The new trend in how sequels are done?

[Gold Samurai]

Lately we've been getting news about how movie franchise sequels are now leading up to something


In the past it's usually been "bigger and better than the first movie"


Now we've got rumor of Spider-man 4 being more than just about Spider-man. Could we see a team up with another Sony marvel hero?


-Iron Man 2 leading up to the Avengers

-Man of Steel's sequel will involve Batman in it

-The Wolverine-

Spoiler

A post credits scene hyping up Days of Futures Past

So what does everyone think of this gimmick tacked on to future sequels?

 

[Lord]

I think it's going to eventually blow up in their face

 

[Teelie]

I don't see who would be teaming up with Spider-Man since he's flying solo at Sony. Unless I'm forgetting someone.

I also don't think this is really a trend, more a coincedence.

 

[GENERAL RAAM582]

Well the whole "being better and bigger" than the predecessor thing really screwed up B&R, XM:TLS, SM3, etc. So maybe this is better? But I think writers should focus on the movie at hand rather than what's next because if the film at hand sucks, there won't be another movie and everything you prepared is wasted.

The Wolverine thing doesn't seem that bad [blackout]since the movie isn't setting up DoFP, only the post credit scene is.[/blackout] Whereas MoS 2 featuring Batman could hurt it because it could become too Batman focused for a Superman sequel.

 

[Lord]

Nobody really knows what The Amazing Spider-Man will really be about and how it will be different, it could very well be Miles Morales considering the 1st 3 are planed as a trilogy, it's possible it ends with Peter's death.

 

[:eek:]

The future of superhero-movies will probably consist more and more of various crossovers and team-ups. In other words they will become more and more like the big event-stories we see in the comics nowadays. Avengers 2 is even taking its sub-title from Marvel's latest event. I suppose it kinda makes sense. I think people in general will get tired if you continue to make three or four movies with Batman or Spider-Man or whatever and then reboot the franchise. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a Secret Wars-movie for example in a possible future where Disney owns the right to all Marvel-characters.

 

[James]

I think it's going to eventually blow up in their face

How so?

 

[Ultimatehero]

You can expect it to be more so in superhero films. But with other sequels this would be impossible to do. How would you do with this with James Bond? How would you do this with Red? How would you do this with Fast and the Furious? These are solo franchises that don't have a rich history of branching off into an inter-connected world.

As per tags, like I'd call the Wolverine one, I'd say it's just a more modern-age "James Bond will return." That's it. Granted I haven't seen Wolverine yet, but that's what I'd call it. Fast and the Furious could and has easily had this because it's really just a tag.

Whereas Iron Man 3 for example ending with Bruce Banner - inter-connecting all these worlds like DC is going to follow as well is something new and different. But no solo franchises could have this only the comic book ones and this is because of the history that is already there. I don't see it as likely at all that all of these other new franchises will try to build spin-offs and an inter-connected world because what is really the point of that and what do you gain? It works and will only be used in comics because we've known they lived in the same world since the 1920s.

 

[redhawk23]

Its all talk currently, but similar plans are also being made for the Evil Dead, making a sequel to the Rebootquel and and Evil Dead 4 with Bruce followed by some form of crossover.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Its all talk currently, but similar plans are also being made for the Evil Dead, making a sequel to the Rebootquel and and Evil Dead 4 with Bruce followed by some form of crossover.

Personally, I wouldn't count that. Just from memory -- Tommy Jarvis was in sporadic Friday the 13th movies -- wouldn't that just be the same? Evil Dead just being the film in-between 3 and 4 with 5 bringing the characters together? Horror films have done this before and unless it is presented as a cross-over, I'd say it's safe to say it's just a film that is set in-between.

I'd say a retooled exception to this is Tokyo Drift, unsure what to call it...

 

[Lord]

How so?

Once a film they give a post-credit scene to fails in the box-office, it's quite common for films that beg for sequels in end and post-credits scenes to fail.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Once a film they give a post-credit scene to fails in the box-office, it's quite common for films that beg for sequels in end and post-credits scenes to fail.

The only films I've ever seen do this (sequel teaser) have been the successful franchises -- the MARVEL films, MATRIX II, and the recent Fast and the Furious. How did these films lose money exactly by having these scenes? And I've never seen it in more recent years in anything apart from those films. And if a film does have one -- it's just finishing up a gag, not a sequel-tag. Also James Bond has been doing this since the beginning. So, what recent films have sequel-tags after the credits that have failed in box office?

 

[James]

Once a film they give a post-credit scene to fails in the box-office, it's quite common for films that beg for sequels in end and post-credits scenes to fail.

I swear I'm not being obtuse here, just genuinely curious. Can you give some examples of films that have had post-credit scenes in a previous movie and have then gone on to fail?

I'm just not sure how the practice of cross-overs and sneak-peeks is going to backfire. Which isn't to say it can't or won't happen, only that I don't foresee it being that big of a problem for the studios.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I swear I'm not being obtuse here, just genuinely curious. Can you give some examples of films that have had post-credit scenes in a previous movie and have failed?

