Don't you think filmmakers are exhausting the idea of the 'movie franchise'?

[JCoatsworth]

Hi there!

This is something that bugs me about Hollywood and the big studios. They always seem to want to make more and more and sometimes (not always) ruin movies and movie franchises that would have been far better off without the fourth, fifth, sixth or maybe even the second and third sequel. Most of the time it's not the directors or writers, but just the studios that talk them into doing it, or else they get somebody else for the job.

I really like the first movie of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, for example. The second one was OK, in my opinion, the third got weird and I didn't even bother watching the fourth movie and rumor has it they want to continue making the Pirates movies until part 7 😱 It is great for people who love all the movies of a certain franchise, but it seems to me like it's often not about the movies, the fun and the art anymore, but about the money. The same thing goes for most remakes. You practically can count on it to be successful, since everyone wants to know how the movie is compared to the original.

In my opinion, there are very few franchises that are great as a whole. The only franchise that comes to my mind right now is the Back to the Future trilogy. But why did they make that fourth Indiana Jones movie? The series was finished and it was my favorite trilogy ever! Everything was perfect. The ending was great: Indy riding off on a horse towards the sunset. Beautiful ending of a series... or is it? Steven Spielberg himself said that he included that shot for a reason.

Oh, and I don't even want to start writing about the Star Wars movies...



Well, I tried to make it as short as possible 😀 So, what's your opinion on that subject?
Have any of your favorite movies been ruined by too many sequels? This is completely and utterly a matter of opinion, so I hope nobody will feel offended if anyone bashes a beloved franchise or something like that.

 

[Vamp Jenny]

Yes, sometimes they do too many movies of a same franchise.

Ocean Eleven was great. Ocean Twelve was okay. Ocean Thirteen was good.

I love every single Fast & Furious movies.

I don't think the Star Wars movies can be included here (except if they ever make movies 7, 8 and 9) because the "sequel" movies were actually the first 3 of the installment, so it had to be done.

But Pirate of the Carribean, Bring It On (even if I love those movies), X-Men (even if the first 3 and First Class were awesome)... they are making them mostly for money. And they don't (usually) get better with each new movie.......

 

[BlessedLunatic]

You know, when I was reading your first paragraph I was thinking "like Pirates of the Caribbean," and lo and behold, there it is in the next paragraph! hee.

I get annoyed by this too. It's the idea of making money, not good movies. So if there's a franchise that people like, they're going to pay to see anything with that name attached to it, and even if it's not the best story, who cares? It still made money. It takes a good idea and runs it into the ground.

I agree so much with everything you said, even down to the exact same movie franchises. Exactly what I was thinking. Although I don't dislike the fourth Indiana Jones movie, I also don't think it was at all necessary and would've been perfectly content if it had never existed.

I kind of feel that way about the Jurassic Park movies. First one was awesome, second one was nothing like the book and therefore hard for me to watch, and the third one seemed unnecessary (though I do like it...it's better than the second one, definitely). I keep hearing rumors that they're making a fourth one, but that's been talked about for years so I don't know if it'll ever happen. I guess I just don't see the point of making another one. But, that's me.

One of the worst offenders, in my opinion, is Shrek. The first movie was so brilliant and different and hilarious. The second one had a much more juvenile tone and sense of humor about it, I thought. And I haven't even seen any of the ones past that, because they just don't look appealing to me.

And the Matrix movies...also loved the first one, thought the second two were rushed and kind of strange. It didn't feel like a good wrap up to a story to me.

And do not get me started on the Star Wars prequels...

(but again, all of these are just my opinions)

 

[david4wt]

Well it is after all the movie INDUSTRY, isn't it 😉

---------- Post added at 04:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:17 PM ----------

True, true...but that doesn't mean we have to like it! 😛

Yes 🙂 but we shouldn't even be too surprised because their job is exactly this:

They always seem to want to make more and more and sometimes (not always) ruin movies and movie franchises that would have been far better off without the fourth, fifth, sixth or maybe even the second and third sequel.

