How many movies can be made before a franchise is destroyed?

[blake]

There's a lot talk about Spider-Man and sequels for movies which haven't been released yet.
I'm not sure if I actually want a SM4... sure, there are enough comic stories that could be filmed, but I rather watch just one good adaptions instead of many mediocre movies.
It't not just about Spider-Man but sequels in general.

Eventually there's a point reached when it's just pointless and bland.

 

[CConn]

Not really. I mean, look at the James Bond series. I mean, sure, there's lulls and bad spots in it, but it has always rebounded to deliver highly entertaining, engaging, and certainly not bland films.

Sequels generally have a bad reputation. Why? Because, a lot of the time, sequels are made of movies that have no need for a sequel - they're definite "one shots". With superhero movies, however, that's not a problem. You always have tons of comics to draw stories from.

So, I'm sure you ask, why do so many franchises go down in quality as the sequels go on? I honestly think it's a case of little more than bad luck...and lack of caring. While it may seem pretty easy to us, making a good movie is, well, really, really hard. And is really a rare thing. Of the hundreds of movies that come out in a year, probably only a dozen of them are worth a damn.

Thankfully, movies like Batman, and Spider-Man, and X-Men were all one of the worth a damn in their respective years. In large part, that's just luck. Who knew Raimi would fair SO well at making a Spider-Man movie? Or Burton with Batman? Or Singer with X-Men? They were - as most movies are - creative gambles. And they paid off. But, obvious, the more films that are released, the more chances there are for them to turn out bad, for them to lose their respective gambles. WB bet on Burton, and got a return, WB bet on Schumacher, and lost nearly everything.

Beyond that, it's also pretty obvious that, after a while, studios stop really caring about making a good movie, and just making a profit. If it's proven the Batman or Spider-Man name makes money, it seems as though the studio doesn't really care who's the director or writer; the character itself sells, who needs anything else? I really believe that's what happened with movies like Superman III and X-Men III.

And, lastly, sometimes good directors just make bad movies, or, at least, mediocre movies. Speilberg made A.I., Coppola made Dracula, Raimi made Spider-Man 3. The fact Raimi's film is a sequel really doesn't have that much to do with it, IMO.

 

[mr. peasant]

While I largely agree with your evaluation, I disagree that the lack of a need for sequels is what make 'one shot' movie sequels bad. This can be evidenced from the James Bond series and Pixar's Toy Story. Both of these movies originally didn't need sequels in that their stories were complete on their own without a need to continue as most of the important plot threads have been resolved.

The main problem often stems from producers greenlighting prematurely and pressure the production teams into making a movie before a clear idea on what the plot, themes, etc ought to be is fully conceived. Hence, the story tends to be weaker where as the original had a direction from the get go.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, you get movies such as Spider-Man 3 in which the movie becomes overly ambitious, wanting to achieve too much in too little time or in styles completely different from what their original audience had been exposed to in the previous film.

Thirdly, it is also partly the audience's fault. After a successful movie, expectation and hype tends to rise for the sequels. Hence, even if the sequel is actually on par in quality with the original, the audience isn't satisfied and thus feel the sequel is 'bad'. Also, if the sequels bare too much similarity with the original or conversely has too many new elements, the overall audience (though not necessarily the individual) will complain either way.

 

[fallenAngel]

Well for some reason both audiences and studios seem to think that three is the magic number even though if a movie doesn't need one sequel then it deffinetly doesn't need two. And if you have a story that needs to be told in more than three movies, don't just cram it all into three.

Movies like Harry Potter and the James Bond movies work a bit better though because each individual movie has it's own plot for the most part. Especially James Bond which has little to no continuity.

Super hero films on the other hand are bit trickier since they have a bit of continuity but also a different plot for each film, but there is a superhero movie formula that gets a bit tired after a while, the heroes girlfriend for example is always put in peril and there is a big showdown at the end which becomes less thrilling when you get to the lesser villains. But without these staples in design it's hard to make the movies epic enough. Either that or people just aren't creative enough, I personally always thought that the X men movies were the only Superhero franchise that could go on for a long time.....but obviously not.

 

[Capes-Crusader]

I liked the Spider-man trilogy an hopefully the next three will be just as good (i'd like to see the clone saga done and they can all tie in together)

As for how many movies are too much before a franchise is ruined that depends on the franchise.

Most movies dont need a sequel as most of those people have posted here said because of the contained story they have wraped up all the plot lines in one movie and its just greed that keeps a franchise alive, when money is the bottom line not creative expresion thats when movies go bad.

 

[ReallyCoolGuy]

Re: How many movies can be made before a franchise is destroyed?

Usually, one too many...

