The new trend in how sequels are done?

[Gold Samurai]

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

Black Cat?

 

[C. Lee]

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.

You didn't say "one failing ends the trend"....but you did say "it's quite common for films that beg for sequels in end and post-credits scenes to fail." (see the quote below). It has been my experience in watching thousands of movies for the last 50+ years, that for the most part, movies that say a sequel will be made, have had it happen.

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.

But it's just wishfull thinking to think that in a series that constantly ends with sequel baiting nothing is going to go wrong.

That has happened before, and nothing world shaking happened. Off the top of my head, in at least one case, the Bond films announced a movie title as coming next and it didn't happen.

 

[Lord]

You didn't say "one failing ends the trend"....but you did say "it's quite common for films that beg for sequels in end and post-credits scenes to fail." (see the quote below). It has been my experience in watching thousands of movies for the last 50+ years, that for the most part, movies that say a sequel will be made, have had it happen.

Because it's common, doesn't mean they all fail, but constantly using it is pushing luck.

That has happened before, and nothing world shaking happened. Off the top of my head, in at least one case, the Bond films announced a movie title as coming next and it didn't happen.

A film series failing or even ending isn't world shaking at all, i never said it was.

 

[C. Lee]

A film series failing or even ending isn't world shaking at all, i never said it was.

No...you did not use those words...but you were making it seem that way.

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

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

i bet there are many more sequel baiting failures buried in Hollywood

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.

 

[Lord]

No...you did not use those words...but you were making it seem that way.

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

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

i bet there are many more sequel baiting failures buried in Hollywood

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.

Because it's true, i never said it was world shaking, that's different from a movie series failing. World shaking is a World War III, or a recession, not the end of the MCU.

A long film series like that is eventually going to have their Batman & Robin, Superman IV and Die Another Day, BaR for exemple had sequels in the making by the time it was released, now imagine if those stories were foreshadowed in the film, you would have a never to be resolved cliffhanger.

In my first posts i don't even say these sequel baitings are going to end the MCU, just that it will blow in their faces, which is a very possible scenario, but doesn't mean extintion, just that it may foreshadow events that end up not being made, which ends up making the series also more confusing.

 

[danoyse]

The Wolverine was in the works well before Days of Future Past got rolling, and it can really stand on its own without the end credits scene. There's nothing within the movie itself that sets up the next film.

Although that end-credits scene was pretty damn awesome.

 

[Lord]

The Wolverine was in the works well before Days of Future Past got rolling, and it can really stand on its own without the end credits scene. There's nothing within the movie itself that sets up the next film.

Although that end-credits scene was pretty damn awesome.

Don't know if that has anything to do with my argumente but if it does then i still don't see how this contradicts it. But you did remind me of good exemples, which were the multiple post credits scenes of X-Men Origins: Wolverine, all of which ended up having story arcs that were dropped in the films after but were just there to confuse the timeline and events even more.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

It works and will only be used in comics because we've known they lived in the same world since the 1920s.

not necessarily. interconnected movie universes can expand beyond cbm. all it needs is a little effort from the studio and a strong vision and the will to do so. universal could reboot their monster mash characters with the intention to interconnect them again (as they once were), Conan, Red Sonya and Solomon Kane franchises could be done in a way that an interconnected universe is possible (however, that is very unlikely), the Discworld series is an example of a book series that, if adapted that way, could branch into different franchises (as in Death franchise, Rincewind franchise, City Watch franchise, Moist von Lipwig franchise, Witches franchise and so on), however in that case I'd personally would prefer more direct adaptations of the books (so, no big crossover movie like Avengers, since the characters cameo in other books all the time anyway) I just added that as an example of possibilties. You could also start brand new franchises based on original ideas (which is what I would want to see), but add that thread through the movies of a shared universe those original ideas are set in, build up from that.
IIRC, Ridley Scott toyed with the idea of connecting the Alienverse with Blade Runner through the Prometheus sequels similar to how Asimov connected the original Foundation trilogy to his Robot novels and made this huge Foundation book series out of it...
As for big crossover events in those cases, it probably won't work with close adaptations (as already stated), it would work however with new ideas or very loose adaptations of characters or themes in some cases.
Another example would be Disney who now own the Indiana Jones Franchise and has always owned POTC. While different time settings, it is at least possible that Indy and Sparrow live(d) in the same movieverse and a crossover and a built up to such a crossover is not completely unlikely...
A lot of other examples could be made, but I'm tired now and it is getting harder to write sentences tahat make sense so I'll stop now.

 

[Ultimatehero]

You are talking from a sense that MARVEL has no set films and will allow its films to fail and fall apart which they would from lack of quality. So, from a common sense business point of view they would never enter into a string of their movies being disappointing at box office. Also these strands have been so small you would need to pay attention and see all the films to even know what they are. Hell, right now we even have no clue at all about what they are for phase 2. And the mass audience doesn't even know the first phase was connected. MARVEL has been approaching it from a together but apart stand point whereas you're not. Your plan would fail, MARVEL using actual business sense knows and has kept things together but apart. They have a set game plan and the moving room to adjust set game plan. Hell, Bruce Banner got a face lift.

