Cashing In-Sequels,Sequels And More Sequels

[Arkady Rossovich]

I decided to make this thread,from replying to the Terminator 4 thread.Does anyone notice that films are having more sequels?Possible discussions of a POTC 4,Spider-Man 4,5 and 6 confirmed by its director.Indiana Jones 4,does anyone notice this?

What ever happened to films ending?

 

[Rezzo]

If you were an owner of a major movie studio you think you wouldn´t like to make oh I don´t know a few million dollars

 

[the a1ant]

As long as the franchises keep makey tons of money, why would the studios want to stop? LOL. It's all about the $$$ when a series goes past 3 films, IMHO. Hopefully all of these 4th films will be as good as their previous films.

 

[TwilightPro101]

It's cheaper and its easier to play into a successful franchise then make a completely new one. Just the way Hollywood works.

 

[GoldenAgeHero]

^^thats entirely false! sequels means bigger budget,more money to pay the actors etc. sequels are just expensive as making a new one.

 

[PWN3R]

It's cheaper and its easier to play into a successful franchise then make a completely new one. Just the way Hollywood works.

^^thats entirely false! sequels means bigger budget,more money to pay the actors etc. sequels are just expensive as making a new one.

You miss their point. Maybe the budget is bigger, but the studios know they'll make the money back. It's easier to pitch Pirates 4 and getting started than making some original movie. Everyone will go see Pirates.

 

[mclay18]

Yeah. Warner Brothers is going to make seven Harry Potter films, but unlike other franchises, they have a reason to do so (other than the fact that they're Warner Brothers' biggest franchise) -- the author had plans to write a series spanning seven novels from the start, so the WB is obligated to finish the film series at seven.

While with POTC 4, Terminator 4, and Spideys 4, 5, and 6, the reason for these sequels is purely monetary.

 

[The Kid]

Yeah. Warner Brothers is going to make seven Harry Potter films, but unlike other franchises, they have a reason to do so (other than the fact that they're Warner Brothers' biggest franchise) -- the author had plans to write a series spanning seven novels from the start, so the WB is obligated to finish the film series at seven.

While with POTC 4, Terminator 4, and Spideys 4, 5, and 6, the reason for these sequels is purely monetary.

agreed on all fronts.

Give me ghostbuster 3 instead of $pidey 4.

Give me Short Circuit 3 instead of another lame Pirates movie with no naked keira.

Alien VS Predator 2? Why? I'll take Back to the future 4 instead.

 

[BRUTAL]

Also don't forget to VOTE:



OR

​

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

Sometimes sequels can be good,a excellent point was made with the Harry Potter series.But it cant be denied that some are being made just for profit,like the Spider-Man series now.Is anyone actually tired of this?Or getting there?

 

[Mr. Socko]

agreed on all fronts.

Give me ghostbuster 3 instead of $pidey 4.

Give me Short Circuit 3 instead of another lame Pirates movie with no naked keira.

Alien VS Predator 2? Why? I'll take Back to the future 4 instead.

Bob Gale and Zemeckis would never let a BTTF4 ever happen.


Anyway, you say Short Circuit 3 instead of Pirates 4 and Ghostbusters 3 instead of Spidey 4. But I say, give me all of them

 

[TheInfected]

It's a buisness, it's how buisness and capitalism work man....

That doesn't mean sequels have to be ****ty though...I honestly don't think POTC needed sequels, and you can tell that it was in no way intended to be a trilogy, like the Matrix (even though the potc sequels are much better than those).

If people want to see it, they will make it. supply and demand.

I do agree though that I miss the days of a film being self contained, but in a lot of movies the universe works for lots of films, like comic book movies or films like terminator with tonnes of universe to explore.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

and you can tell that it was in no way intended to be a trilogy, like the Matrix

I am pretty sure the first Matrix was made like the first Star Wars movie; it was self-contained in case it didn't succeed but could easily support sequels if it succeeded. I am sure they wanted more movies to tell the whole story.

 

[TheInfected]

I am pretty sure the first Matrix was made like the first Star Wars movie; it was self-contained in case it didn't succeed but could easily support sequels if it succeeded. I am sure they wanted more movies to tell the whole story.

