This post contains minor spoilers for “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.”
It took director Tim Burton more than 35 years to get around to “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice,” the aptly named sequel to his 1988 breakthrough hit. After all these years, Burton finally reunited with Michael Keaton, Winona Ryder, and Catherine O’Hara for another round of shenanigans featuring the ghost with the most. Based on the early reactions to the sequel, it seems like the wait was worth it. For Warner Bros., it figures to be a massive hit. So does that mean “Beetlejuice 3” is in the cards?
/FIlm’s Jacob Hall attended a press event for “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” with Burton in attendance. During a roundtable interview, the subject of a third installment in the franchise came up. Burton’s immediate response to the notion was a meandering string of consciousness, but it boils down to the possibility being very unlikely, at least in the immediate future. Burton said:
“Yeah, I mean, they talk, whatever, but if it follows the model now, I’d be making that one, I’d be over 100, and it’s possible, but I don’t know. With medical science these days, I don’t know. But no, I mean, like I said, for me, I wasn’t really personally interested. If you said it to me, I would run the other direction. This is one where it was something that caught my thing. Now, would something else hit? I don’t know. Not right now, because I’m still finishing this one, basically.”
“Beetlejuice” was a decent hit for Warner Bros. back in 1988, taking in nearly $75 million at the box office against a $15 million budget. More importantly, it was the hit that defined Burton as a filmmaker, one that has become immensely profitable as it gained eternal life as a late’ 80s classic well beyond its theatrical run. To that end, the sequel will outdo its predecessor in a matter of days. But that doesn’t guarantee a follow-up.
Beetlejuice 3 would probably have to happen without Tim Burton
The way things are going, financially anyway, it would make a great deal of sense for Warner Bros. to want “Beetlejuice 3” to happen. Money talks. It always does. That said, Burton isn’t getting any younger. Heck, he was considering retirement before this movie came around. Keaton is also in his ’70s, and he probably wouldn’t be around to play the title character again in another 30 years, as Burton half-joked.
Basically, if “Beetlejuice 3” is not going to be an immediate priority for Burton creatively, it would have to be with another filmmaker. That seems very unlikely as well, given that both of these films feel like they live or die by Burton’s very unique perspective as a filmmaker. That’s not easy to emulate. Plus, we can’t imagine Keaton wanting to return without Burton’s involvement. More importantly, is there even anything worth exploring in a third film?
The sequel does make a reference to Lydia’s real mother, who we never see on screen. At the press event, Burton was also asked about the possibility of seeing that character at some point. “We’ll see,” is all he had to say there. So that’s one potential avenue to explore. There’s also Jenna Ortega’s new character, who could take the torch and run with it in a follow-up. Ortega is the reason “Beetlejuice 2” happened in the first place, after all. Otherwise, there’s not an overt cliffhanger, though the end of the movie does leave things open-ended for a potential third movie.
What’s clear is that Burton wasn’t trying to set up another movie in this sequel. He had a story he wanted to tell, he executed that story, and he didn’t leave any threads dangling that demanded to be answered. If a third movie were to happen, it would be because a new story came about that needed telling. Taking everything we have before us, it’s hard to imagine it happening anytime soon.
“Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” is in theaters now.