If people start doing as you foresee of having no business sense and making them required viewing then yes, it would fail. But they obviously aren't doing that.

You named terrible movies that failed because they were terrible, not fail because of a credits-tag. Credits-tag is inconsequential. For good films they work, for terrible films - who cares how it ends? They wouldn't see the sequel with or without that. So, yes, terrible films do terrible at box office and that's a fact - where is the indication that these films failed because of a end credits tag?

 

[Lord]

not necessarily. interconnected movie universes can expand beyond cbm. all it needs is a little effort from the studio and a strong vision and the will to do so. universal could reboot their monster mash characters with the intention to interconnect them again (as they once were), Conan, Red Sonya and Solomon Kane franchises could be done in a way that an interconnected universe is possible (however, that is very unlikely), the Discworld series is an example of a book series that, if adapted that way, could branch into different franchises (as in Death franchise, Rincewind franchise, City Watch franchise, Moist von Lipwig franchise, Witches franchise and so on), however in that case I'd personally would prefer more direct adaptations of the books (so, no big crossover movie like Avengers, since the characters cameo in other books all the time anyway) I just added that as an example of possibilties. You could also start brand new franchises based on original ideas (which is what I would want to see), but add that thread through the movies of a shared universe those original ideas are set in, build up from that.
IIRC, Ridley Scott toyed with the idea of connecting the Alienverse with Blade Runner through the Prometheus sequels similar to how Asimov connected the original Foundation trilogy to his Robot novels and made this huge Foundation book series out of it...
As for big crossover events in those cases, it probably won't work with close adaptations (as already stated), it would work however with new ideas or very loose adaptations of characters or themes in some cases.
Another example would be Disney who now own the Indiana Jones Franchise and has always owned POTC. While different time settings, it is at least possible that Indy and Sparrow live(d) in the same movieverse and a crossover and a built up to such a crossover is not completely unlikely...
A lot of other examples could be made, but I'm tired now and it is getting harder to write sentences tahat make sense so I'll stop now.

I heard they were toying with the idea of Transformers/ G.I.Joe crossover film

 

[danoyse]

Don't know if that has anything to do with my argumente but if it does then i still don't see how this contradicts it. But you did remind me of good exemples, which were the multiple post credits scenes of X-Men Origins: Wolverine, all of which ended up having story arcs that were dropped in the films after but were just there to confuse the timeline and events even more.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. A post-credits scene happens a lot now, but it's not a new phenomenon, as C. Lee pointed out. And if it works, it works. If they have more story to tell, they'll add something to entice you to come back for me.

In the cast of The Wolverine, the movie itself is a standalone and nothing that happens during the film is setting up future films. It's more of a solo story within an established franchise. The end-credits scene takes place after the events of the film, and is obviously a tease for what's next in that franchise.

I've seen it twice now, and the audience went crazy for that tease, so I'm guessing adding the scene worked, and that adding the scene was a smart move.

 

[Lord]

You are talking from a sense that MARVEL has no set films and will allow its films to fail and fall apart which they would from lack of quality. So, from a common sense business point of view they would never enter into a string of their movies being disappointing at box office. Also these strands have been so small you would need to pay attention and see all the films to even know what they are. Hell, right now we even have no clue at all about what they are for phase 2. And the mass audience doesn't even know the first phase was connected. MARVEL has been approaching it from a together but apart stand point whereas you're not. Your plan would fail, MARVEL using actual business sense knows and has kept things together but apart. They have a set game plan and the moving room to adjust set game plan. Hell, Bruce Banner got a face lift.

I have a plan? What? I was never advising about anything, just warning.

If people start doing as you foresee of having no business sense and making them required viewing then yes, it would fail. But they obviously aren't doing that.

Huh? wait, what? I must have been a very busy man, because i never said they were making the films obligatory to watch in order. But they do foreshadow stuff, and constantly doing that may lead to it failing.

You named terrible movies that failed because they were terrible, not fail because of a credits-tag. Credits-tag is inconsequential. For good films they work, for terrible films - who cares how it ends? They wouldn't see the sequel with or without that. So, yes, terrible films do terrible at box office and that's a fact - where is the indication that these films failed because of a end credits tag?

Terrible films do badly in the box office because they're bad films, that's true, i never said that happened because of the post-credits scene, really, i don't know where you're getting that impression.

The problem is when the film is bad and fails, but has a post-credits scene that markets a sequel that never happens, that's what i mean by blowing in their faces, makes everything look as if it lead into nothing, as no matter how stand alone that film is, the post-credits scene remains a cliffhanger not to be resolved.

 

[Lord]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. A post-credits scene happens a lot now, but it's not a new phenomenon, as C. Lee pointed out. And if it works, it works. If they have more story to tell, they'll add something to entice you to come back for me.

