# Why can't Hollywood make sequels?



## Mighty mouse (Sep 15, 2006)

On the assumption that Hollywood is just about money, surely they would have their eye on the 3rd so the second would have to be workable?
So is it more difficult to make a good sequel than an original?
Take Pirates of the C 2. For me it was just the stand out performance of Depp. So if they had increased his screen time, would it have made it as fun as the first or made the character irritating?
Also some sequels seem to be way too long. Like eating too much chocolate it can turn an enjoyable event into the opposite.
I also wander who watches all these long action sequences, most I know just FF them.


----------



## Dave (Sep 15, 2006)

_Pirates of the C: DMC_ has just become the third top grossing film of all time, behind _Titanic_ and _Lord of the Rings: RotK_. It wouldn't do that unless people liked it. On the other hand, I agree with you about the action sequences which just seemed to be added in for there own sake.





			
				Mighty mouse said:
			
		

> So is it more difficult to make a good sequel than an original?


I think it is down to characters. If you have good, well defined characters - heroes, villains, creatures or monsters - then you can put them into new situations that still work. The worst sequels are just poor imitations of the originals where exactly the same thing happens as did the first time around.

So yes, I agree, they should give Depp more screen time.

Apparently, the third outing will see Keith Richards (Rolling Stones) as Jack Sparrow's father.


----------



## dwndrgn (Sep 15, 2006)

I think there are several reasons that sequels are often less exciting than the original.  To begin with, the audience that watched the original is already familiar with the characters - therefore most of the movie will have to be all PLOT without background, flashbacks and all that setup work that goes into developing a character.  An entire movie of PLOT can be difficult to sustain therefore you either have too long sequences, too many extraneous filler scenes and sometimes a meandering flow that won't match the pace and flow of the original.

Add to that the fact that it is no longer original.  One of the most interesting and fun parts of movies is being surprised and seeing new characters doing new things.  The sequel will lose this sense of 'wonder' though they usually try to inject a bit of it by bringing in new characters.  The problem with this is often the new characters are there only for that reason and will seem out of place or just extraneous.

So, with two strikes against them already - a sequel hast to be much better than the original to surpass it's predecessor.

However, there is the factor of people not wanting to miss out.  How many people if told the second movie isn't nearly is good as the first would just pass it by?  I'm sure there is a group of people that will go see it no matter what they have heard, just because they don't want to miss anything or because they want the closure.

So, the numbers for sequels can get skewed a bit by that.


----------



## sanityassassin (Sep 15, 2006)

As I've not seen PotC DMC yet I can't comment on it as a sequel although from what I've heard and read it is a poor sequal, but not all films sequals dissapoint although many do. I found the second matrix film was better than the first although the third was terrible and Aliens was a very good film as a sequel but on the whole I think sequels do fail to live up to expectations and could list 10 times more flops than successes


----------



## BookStop (Sep 15, 2006)

Nope- most sequels don't live up to expectations set by the original. PotC: DMC didn't do it for me. I agree with dwndrgn; sequels suffer from lack of background and wonder that first films have. There are occasional exceptions to that, but only very occasional. Movies that are good despite being sequels: Toy Story 2, Star Wars V, Matrix 2, X-men 2, and definitely Aliens.


----------



## j d worthington (Sep 15, 2006)

It's interesting that, back in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, sequel after sequel were made (and not just in Hollywood) to successful films, which were often quite as successful, and expanded on the characters making them richer and more complex ... but these were almost invariably _outside_ the genres of sf, fantasy, or horror. I think _that's_ where the problem lies: trying to outdo the original in special effects and "gosh-wow!" stuff, rather than having a gripping story that sweeps the audience along ... you have that, and just a small bit of the other will seem impressive (if done well). But with sff films, Hollywood seems to think that all it's about is the special effects, and storytelling simply doesn't matter; therefore yes, the majority of sequels in these genres stink on ice, since the basic plot is rehashed over and over and over again.

