I do what now?
There's other stuff, but, really, that's all we need to know to be able to put together a reasonable idea of what would make up a sequel twenty-six years after the original came out.
But the real question here is, as it's been the aforementioned twenty-six years, is it really necessary to make a sequel? Don't get me wrong; if it is done right, it could be a fun film. But, like so many films that were after-the-fact sequels (or prequels) that came out years after they could have been relevant, it could not possibly live up to fans' expectations. (I'm looking at you, The Phantom Menace.) On top of that, didn't the original Beetlejuice say everything that really needed to be said about the subject? Do we really need a sequel to catch up on what's been going on with a dead guy who was funny, sure, but also--let's be honest--kind of an asshole?
For those of you who don't recall the plot, it goes something like this:
Alec Baldwin and Geena Davis are a married couple living in a nameless, Stepford Wives-like village, trying to live normal lives while coping with the fact that Geena's character is barren. Alec's character copes by asserting his OCD on a tiny replica of their village. A small dog kills them, and a family of weird people--the mom from Home Alone, the mad scientist from Howard The Duck, and future kleptomaniac Ryder--move into their home. When Baldwin and Davis, now ghosts, hire Keaton to scare the new family away, he tries to force Ryder's character to marry him. (Mind you, this is early teen Wynona Ryder, which makes Keaton's character a pedophile, too. Hilarious.) Wackiness ensues.
Yep. He wanted to hit that.
Now, admittedly, it's been a while since I've seen the original Beetlejuice (as I'm sure it has been with, I dunno, everybody), but I think it's safe to say that the story was neatly wrapped up by the time the credits rolled. And for those who didn't get their fill, there was also a cartoon series that followed Beetlejuice and a surprisingly forgiving Lydia's adventures, post-attempted forced underage marriage. It was...not very good.
So where will this movie go? Will there be more stop-motion clay worms? Will Michael Keaton, who once played a possessed snowman in Jack Frost, be able to don Robin Thicke's "Blurred Lines" suit (hopefully washed since Miley Cyrus attempted to grind the ass she doesn't have against it) and reprise the role that somehow managed to get him the role of Batman himself?
Will Geena Davis, star of Cutthroat Island, return? Will she be able to recapture the kind of performance that made critics stand up and say "Earth Girls Are Easy was a film that had Geena Davis in it"?
Will Alec Baldwin, star of angry voicemails, also return? If he does, will he be able to keep from screaming at everyone?
And, most importantly, do I still blame Tim Burton for what he allowed Joel Schumacher to do to the Batman franchise?
Bat-nipples. He gave us Bat-nipples.
(For the record, the answers are as follows: It will "go" all over the previous one; probably; more than likely, but with a bit less energy; is she still alive?; if so, probably; maybe; probably not; and yes...yes I do.)
All the best,
Derek and Bosco