If that's the case they sure messed that up lol


The sequels were terrible....really really hard to sit through. I nearly walked out halfway through the third...I was tempted but I spent money, and I hoped it might get better. It didn't

 

[Jolie_Desastre]

Sometimes sequels can be good,a excellent point was made with the Harry Potter series.But it cant be denied that some are being made just for profit,like the Spider-Man series now.Is anyone actually tired of this?Or getting there?

i was one of the few that were against the pirates sequels when they were first announced. to me the 1st was just a classic and one of the best movies i have ever seen. even though the 2nd and 3rd one were entertaining i could have done without them

uneeded sequels just ruin the 1st (and 2nd) movies for me. it's like..yepp they messed up big time. a lot will agree, but eh what can ya do?

it's just all about the money now. that's how it works, and it won't stop

 

[The Kid]

Bob Gale and Zemeckis would never let a BTTF4 ever happen.
Then they're nuts! What's one more movie going to hurt? We need more time travel movies.

Anyway, you say Short Circuit 3 instead of Pirates 4 and Ghostbusters 3 instead of Spidey 4. But I say, give me all of them

Sadly we'll be seeing another spider-man, and it'll feature spidey fighting Nuclear spidey or something. booooo

 

[TheInfected]

Spiderman 3 wasn't as bad as some people make out. It was actually pretty decent. Flaws yes, but much better than the first movie.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

If that's the case they sure messed that up lol


The sequels were terrible....really really hard to sit through. I nearly walked out halfway through the third...I was tempted but I spent money, and I hoped it might get better. It didn't

Not disagreeing. I enjoyed Reloaded but much less than the first one. And Revolutions wasn't as good as Reloaded. So they definitely declined in quality.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Sadly we'll be seeing another spider-man, and it'll feature spidey fighting Nuclear spidey or something. booooo

You have no idea how much I would love to see Lloyd don that Einstein wig one more time.(no the commercial doesn't count)

It's a real shame they won't do another, but they don't want to crumble it or make the legacy bad. E.g. refer to new Star Wars films.


Bobby is too busying making crap like Polar Express.

 

[Speedball]

You have no idea how much I would love to see Lloyd don that Einstein wig one more time.(no the commercial doesn't count)

It's a real shame they won't do another, but they don't want to crumble it or make the legacy bad. E.g. refer to new Star Wars films.


Bobby is too busying making crap like Polar Express.

*cough*Beowulf*cough*

 

[Mr. Socko]

*cough*Beowulf*cough*

Zemeckis has become a hack like Lucas. Obsessed with CG. PE was terrible. Beowulf may have a chance though.

 

[mclay18]

Sometimes sequels can be good,a excellent point was made with the Harry Potter series.

Yes, and it's not just because the same cast and technical crew are involved with the HP films. Everyone -- including the director, cast, screenwriter(s), and crew -- genuinely want to make a good product and invest effort into it. That's why I think different directors are good for a septology such as HP -- each film feels like a part of the overarching story but have a distinct feel appropriate for the story. It also helps that the films are adapted from a good book series and that the author is actively involved, too.

Even with the same director, cast and producers aboard for three movies, such as Spidey, Matrix, and POTC -- their tendency to outdo the preceding films in spectacle and story lead to exceedingly busy storylines and not enough time with the characters. And so on...

 

[TwilightPro101]

If it's successful they'll bank on it and go from there. They may put down more money for it in the long run, but it's cheaper for them to play with a property that they already own. They may have to pay the actors more but 90 percent of the time they have them contracted out. So hence the cheaper approach in the long run and the keyword of focus: franchise.

I should have specified back there.

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

Im not going to say that movies are so downhill,profit can only really come from sequels.But i could really understand that some movie making compaies are somewhat hesitant to make new franchises,rather than making a ton of sequels for existing ones.What do some people here think about this whole concept?

 

[Kevin Roegele]

It's not just about having well-known franchises. A large part of it is the appeal of serial fiction. If you watch the first chapter of a larger story, you'll likely want to know how the story continues. Thus films these days are full of open-ended plotlines and in some cases, pure cliffhangers.