Look at it this way: these are all fields where series characters or series revolving around a certain milieu are very popular in written form ... if one can transfer that interest in the characters, the setting, and/or the story itself onto the screen (and there's really no reason it can't be done except that we have shoddy screenwriting), then there's no reason in the world why series films can't work in these fields as well. But to heck with the special effects being the first consideration; let the story be the first consideration and the special effects will follow. Then you would likely see some genuinely good sequels to sff films.


----------



## carrie221 (Sep 15, 2006)

As said above the problem that Hollywood has when they makes a sequel is that the try to outdo the orginial and if it was a hit many time it cannot be outdone... they hsould just stick with what was good with the first movie


----------



## steve12553 (Sep 15, 2006)

I think you hit it on the head, JD. After the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark the sequel tried to out shine the first one as far as action goes. The successful series from the forties and earlier were about characters ( The Thin man movies, The Saint, Sherlock Holmes all we about the characters.)  THe modern exception was the Star Trek movies that were always about the characters.


----------



## ray gower (Sep 15, 2006)

Or it could simply be there is just no story for the sequel to use, just an inate urge to milk a success.


----------



## j d worthington (Sep 16, 2006)

steve12553 said:
			
		

> I think you hit it on the head, JD. After the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark the sequel tried to out shine the first one as far as action goes. The successful series from the forties and earlier were about characters ( The Thin man movies, The Saint, Sherlock Holmes all we about the characters.) THe modern exception was the Star Trek movies that were always about the characters.


 
Actually, those (plus the Dr. Mabuse films by Fritz Lang) were precisely what I had in mind ... especially the Thin Man and The Saint. Part of this, of course, may be that at that point Hollywood actually had writers of the stature of Hammett, Hecht, Steinbeck, etc. (not to mention dear Leigh Brackett) writing for them, whereas now they tend to avoid such and go strictly with people whose only medium is film (or, worse yet, music videos). And there's almost always a way to take such a large concept as most sff deals with and spin new (and good) stories from it ... if the screenwriter actually understands the concept. All too often, the universe that's been created is nothing but a "flat", and without that depth there really isn't anywhere to go once the original flash and glamor have been experienced.

The problem is that audiences have been fed pabulum for so long, I'm not sure many have the stomach for steak anymore.... (And no, I'm not saying that all older films were of that caliber; most weren't. But those that were quite often made a fairly good hit with audiences, hence the sequels. Now -- the dumber, the cheesier, the more vacuous -- and the more violent -- the better audiences seem to like it. I think there's a correlation between this debased taste and the rise of such cultural icons as Freddy Kruger, Jason Voorhees, and Michael Meyers ... not to mention the *Faces of Death* videos now having reached ... what? number XIX or so?)


----------



## littlemissattitude (Sep 16, 2006)

steve12553 said:
			
		

> I think you hit it on the head, JD. After the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark the sequel tried to out shine the first one as far as action goes.



Well, in this case, the second one did that, and it didn't work.  _Temple of Doom_ is, I think, the worst of the three.  On the other hand, _Last Crusade_ is my favorite of the three Indiana Jones movies by far.  I love the original, but the third one just has something that, for me, makes it special.

Also, I think the thing you have to remember, too, about Hollywood during the  20s, 30s, and 40s (and probably the 50s, as well...not sure about the 60s) is that in those years they were cranking out films left and right.  There were quite a lot of series, not to mention serials, but there were the one-offs as well.  Having so many more films made had a lot to do with the fact that back then, salaries were not over the top, even for the biggest stars...some of the top stars made a lot, but not what the biggest stars demand and get these days.  Also, there weren't huge effects budgets, and so forth, so there was money to make a greater number of films.  They made the sequels then for the same reason they make them now...they were familiar and they had done well.  Now, unfortunately, it costs so much...at least for a  big studio...to make a movie that they can't make as many.  So, by sticking to formula more sequels get made, for the same old reason that the subject matter is familiar and has made money before, and less original stuff has a chance to get made.