I'm just not sure how the practice of cross-overs and sneak-peeks is going to backfire. Which isn't to say it can't or won't happen, only that I don't foresee it being that big of a problem for the studios.

I honestly think Lord is just confusing poorly written first entry films. I'd define these kinds of films as, "look - we have a franchise here - let's just give them a tease instead of a whole thing with our first film and continue from there." Which is a terrible mistake because thinking of a sequel is detrimental to telling the best story you possibly can with the first installment which shouldn't be restricted to this "wait for the sequel" line of thinking. It just seriously ruins making it as good as possible since you have all of these unfinished strands and just hoping to continue them - it's messy. 'Jumper' comes to mind here.

The films with sequel-tags however don't do this at all - they're just quick blurbs same as James Bond's "James Bond returns in" that doesn't effect the film itself at all.

That is NOT a post-credits sequel tag however and is a different narrative matter entirely.

 

[Lord]

The only films I've ever seen do this (sequel teaser) have been the successful franchises -- the MARVEL films, MATRIX II, and the recent Fast and the Furious. How did these films lose money exactly by having these scenes? And I've never seen it in more recent years in anything apart from those films. And if a film does have one -- it's just finishing up a gag, not a sequel-tag. Also James Bond has been doing this since the beginning. So, what recent films have sequel-tags after the credits that have failed in box office?

Maybe you're forgetting League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Green Lantern, Salt, Push, Eragon, The Last Airbender, AVP 2, Black Knight, Mac and Me, Flash Gordon, Masters of the Universe, Legion and Payne.

And those are the only ones that come right to mind, i bet there are many more sequel baiting failures buried in Hollywood

Even James Bond films stoped advertising "Bomd will be back in (put sequel name here)" at one point.

Matrix and Pirates of the Caribbean 2 and 3 don't really count since they were filmed back-to-back.

 

[Ultimatehero]

All the films you have listed were generally perceived to be bad or terrible films in general, films that people had no interest in seeing a sequel at all long before that scene rolled in. The last ones you named - I've never even heard of, long before my time.

So, what we arrive at --

If the film is good the audience will be pumped about the sequel-tag, if the film is terrible the audience will give a rats ass if there will be a sequel or not. Fairly common sense that has been going on for films without even a sequel-tag.

The MOST talked about thing with Fast was Jason Statham being teased for the sequel ontop of a film that the audiences already loved. Everyone now knows to sit till the end of the credits in a MARVEL movie - half the audience stays in their seats these days in that you can literally see an increasing shift in the number of people staying around from IM1 to today.

So, how has any good movie or follow up to a good movie suffered from it?

 

[redhawk23]

Personally, I wouldn't count that. Just from memory -- Tommy Jarvis was in sporadic Friday the 13th movies -- wouldn't that just be the same? Evil Dead just being the film in-between 3 and 4 with 5 bringing the characters together? Horror films have done this before and unless it is presented as a cross-over, I'd say it's safe to say it's just a film that is set in-between.

I'd say a retooled exception to this is Tokyo Drift, unsure what to call it...

Well the Ash film in question would actually be "Army of Darkness 2" a very different bag than Evil Dead 13, and would be made by Raimi himself, crossing over with films written and directed by Fede Alvarez.

You could just as easily re-title the Marvel films as Avengers: Iron Man etc. Hell they pretty much did do that with Captain America outside of the United States.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Okay, I'll admit to being confused with Evil Dead now...

The MARVEL films, despite having ties to a larger universe, all narratively stand out on their own. Why did they label Captain America "First Avenger"? Marketing.

 

[Lord]

All the films you have listed were generally perceived to be bad or terrible films in general, films that people had no interest in seeing a sequel at all long before that scene rolled in. The last ones you named - I've never even heard of, long before my time.

So, what we arrive at --

If the film is good the audience will be pumped about the sequel-tag, if the film is terrible the audience will give a rats ass if there will be a sequel or not. Fairly common sense that has been going on for films without even a sequel-tag.

The MOST talked about thing with Fast was Jason Statham being teased for the sequel ontop of a film that the audiences already loved. Everyone now knows to sit till the end of the credits in a MARVEL movie - half the audience stays in their seats these days in that you can literally see an increasing shift in the number of people staying around from IM1 to today.

So, how has any good movie or follow up to a good movie suffered from it?

You really think something as ongoing as they want the MCU to be isn't going to have some bad movies and have some failures? Then with the sequel-baiting you tease a story arc, and one day that will be the problem, they will have teased something people aren't interested to see.

James Bond films had a problem like this now and then, imagine if Die Another Day had a scene like that, then you would have an infinite cliffhanger to the series since Casino Royal would then reboot. Things like that can be a problem, TV shows decided to adopt the teasing something at the end of the season and it backfired against many shows. X-Files is the main exemple.

You completelly missed the point of my post, i'm not saying it's gonna happen tomorrow and to a good movie, the MCU will consist of in least 22 movies, you really think they're all going to be good? Not saying the MCU will fail in 2020 but people will eventually get tired and some films may end up being missfires. If you have an ongoing series and you keep teasing the next film in the one being released right now there's a large possibility for failure.

