Why Do They Make Bad Sequels?
Did they really not know that this sequel will ruin the original movie???
Yes, they did; they knew that very well, but they went with it anyway...
Why? you ask, and to answer, I will put myself into the shoes of the producer who has just made a great film:
WOW, I did it! I have made this incredible movie; it's beautiful, it's artistic, it's innovative; people loved it, and it made tons of money, but... that's it. The movie has done its job, it has exhausted itself and fully played its potential, and did all of that incredibly well, but now it is dead.
Yes! it is dead! The movie does not have any more material of that same flavor that everyone loved. The lovable villain has died, the apocalypse has been prevented, the gang of boys have found their friend that they lost after a night of heavy drinking, and the poor fish has finally found his son! There is nothing more to make a sequel upon. I know all of that with no doubt, but I also know that people don't know that!
People would rush into cinemas to watch the sequel of the movie that they loved; many of them don't check reviews of movies before they go and watch them. So, a good trailer, along with the name of a movie that they loved, should suffice to get them on that seat.
Making movies, after all, is a business, and like all other businesses, generating profit is the ultimate goal. That's why, the box office numbers matter much more than those numbers on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb, and a sequel for a popular film is guaranteed to raise a box office number enough to call it a success. EVEN IF IT'S BAD.
One great example about this is the Hangover series.
The first Hangover was a huge success. The idea was innovative, the comedy was brilliant, and the movie made $467.5 millions on a budget of $35 million.
That's incredible! But that's it! There isn't much more to do with it; We either have to repeat the same idea, just in a different setting, which was done in the second Hangover, or to throw the theme away, and just play it using a completely different approach, which was done in the third. Both approaches are bad; if we repeat the same idea, we're being non-innovative, and if we change the whole theme, it is not the Hangover anymore! And, well, this is what really happened; most people didn't like the sequels; if you just google "worst movie sequels in history", you will not find a single list that doesn't contain one or both of the Hangover sequels. If you check the ratings, you will find out that the first part received a 7.8 on IMDb and 79% on RT, while the second received a 6.5 on IMDb and 33% on RT, and the third received a 5.9 on IMDb, and 20% on RT. You could clearly see how the movie was deteriorating, which made perfect sense, because the idea of the movie had already drained all its power.
The name of the movie, however, was not yet drained. That's why, financially speaking, both sequels were a tremendous success. The Hangover 2 cost $80 million to make, but returned $586.8 million! The third one cost $103 million, and walked away with $362 million. Yes, we got $259 million on the worst Hangover movie. Now tell me this was a failure!
"But it ruined the original movie!", a voice screams "people won't watch it anymore!", I know.. I know.. but well, who cares? The movie was dead anyway, it had already fulfilled its innovative potential, and I knew for sure, even before making the sequels, that any sequel made for that movie will not be as good as the original one. It will, however, generate profit, it will revive this dead hero for one last dishonorable, but lucrative blow, before we send it back to rest in peace for ever.
Of course, it is unfair to say that all movie producers think in that way, but whenever you are sitting in your seat wondering why they even bothered to make this sequel, keep in mind that the above is a very plausible answer, and that you, like many others, have fallen into that trap, and bought the ticket.
Yes, they did; they knew that very well, but they went with it anyway...
Why? you ask, and to answer, I will put myself into the shoes of the producer who has just made a great film:
WOW, I did it! I have made this incredible movie; it's beautiful, it's artistic, it's innovative; people loved it, and it made tons of money, but... that's it. The movie has done its job, it has exhausted itself and fully played its potential, and did all of that incredibly well, but now it is dead.
Yes! it is dead! The movie does not have any more material of that same flavor that everyone loved. The lovable villain has died, the apocalypse has been prevented, the gang of boys have found their friend that they lost after a night of heavy drinking, and the poor fish has finally found his son! There is nothing more to make a sequel upon. I know all of that with no doubt, but I also know that people don't know that!
People would rush into cinemas to watch the sequel of the movie that they loved; many of them don't check reviews of movies before they go and watch them. So, a good trailer, along with the name of a movie that they loved, should suffice to get them on that seat.
Making movies, after all, is a business, and like all other businesses, generating profit is the ultimate goal. That's why, the box office numbers matter much more than those numbers on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb, and a sequel for a popular film is guaranteed to raise a box office number enough to call it a success. EVEN IF IT'S BAD.
One great example about this is the Hangover series.
The first Hangover was a huge success. The idea was innovative, the comedy was brilliant, and the movie made $467.5 millions on a budget of $35 million.
That's incredible! But that's it! There isn't much more to do with it; We either have to repeat the same idea, just in a different setting, which was done in the second Hangover, or to throw the theme away, and just play it using a completely different approach, which was done in the third. Both approaches are bad; if we repeat the same idea, we're being non-innovative, and if we change the whole theme, it is not the Hangover anymore! And, well, this is what really happened; most people didn't like the sequels; if you just google "worst movie sequels in history", you will not find a single list that doesn't contain one or both of the Hangover sequels. If you check the ratings, you will find out that the first part received a 7.8 on IMDb and 79% on RT, while the second received a 6.5 on IMDb and 33% on RT, and the third received a 5.9 on IMDb, and 20% on RT. You could clearly see how the movie was deteriorating, which made perfect sense, because the idea of the movie had already drained all its power.
The name of the movie, however, was not yet drained. That's why, financially speaking, both sequels were a tremendous success. The Hangover 2 cost $80 million to make, but returned $586.8 million! The third one cost $103 million, and walked away with $362 million. Yes, we got $259 million on the worst Hangover movie. Now tell me this was a failure!
"But it ruined the original movie!", a voice screams "people won't watch it anymore!", I know.. I know.. but well, who cares? The movie was dead anyway, it had already fulfilled its innovative potential, and I knew for sure, even before making the sequels, that any sequel made for that movie will not be as good as the original one. It will, however, generate profit, it will revive this dead hero for one last dishonorable, but lucrative blow, before we send it back to rest in peace for ever.
Of course, it is unfair to say that all movie producers think in that way, but whenever you are sitting in your seat wondering why they even bothered to make this sequel, keep in mind that the above is a very plausible answer, and that you, like many others, have fallen into that trap, and bought the ticket.
Comments
Post a Comment