The independents do better at getting original stories made, but distribution is sometimes a problem so that even if the movies get made, it is often hard to find them until they come out, if they do, on DVD.  Even in as large a city as Fresno, we don't get half or more of the first run films that come out.  It is so depressing when I see a Los Angeles or San Francisco paper and see all the films advertised that I would like to see but will never play on a theatre screen here.  And "business" is the reason behind that.  Every single movie screen in the Fresno/Clovis area is now controlled by the same company and so we get the "blockbusters" on multiple screens for multiple weeks, and if we do get what are so loving called "art" films, they might get one screen for one week.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Sep 16, 2006)

I think the question should be rephrased: "Why should they even bother?". 

Only when you consider just how many thousands of fresh script ideas have been shoveled into the gaping maw of that beast called Hollywood, only to be scuttled in favour of focusing studio resources on _Rambo IV _can you fully comprehend the utter bankruptcy of vision that most producers have. 

I hear this common reframe all the time: "What can we do? There are aren't any fresh ideas or stories." Bilge! Universal Studios has a massive vault in which literally hundreds of thousands of treatments and optioned screenplays are sealed - new visions, fresh wonders that will never dance across a screen or burn their imprint on someone's memory. Much the same goes for all the other studios. So what usually gets made? _Jason Vs. Freddy_.

And now the blood drains from the faces of Hollywood producers when they look at their box office receipts. Does this surprise anyone?

As pointed out earlier by J.D., the sequelitis that afflicts Hollywood is hardly a new or recent phenomena. If these tyros had a sense of history or a memory that stretched further back than the previous night's repast at Spago's they'd know that the industry's most recent crisis occurred back in the late 1960's - and for many of the same reasons. All the major studios were on the verge of insolvency. Some like Warner Bros. slapped a Band-Aid on their gushing arterial wounds in the form of mergers. Paramount, that crumbling mountain, became a go-go conglomerate when Gulf and Western bought them out at flea market prices. But that's not what saved them as we shall see.

Hollywood, if it's to survive, will need to re-invent itself again and allow new voices to be heard. The answer certainly doesn't lie in leveraged mergers into the video game industry or an aggressive engulfment of the internet. What Hollywood does - when it does it correctly - is unique unto itself. 

In 1968 Darryl and Richard Zanuck - against advice to the contrary - produced a darkly disturbing and daring film called _Planet of the Apes_, complete with a nihlistic ending and a bleak atonal score by Jerry Goldsmith. On the face of it, a project that hardly seems to have had the makings of a blockbuster, yet it pulled 20th Century Fox out of the crucible. 

At about the same time Charles Bludhorn, CEO of Gulf and Western, hired as his Head of Production at the newly acquired Paramount Studios Robert Evans, a man who would go onto develop and greenlight such classics as _Rosemary's Baby, Chinatown_ and_ The Godfather I and II_, amongst many others, ushering in a golden era of American filmmaking. Paramount pulled itself out of the Stygian depths to become the top ranking studio of the 1970's.

Therein lies a lesson, once learned and now forgotten.

The simplest things are often the hardest: scrape aside the roller-coaster digital gimmickry and the Croesus-sized star salaries that would make the Sun King blanch and get back to basics: 

Take intelligent risks. Show some *LEADERSHIP* and *VISION*. Tell intriqueing stories in an engaging way with engaging characters and a startling discovery will be made: the audience never abandoned the movies. It was always there. It's Hollywood that abandoned the audience.


----------



## Princess Ivy (Sep 16, 2006)

I think that is a good point, sequels are so often written to forumla, whereas the original may have been ground breaking, it is now passe and done to death. 
yes, lma, i agree on the indiana jones one, last crusade is my favorite.


----------



## Whitestar (Sep 20, 2006)

dwndrgn said:
			
		

> I think there are several reasons that sequels are often less exciting than the original. To begin with, the audience that watched the original is already familiar with the characters - therefore most of the movie will have to be all PLOT without background, flashbacks and all that setup work that goes into developing a character. An entire movie of PLOT can be difficult to sustain therefore you either have too long sequences, too many extraneous filler scenes and sometimes a meandering flow that won't match the pace and flow of the original.
> 
> Add to that the fact that it is no longer original. One of the most interesting and fun parts of movies is being surprised and seeing new characters doing new things. The sequel will lose this sense of 'wonder' though they usually try to inject a bit of it by bringing in new characters. The problem with this is often the new characters are there only for that reason and will seem out of place or just extraneous.
> 
> ...