It's all about that $$$$$$

Personally, I hate "trilogies"... that's my "film industry pet peeve"... why can't they end the franchise on two or four???... why three? To me, it seems like they're trying to copy Star Wars.

 

[ReallyCoolGuy]

Re: How many movies can be made before a franchise is destroyed?

Usually, one too many...

It's all about that $$$$$$... they'll ride it 'til the wheels fall off.

Personally, I hate "trilogies"... that's my "film industry pet peeve"... why can't they end the franchise on two or four???... why three? To me, it seems like they're trying to copy Star Wars.

 

[bullets]

this year was almost all number three movies , i think that was the magic number but now its progressing to four. i think the studios buy the rights and have to utilize it within a certain time.

 

[mr. peasant]

Usually, one too many...

It's all about that $$$$$$

Personally, I hate "trilogies"... that's my "film industry pet peeve"... why can't they end the franchise on two or four???... why three? To me, it seems like they're trying to copy Star Wars.

Not really. I think the fad actually originally started with books such as Lord of the Rings and the Divine Comedy trilogies. In that sense, movies are merely copying a fad used by authors to create 'epic tales'. Also, the number 'three' historically had special significance and reoccurance, such as the Holy Trinity, the Rule of Three, etc. Perhaps we're merely seeing it being extend into new mediums.

 

[ReallyCoolGuy]

Movie trilogies are far removed from three-volume books and whatever kind of historical significance the number has... a very small percentage of books were "trilogies" as opposed to the very common "trilogy" that occurs in the modern-day film industry. I can't remember a film series that ended at just two... regardless of how crappy the original sequel was

In other news... I didn't mean to intend that Star Wars invented the trilogy... only that it is the most famous film trilogy if not one of the first. Whenever I hear the word "trilogy" visions of C3PO and Darth Vader dash through my head... hence every movie that unoriginally copies that format seems very corny to me. (Of course movies like Lord of the Rings... whose decision to make the books a trilogy had nothing to do with modern-day cinema are excused from the corniness... although the fact that it is a trilogy still reminds me of Star Wars)

 

[JClive2007]

It depends,

Good example the Batman movies one and two are classics, Batman Forever was decent and Batman and Robin was so bad it made D.C. and Warner Bros. restart the series with Batman Begins. Or if Uwe Boll is charge all it takes is one.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

I can't remember a film series that ended at just two...regardless of how crappy the original sequel was

Two words - Kill Bill. t:

But yeah, despite that some movie franchises still get a fourth instalment later on, the 3rd one is most of the time handled like a completion of sorts. For me it got stale a log time ago. No matter how good or bad you consider the sequels to be - the Matrix and PotC films don’t work as a trilogy. You could see that their originals were meant as one shots and they simply overshot with the sequels.

However, back on topic, yes, it takes just one movie to make a franchise crumble but, despite it meaning budget and box office cuts, that is a clear sign to change the cast, mainly the director, so they could continue at least refreshed a bit.

 

[AndThePickles]

I don't think you can put a number on it, but it's usually obvious when plotlines are being stretched out just to make money *coughSawIVcough*

 

[SouLeSS]

Saw IV would be an awesome movie if they were just like "hey, some new dude followed Jiggsaw, and is doing his own version of it, after Jiggsaw was out of commission for a year or so (maybe he knows he's dead, maybe he doesn't). Not this ******ed "well his ex-wife was the one that really started it all and gave him the idea for it and never really wanted to do it becaus she wanted to let him do it but now since he died doing it shes going to have to continue the legacy because its only right" or whateverthe**** the plot for the next movie is.

 

[tyler-durden]

Two to three movies, some have made it to 4 but many were train wrecks.

 

[ANTOINE X]

I think a trilogy is the perfect number! to me its like a president term. I like Raimi's work but I think after a trilogy its time to do a refresh of everything: actors, directors.There s other talented people waiting for a chance the same way Raimi did.. I'm really happy with spider-man franchise so far (Although the 3rd movie was so-so)but I think they should wait before doing an other trilogy like 5 years or more( to look for new technology or new SFX).

As for SAW I think the 3rd one was good but unnecessary. The movie was a repetition of the last 2. I though they would focus more on the prequel. I wanted them to explain how this guy went to be that insane! I guess we gonna have to wait for Saw 4.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

I think a trilogy is the perfect number! to me its like a president term. I like Raimi's work but I think after a trilogy its time to do a refresh of everything: actors, directors.

I’m glad you feel this way but my problem is that just about every Hollywood studio feels the same. I would rather like a bit more originality than that.

There s other talented people waiting for a chance the same way Raimi did.. I'm really happy with spider-man franchise so far (Although the 3rd movie was so-so)but I think they should wait before doing an other trilogy like 5 years or more( to look for new technology or new SFX).

