his guts during a fake couples therapy session. The rest of the jokes felt like they came straight out of the brain of a 13-year old boy who had watched the original once. The number of sex jokes, including one about a terrifying Beetlejuice baby, was kind of appalling.
“Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” attempted to draw in viewers by casting one of the newest young movie stars (I’m looking at you, Jenna Ortega). Even though Ortega is a great actress, her character as Astrid Deetz was no match for the storyline and performance Ryder gave as Lydia Deetz.
Ortega has also already played a Tim Burton character who falls in love with a guy only to find out that he’s a monster. I know this is a sequel, but we shouldn’t be copying from other movies as well.
The new characters were thrown together with extremely predictable storylines, and even though they tried to capture the magic of the original cast, they just fell short. I can’t even count how many films I have seen where the mother and daughter start with a strained relationship, only to escape impending doom and somehow heal all of their issues. Don’t even get me started on the “everything goes wrong on Halloween” trope.
You’re telling me both Astrid and Lydia Deetz, strong women who became independent from a young age, don’t realize when they are being used by men? How many guys preying on the Deetz family do we really need in one movie? I think we can leave that sexist trope in the past.
I feel like the main reason for the creation of these sequels is because of the money. In 1988, the original “Beetlejuice” only made $8 million opening weekend, and $77 million during its entire time in theaters, while “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” made a whopping $110 million during opening weekend alone.
“Beetlejuice” became a “comedic classic” according to the New Yorker’s Pauline Kael whofirst reviewed the film in 1988. Many people, including myself, continued to consume the old content and spend money on the franchise even decades after the classic film was released. The production team saw the success the original film still has today and decided to push their luck with the sequel. The promise of more money is enough to make most companies jump at the opportunity.
This logic could be the case for some of the other crazy-bad sequels we’ve also been subjected to. For example, the 2024 musical version of “Mean Girls” was slammed across Tiktok and Instagram for being generally bad and cringe worthy. It also featured a lot of poor product placement, which some viewers claimed made the movie seem like a big advertisement. This ties back to the money trend. “Mean Girls” 2024 made $104 million worldwide during its time in theaters.
However, box office metrics don’t always mean a movie is good. The original “Mean Girls” received a Rotten Tomatoes critic rating of 84%, while the musical remake scored 69%.
With all of the time between the releases of each movie, the anticipation and expectations built beyond what producers can actually pull off. It is hard for these movies to stand out due to the large shadow cast upon them from their predecessors.
It is time we let classic films like “Beetlejuice” rest. We can still enjoy the original movies without needing a sequel to them. My advice? Save your money and a trip to theaters. Just re-watch the original version. It is still just as amazing as when it first hit theaters.