 
I completely agree with you, J.D.! Sequels as a whole lose their sense of wonder and originality. Its a bad concept, unfortunately, the reason why Hollywood goes overboard with sequels is because they're far more profitable, they offer a financial security safety net. Its easier and safer to cash in from a very successful film, as opposed to creating something original. It takes guts to do something original and Hollywood doesn't have them, at least, not anymore. However, if it makes you feel any better, the Indepedent film market has been increasing exponentially over the years and it will eventually overtake Hollywood. Its just a matter of time and hopefully, by then, Hollywood will once again reemerged with fresh minds and fresh ideas. 

The only time sequels should be allowed to be made is if you're creating a saga, but aside from that, leave the original film alone! Just look at the Star Trek movies. About fifty percent of the movies are crap, big time. One of the reasons why they failed was because they focused more on special effects, considering that they had a much bigger budget, and less time spent on character development and storyline. Plus, they were made soley for fans and not for the mainstream audience. It would have been a win-win situation if the writers had accomplished the aforementioned tasks, but to no avail. 

Now look at Serenity. Initially, as Firefly, the show lasted only one season but it was a great solid one at that (ditto for neo-Battlestar Galactica). Not too many shows start off that way and its a tough feat to accomplish. But then, Universal was impressed by the Firefly DVD sales and saw motion picture potential. As a result, they did what was unthinkable in Hollywood: *they financed a film based on a failed tv series.* It was because of this bold move that I have a newfound respect for Universal, but that's besides the point. 

Anyway, the film, Serenity won critical acclaim, despite moderate box office results, making the prospects of getting a sequel greenlit unlikely. But one of the good things that resulted from this was that we have at least one great film that surpasses all the Star Wars and Star Trek movies to date. They could never hope to be in the same league as Serenity. And, the actors of Serenity will never be typecast and are already finding work in other projects. I guess this could be considered a victory in itself. 

Still, there is a part of me that yearns to see a sequel to Serenity because it was originally envisoned as a trilogy, and I would only support it so long as Joss Whedon is behind it. There is still potential for more stories in the Firefly/Serenity universe, but the film tied up a lot of loose ends. If this is indeed the final chapter, I'm happy with it too. To reiterate, I rather have one great film than several sequels that sucks. 

Whitestar


----------



## Joel007 (Sep 20, 2006)

Surely there must be more than one "rich to the point of overkill" fan who would fund a sequel to serenity


----------



## scalem X (Sep 20, 2006)

Pff too lazy to read all this. My opinion though is:

Making a good sequel is possible. (note mission impossible I&II)
The problem is that the producers and who else makes them, don't really take the effort to make them as good as the audience in general will go and see it anyway.


----------



## ravenus (Sep 20, 2006)

scalem X said:
			
		

> Pff too lazy to read all this. My opinion though is:
> 
> Making a good sequel is possible. (note mission impossible I&II)


Funnily enough, I thought MI:2 was one of the poorest excuses for a follow-up to the first film. None of the intriguing plot twists, De Palma's eye for innovative camerawork replaced by John Woo's stale slow-mo shots and way too much more of the aggravating Mr. Cruise.


----------



## Wolfeborn (Sep 20, 2006)

ravenus said:
			
		

> Funnily enough, I thought MI:2 was one of the poorest excuses for a follow-up to the first film.


 
me too, but the other point was valid


----------



## Joel007 (Sep 20, 2006)

Meh, tom cruise didn't look like he knew how to wield a firearm until collateral. MI3 was better than 2!

I think the best film sequels are the ones written before the first one came out. As long as that doesn't apply to the matrix trilogy _shudder_.