😉

 

[JCoatsworth]

I agree so much with everything you said, even down to the exact same movie franchises. Exactly what I was thinking. Although I don't dislike the fourth Indiana Jones movie, I also don't think it was at all necessary and would've been perfectly content if it had never existed.

I like the fourth Indiana Jones movie as well, but nowhere near as much as the first three. It was pretty unnecessary.

I kind of feel that way about the Jurassic Park movies. First one was awesome, second one was nothing like the book and therefore hard for me to watch, and the third one seemed unnecessary (though I do like it...it's better than the second one, definitely). I keep hearing rumors that they're making a fourth one, but that's been talked about for years so I don't know if it'll ever happen. I guess I just don't see the point of making another one. But, that's me.

Jurassic Park is my favorite movie. I don't even know how many times I've watched it. The number will probably cross the mark of 30 watches soon, if it hasn't already. I also love the second movie, although it really has pretty much nothing to do with the novel, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. And the third movie was pretty poor, but still watchable. (But who the hell had the idea of putting Spinosaurus in the movie?!)
It is true that they're going to make a fourth movie. They already have the writers. I don't know how I should feel about this. I mean, now that they already have a third movie, I think it's actually OK that they're making a fourth movie (although that's basically what I'm complaining about), as long as it's better. According to Spielberg, who's probably not directing the movie, the story of the fourth is better than the story of the third, which makes at least me quite happy 😛


BlessedLunatic agrees:

True, true...but that doesn't mean we have to like it!

Totally agree!

 

[david4wt]

I never said that we have to like it 🙂

 

[Robb Stark]

There's a saying that it isn't the first movie in a franchise that draws, it's the sequel. Creatively and from a quality standpoint, I agree with just about everything you said. It does suck to see a movie (or a T.V. series, now that I think about it) that we love to be dragged through two, three or even more sequels that just get worse and worse and have long out-lived their best-before date.

But that won't change. Sequels draw. Look at the Transformers franchise. The first one was an absolute classic that became a smash-hit blockbuster. It's a movie with a formula that isn't that difficult to repeat, so the studio pumped out two more, one that was one of the worst action movies in years and another that was so bland and generic you'd have a tough time even realizing it came from the same franchise.

Jurassic Park fits the bill as well. The first installment of that series is such an amazing movie, and it had no need at all, creatively, for any more. But people love dinosaurs and were sold on seeing more of them so they kept producing them, even as they got worse and worse. Now they're rebooting the franchise and starting over.

There are loads of examples like this (totally agree with the Pirates franchise), and while I don't like it, it won't change either, especially now that The Avengers franchise has proven that you actually can do sequels brilliantly if you take the time to establish continuity and an overarching plot. That's just more cause, for better or worse, to have multiple sequels.

 

[SlayerFest]

It's all about the monet.

I'm trying to be humorous, okay?

Seriously, that's the only reason why they make tons of useless sequels. I'm convinced. I haven't seen any of the Pirates of the Caribbean films. I told someone that a few years ago and they didn't believe me haha which leads me to believe that they're fairly popular.

Also, if I consider a movie to be my favorite, a bad sequel isn't going to change that. I love Saw, the very first one, the rest of those movies are insanely stupid (in my opinion 😉)...but I will always appreciate the first.

 

[Jodast]

[MENTION=11753]Fredikins[/MENTION] has hit the nail on the head. Movie studios are businesses and businesses exist to make money. In the case of movie studios, because in many cases such huge sums of money are involved they have to make the movies that they think will appeal to the widest possible cross section of the cinema-going public.

I know the Weinsteins have created a large studio because they built their name on quality films, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Also, they revolutionised the award season marketing methods we see in hollywood today and drew attention to their films that way rather than making 'happy meal' movies. Believe me I wish that more studios worked this way, but without $250 behemoths like Avatar, Avengers and Dark Knight Rises, smaller movies like Good Will Hunting, Playing By Heart and Juno don't get made. It's once the studios have built up the bankroll to afford to possibly lose a few million on a riskier proposition like the character-driven comic-dramas that we find the diamonds in the rough. Or the flawless gems.

So yes, in principle I agree with the OP that franchises get done to death, but in today's movie marketplace they are a necessary, but often entertaining in their own right, evil.