David Katzenberg and Seth Grahame-Smith, partners in KatzSmith Productions, have recently signed a deal with Warner Brothers to give WB the right of first refusal to movies produced under their company. One of the upshots of this is a sequel to the 1988 Tim Burton film, Beetlejuice.
Now, it’s been sufficiently long since I’ve seen Beetlejuice that my memories of it have gotten pretty fuzzy and I’ve put it on my list of movies to see as if it were one I hadn’t seen yet. In fact, for a while (i.e., until IMDb came around and gave me a way to look such things up), I was under the mistaken impression that it had a sequel, and a fairly mediocre one at that. As it turned out, what I was remembering was the (actually earlier) Disney TV movie Mr. Boogedy and its sequel Bride of Boogedy, which aired in 1986 and 1987, respectively. So, with my memories somewhat straightened out, the question becomes, “Does Beetlejuice warrant a sequel?” Now, while the original told a complete story, and one assumes the family in it is squared away, there’s probably nothing stopping Betelgeuse himself from having another adventure, and Michael Keaton’s probably not too busy to reprise his role. And they do say it’s a sequel, not a remake (though Deadline.com’s article does say “the intention is to reboot it by advancing the storyline of the original” which is a nice little bit of syntactic gibberish.)
But ultimately I question whether we actually need a sequel to Beetlejuice, especially one that, as with so many sequels lately, is more than 20 years after-the-fact. People may be 20 years past caring at this point.