----------



## j d worthington (Sep 20, 2006)

Well, there have been sequels that are worthy of (and occasionally surpass) the original; probably the two most notable (certainly the two that come immediately to mind with me) are *Bride of Frankenstein* and *The Empire Strikes Back*; there was a level of polish and craftsmanship in these that, quite simply, outdid the original in both cases -- fond as I am of each of the original films. Fritz Lang's Dr. Mabuse films are each wonderful examples of film, and work well as sequels as well as alone. As noted by many above, it's the underlying reasons, I think, that have a lot to do with whether a sequel will turn out to be a worthy film, or a mildly entertaining bit of fluff, or a complete waste of celluloid. If it's for the profit motive... don't bother. If it's part of a story arc that was envisioned from the beginning, but was divided up because it was too costly to do all at once, and so was designed to be done in installments, with satisfactory endings just in case there weren't any sequels ... it has a pretty good chance of being at least an entertaining film. If it is something that comes from the fact that the world (or universe) in that film is just chock-full of room for new stories, new ideas, etc. ... then you're probably going to get something that's truly worthwhile, and can stand on its own merits.


----------



## jackokent (Sep 21, 2006)

I think this thread should be entitle "why can't hollywood *stop* making sequels"

Very few seem to have been worth the bother and most of them are just about cashing in. I nkow I raise this on every occassion but Greese 2 is my only exception. A film of unsurpassed brilliance.


----------



## TK-421 (Sep 21, 2006)

Well, I think there is some agreement that there are some exceptions to the sequels tend to suck rule. I offer The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock, Spiderman 2, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (mentioned already), X-Men II as examples of great sequels. 

Of course there are the Batman movies (except Batman Begins) at the opposite end of the spectrum.


----------



## Briareus Delta (Sep 29, 2006)

TK-421 said:
			
		

> Well, I think there is some agreement that there are some exceptions to the sequels tend to suck rule. I offer The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock, Spiderman 2, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (mentioned already), X-Men II as examples of great sequels.
> 
> Of course there are the Batman movies (except Batman Begins) at the opposite end of the spectrum.


 
Yes, there are notable exceptions to the rule. I certainly agree with you and JD about The Empire Strikes Back, a much better film than Star Wars.  I would also offer Aliens - head and shoulders above the original.  However, as a general rule, I would agree with Curt about the utter 'bankruptcy of vision' of most Hollywood producers (nicely put, Curt!).  There are numerous books that I have read that are crying out to be made into films. They never will, of course, because Hollywood rarely takes the chance on anything new and science fiction is still seen as having a minority appeal - despite the startling success of the Star Wars and Aliens franchises. I wonder if it's because they had their fingers so badly burned with the car crash otherwise known as Waterworld?

As far as I can see, the producers are money-driven and only interested in appealing to the lowest common denominator - hence all the truly awful rom coms and so-called comedies that have been around over the last few years.


----------



## BookStop (Sep 29, 2006)

jackokent said:
			
		

> Greese 2 is my only exception. A film of unsurpassed brilliance.


 
Are you serious, Jack?


----------



## intheknow (Dec 8, 2006)

Spiderman was one if the few exceptions...


----------



## steve12553 (Dec 9, 2006)

jackokent said:


> I think this thread should be entitle "why can't hollywood *stop* making sequels"


Many movies have a premise that shouldn't have a sequel but since it does well they make one. A story of a unique instance in the life of ordinary people should not be followed up on. Some movies about about adventurers who would have had more adventures. Give me a sequel with a good story. 
Some movies (*The Matrix*) have a good ending that should be left with the with the mystic of the ending.  On the other hand, I guess we're stuck because in the long run it's all about money.


----------



## Locksmith (Dec 19, 2006)

Two vaguely interesting things I turfed up:

From "Movie Sequels: A Cinema Intelligence Briefing ReportMovie Sequels: A Cinema Intelligence Briefing Report"
"Key Findings: 
- Sequels have take over $20bn at the box office in the past quarter of a century. The highest grossing series of films is the Star Wars franchise, the five movies earning $1.4bn at the US box office and the sixth moving keenly awaited by exhibitors and the public alike in 2005. 