 

[Ultimatehero]

The power with MARVEL is that they are separate films. You have people who have never seen any of the MARVEL films going to see AVENGERS. You have people who have only seen IRON MAN going to see AVENGERS. You have people who have only seen THOR going to see AVENGERS. And sometimes you have people who go see them all, but this has yet to be seen in action among the masses. And did not seeing these tags negatively effect how they viewed AVENGERS in any form, sort, or way? Absolutely not and if so - I've never heard any complaints about not being able to follow it due to films and tags that came before. MARVEL knows that not everyone will see every tag, this is why they are making them solo yet together units rather than just "to understand you must see them all." I'm way more familiar with people who have seen IRON MAN and just AVENGERS than all of them. ALSO they already hit their first big bump in the road with IRON MAN 2. Did Iron Man 2 really hurt Avengers? Nope. Did Iron Man 2 really hurt Iron Man 3? Nope. So, your hypothetical scenario has already happened. Plus, I really can't see another MARVEL film being as poor as IRON MAN 2. It will happen, but IM2 did absolutely nothing to hurt the forward momentum.

Obviously you wouldn't do it if you didn't know for 100% sure what the next film is going to be, that's plain and common sense.

You weren't talking about 2020 or the future - you were quite clearly for everyone to see talking about present day...

it's quite common for films that beg for sequels in end and post-credits scenes to fail.

Then to back it up listed ****** movies no one had any interest in seeing a sequel to regardless of a tag or not. Films perceived by the masses to be terrible do terribly.

 

[C. Lee]

And those are the only ones that come right to mind, i bet there are many more sequel baiting failures buried in Hollywood

For decades.....there have been multiple movies that said something about a next movie at the end of that movie (the first that comes to mind for me is DOC SAVAGE:ARCH ENEMY OF EVIL from 1975, 38 years ago)....some were made, some weren't. Since they have continued doing this for decades...with some of them not happening....I see no reason for the trend to suddenly end if one doesn't happen.

 

[Octoberist]

I don't see who would be teaming up with Spider-Man since he's flying solo at Sony. Unless I'm forgetting someone.

I also don't think this is really a trend, more a coincedence.

Spider-Man's teaming up with The Smurfs.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Spider-Man's teaming up with The Smurfs.

 

[Lord]

The power with MARVEL is that they are separate films. You have people who have never seen any of the MARVEL films going to see AVENGERS. You have people who have only seen IRON MAN going to see AVENGERS. You have people who have only seen THOR going to see AVENGERS. And sometimes you have people who go see them all, but this has yet to be seen in action among the masses. And did not seeing these tags negatively effect how they viewed AVENGERS in any form, sort, or way? Absolutely not and if so - I've never heard any complaints about not being able to follow it due to films and tags that came before. MARVEL knows that not everyone will see every tag, this is why they are making them solo yet together units rather than just "to understand you must see them all." I'm way more familiar with people who have seen IRON MAN and just AVENGERS than all of them.

I also know many that didn't watch all the Fast and Furious films, most i know sometimes don't even watch their movies in order. That's besides the point, what i mean is, imagine for exemple an Iron Man 8 or whatever that is supposed to tie into a Secret Wars kind of film along with all the other MCU films, However they all fail one way or the other, then Marvel has to change their strategy and they have to drop the foreshadowed stoyline due to budget. There are a lot of different ways a planed story arc can be dropped, or fail, that's the problem, if that happens then they need to give an half-****d explanation.

From the development of Batman and Alien movies you can see many ideas have to be dropped, film is a business, and business can sometimes be unexpected.

ALSO they already hit their first big bump in the road with IRON MAN 2. Did Iron Man 2 really hurt Avengers? Nope. Did Iron Man 2 really hurt Iron Man 3? Nope. So, your hypothetical scenario has already happened. Plus, I really can't see another MARVEL film being as poor as IRON MAN 2. It will happen, but IM2 did absolutely nothing to hurt the forward momentum.

A lot of people can disagree with that statement of Iron Man 2, it even received relativelly positive reviews, and the audience liked it, it also did very well in the box-office.

Obviously you wouldn't do it if you didn't know for 100% sure what the next film is going to be, that's plain and common sense.

Unless the plan fails, studios normally like to change things in production to suit their idea of what makes a film more successful.

You weren't talking about 2020 or the future - you were quite clearly for everyone to see talking about present day...



Then to back it up listed ****** movies no one had any interest in seeing a sequel to regardless of a tag or not. Films perceived by the masses to be terrible do terribly.

Because it happens in the present day, and yes my intention was allways that it would happen in the future, not the present. Why did i list thos movies? Because if you can't learn from the past you're going to commit the same mistakes.

 

[Lord]

For decades.....there have been multiple movies that said something about a next movie at the end of that movie (the first that comes to mind for me is DOC SAVAGE:ARCH ENEMY OF EVIL from 1975, 38 years ago)....some were made, some weren't. Since they have continued doing this for decades...with some of them not happening....I see no reason for the trend to suddenly end if one doesn't happen.

I never even said one failing ends the trend, but as you said some films that say something about the sequel get them, while others don't. But it's just wishfull thinking to think that in a series that constantly ends with sequel baiting nothing is going to go wrong.