If you’re just saying that because of ‘technology’, that’s a stupid reason to go on a hiatus for 5 years.
I don’t get it, where do people get these ideas of restarting or revamping a franchise after a long period of time? Is that imposed Hollywood mentality or something? Those are not remakes. Just because a sequel went bad doesn’t mean we should be ashamed of it and be scared of the very idea of doing another for a whole decade.
But I do agree on your other point that yes, it’s time for Raimi and gang to step down and give other talented people a chance. Otherwise it’s just a monopoly. Harry Potter is being released almost every year and it still maintains a substantial change in their creative assets.

As for SAW I think the 3rd one was good but unnecessary. The movie was a repetition of the last 2. I though they would focus more on the prequel. I wanted them to explain how this guy went to be that insane! I guess we gonna have to wait for Saw 4.

How was SAW3 a repetition of the previous two?
Granted I had to warm up to the third instalment myself but despite the arguable quality of the overall plot all 3 worked as a continuation of a single story. And all 3 had the original creator(s). If anything, SAW4 should feel like unnecessary but I haven’t seen it yet so I’m willing to give it a chance.

And...it's not 'stretched out'. There's still a lot left to tell. Just poke at any plot hole.

 

[ANTOINE X]

Spider-X-Treme I’m glad you feel this way but my problem is that just about every Hollywood studio feels the same. I would rather like a bit more originality than that.

Well It s a good number 1st movie beginnings 2nd the base 3rd the ending it s like a 'big movie'


If you’re just saying that because of ‘technology’, that’s a stupid reason to go on a hiatus for 5 years.

No it' s not! For super heroes movie it make perfect sense to look for better SFX. Look what happen to hulk people didn't like the animation and the 3D Hulk. So they waited in order to let it heal (the franchise) then at the same time to have the time to improve hulk fx and 5 year latter you see a big change in the new Hulk model and I m probably sure the animation is better.

I don’t get it, where do people get these ideas of restarting or revamping a franchise after a long period of time?

I never talk about rebooting the franchise, just the cast, but you can continue the saga with other villains.

Is that imposed Hollywood mentality or something? Those are not remakes. Just because a sequel went bad doesn’t mean we should be ashamed of it and be scared of the very idea of doing another for a whole decade.



But I do agree on your other point that yes, it’s time for Raimi and gang to step down and give other talented people a chance. Otherwise it’s just a monopoly. Harry Potter is being released almost every year and it still maintains a substantial change in their creative assets.


How was SAW3 a repetition of the previous two?
Granted I had to warm up to the third installment myself but despite the arguable quality of the overall plot all 3 worked as a continuation of a single story. And all 3 had the original creator(s). If anything, SAW4 should feel like unnecessary but I haven’t seen it yet so I’m willing to give it a chance.

.


And...it's not 'stretched out'. There's still a lot left to tell. Just poke at any plot hole.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Unfortuantely, the name alone makes the studio money, which is why we get so many sequels etc, there is endless material for the film world to take on, yet we are swamped with re-makes, re-adaptations and sequels.

 

[Fried Gold]

Usually, one too many...

It's all about that $$$$$$

Personally, I hate "trilogies"... that's my "film industry pet peeve"... why can't they end the franchise on two or four???... why three? To me, it seems like they're trying to copy Star Wars.

Not really, standard storytelling techniques follow a 3 act structure.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Not really, standard storytelling techniques follow a 3 act structure.

Actually it's 5 acts.

 

[ReallyCoolGuy]

I’m glad you feel this way but my problem is that just about every Hollywood studio feels the same. I would rather like a bit more originality than that.

Amen.

 

[bullets]

i think you can beat horror franchise to the ground with campyness and they always find a way back .. a sequel might suck but the next one could possibly work .

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

No it' s not! For super heroes movie it make perfect sense to look for better SFX. Look what happen to hulk people didn't like the animation and the 3D Hulk. So they waited in order to let it heal (the franchise) then at the same time to have the time to improve hulk fx and 5 year latter you see a big change in the new Hulk model and I m probably sure the animation is better.

There you go, yet another Hollywood imposed point of view. At least from my perspective it is, no offence.
It's not all about special effects and 3D animation. Superhero movies don't have to have excellent visuals to be successful. Instead they have to have a solid and entertaining story. The first Hulk's problem weren't the graphics, it was the melancholic plot. To justify a business based studio fear (aka hiatus) and then a remake/sequel solely based on your one point is foolish.

 

[Fried Gold]

Actually it's 5 acts.

Nah, the 3 act structure is (pretty much) the standard in modern western cinema.