- First movies in a series took 38 percent of total sequel revenues earned at US box office. The second movie (or the first sequel) accounted for 36.1 per cent of total box office revenues, *indicating that an average sequel performs only marginally poorer at the box office than the original film*.

- Action films account for the highest number of sequel releases, some 51 movies or 29.8 per cent of all sequels. However, sci-fi is probably the most successful sequel genre. Not only does one series extend to 10 movies (Star Trek), the average revenues earned by the second title are an impressive 46.1 per cent above the first." (My emphasis)

Secondly, a list of box office improvements:
List of film sequels by box-office improvement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think it's notable from this that some of the best improvements are for clearly better films (e.g. T2), but others are for much worse films (Austin Powers, Highlander).

Clearly this goes some way to address *why* Hollywood makes sequels, and also points to the fact that Hollywood makes commercially successful sequels - so the premise of this thread 'Hollywood can't make sequels' isn't entirely borne out.

What is quite important to remember is that Hollywood produces a vast number of new films each year. Most are not successful - many get limited releases, go DTV or become TV movies. So it should perhaps not be surprising that not every (or indeed many) sequel is as good as the first film.


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 19, 2006)

Locksmith said:


> Clearly this goes some way to address *why* Hollywood makes sequels, and also points to the fact that Hollywood makes commercially successful sequels - so the premise of this thread 'Hollywood can't make sequels' isn't entirely borne out.


 
It seems to me that the point of the thread is not that Hollywood can't make sequels (they've been doing that since the silent era), but that the vast majority of sequels, especially in the fantasy genres, are just _bad_. Much as I love the old Universal horror films, the vast majority of them are rubbish (the Mummy films, for instance, just having a couple of things moved around, but being basically a reshoot of the ones before), and the more recent Star Wars trilogy were just damned _awful_. Not to mention what happens with the various _modern_ horror franchises.....

My question to you is for clarification, as part of your post seems to be saying that as well, yet the above paragraph seems more ambiguous. Would you mind clearing that up, please?


----------



## Locksmith (Dec 19, 2006)

j. d. worthington said:


> My question to you is for clarification, as part of your post seems to be saying that as well, yet the above paragraph seems more ambiguous. Would you mind clearing that up, please?


 
Sorry for the lack of clarity. I'm not driving on a particular agenda, I just looked up a couple of things I thought people might find interesting. As a consequence I don't have a coherent argument, but I have a number of thoughts.

I'll see if I can break my thoughts down more clearly:
1. Hollywood doesn't care about the quality of films, other than in the pursuit of money (artistic quality is for the Indy movement, and Miramax has changed even that). You cannot ignore the financial element in this discussion, it's the whole motivation for the Hollywood studios. So, "why can't Hollywood make "good" films?" Answer, they don't care. They only want box office revenues.
2. In commercial terms, sequels are *very *successful for Hollywood (see the stats on revenues from sequels in my post above). Most films produced by Hollywood lose money, most sequels make money. They are less of a risk than new films as they have a proven following. 
3. Lots of people watch sequels, so my question back at you is are they "bad" films. Clearly millions of people don't think so. There are some objectively bad sequels, but also some objectively good sequels. There is then a bunch in the middle on which people have different opinions.
4. Sometimes commercially successful first films are also "good" films. 
5. In our subjective opinions, some sequels are good and some are bad (see the responses to this thread). Hollywood must therefore be having some degree of success even if you switch the benchmark to "artistic quality", which is not the yardstick of Hollywood. 
6. Sequels actually have a relatively high level of success in making "good" films in comparison to the general level of success achieved across Hollywood as a whole (although you don't necessarily appreciate the amount of drivel that sinks without trace, you are aware of bad sequels because you are already aware of the first film). 
7. Sequels need to strike whilst the iron is hot. It can take a years to produce the first film and you need to get the sequel to audience quickly to ride on the tide of public awareness. It's hardly surprising if the pet project of someone's entire life to date doesn't compare to a sequel rushed out in a year by the studio.

Sorry, still a bit rambling and unstructured, but hopefully there's some fuel for debate in there.


----------