In the cast of The Wolverine, the movie itself is a standalone and nothing that happens during the film is setting up future films. It's more of a solo story within an established franchise. The end-credits scene takes place after the events of the film, and is obviously a tease for what's next in that franchise.

I've seen it twice now, and the audience went crazy for that tease, so I'm guessing adding the scene worked, and that adding the scene was a smart move.

I'm not the one that started this thread, i never said post-credits scenes were something new, so i don't see the point in you saying that i'm wrong for thinking that, expecially you're disagreeing about something i disagree too. My point is how when the film does less than studios expect, they change their strategy, doesn't matter if that mean leaving a cliffhanger or a post-credits scene unresolved.

 

[Human Torch]

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

My favorite was always Remo Williams:The Adventure Begins.They were so confident in a sequel,the put the sequel tag in the Title!

Needless to say,Remo William's Adventures began and ended in the same movie.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Because the main thing to MARVEL foreshadowing, we have no single idea what it is. In the first phase -- it was a cosmic cube. That's an object in all of them. Was there anything else? Marvel is approaching it from a very fluid zone, you are clearly forgetting or ignoring that and placing more emphasis on foreshadowing than there really is.

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

Because you originally stated films that have end-tags are known to fail. Then when called out for that theory, you named films that failed because they were terrible films not because of a tag which is a neutral thing. You didn't state unresolved strands, you didn't state years from now - that's back-peddling if I ever saw it and this is what people called you out on. You stated end-tags leads a film into failing period. And as evidence you named terrible films that failed because they were perceived to be terrible films - not because there was a stinger at the end.

 

[Teelie]

Black Cat?

She's part of his lore though and no one else's. I meant more like other super heroes who they could tie into like Marvel has done with The Avengers.

 

[Lord]

Because the main thing to MARVEL foreshadowing, we have no single idea what it is. In the first phase -- it was a cosmic cube. That's an object in all of them. Was there anything else? Marvel is approaching it from a very fluid zone, you are clearly forgetting or ignoring that and placing more emphasis on foreshadowing than there really is.

Because you originally stated films that have end-tags are known to fail. Then when called out for that ridiculous theory, you named films that failed because they were terrible films not in any way because of a tag wwhich is a neutral thing.

Know what? Let's just agree to disagree, whatever we're discussing can't really be proved until some 10 to 15 years from now. All we can do is speculate, and it's leading us nowhere considering neither of us is being able to convinve the other.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Actually you're just ignoring the thing people are calling you out on.

You said in that post:

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

Find EVIDENCE of this statement that is quite clearly presented in modern day terms where a generally perceived as good film suffered because of it. As evidence all you did was point out films that didn't do well that were trashed by the critics and audiences alike which just proves that people don't go to see films perceived as terrible. Nowhere in there did you state dangling strands or anything else. That came later after you were called out for the above statement which you're still trying to say is true with just using films that were seen as terrible by generally everyone and doing terribly at box office as proof that the end-tag doomed those films to fail instead of it just being the quality of said film.

 

[Lord]

Actually you're just ignoring the thing people are calling you out on.

You said in that post:



Find EVIDENCE of this statement that is quite clearly presented in modern day terms where a generally perceived as good film suffered because of it. As evidence all you did was point out films that didn't do well that were trashed by the critics and audiences alike which just proves that people don't go to see films perceived as terrible. Nowhere in there did you state dangling strands or anything else. That came later after you were called out for the above statement which you're still trying to say is true with just using films that were seen as terrible by generally everyone and doing terribly at box office as proof that the end-tag doomed those films to fail instead of it just being the quality of said film.

Wow, you really want to get this going, very well. My point was not that good films with scenes like that fail, but that many films that beg for sequels with those kinds of scenes do. I have stated this again and again, that's why i wanted to end this discussion, i have already stated what i needed to.

Now answer a question, if all MCU films keep teasing sequels what do you think will eventually happen? Do you think it will go like the comics and they will be able to last forever with any change of plans or something going wrong? Nothing last forever, it's not uncomon to have storylines that were outright dropped in the comic books, or even forgoten, and that's what constantly teasing things like this may do to the movies. That's my entire point.

 

[danoyse]

I'm not the one that started this thread, i never said post-credits scenes were something new, so i don't see the point in you saying that i'm wrong for thinking that, expecially you're disagreeing about something i disagree too. My point is how when the film does less than studios expect, they change their strategy, doesn't matter if that mean leaving a cliffhanger or a post-credits scene unresolved.

I never said you were wrong. I just said I didn't see what point you were trying to make.

In this particular case (The Wolverine), the question or not of whether there will be a sequel is already answered. X-Men: Days of Future Pastis filming and will be out next summer. The end-credits scene in The Wolverine just gave us a neat tease to show what's coming.

 

[Ultimatehero]

And as I said - films that beg for sequels fail for a whole other reason that has very little to do with a tag. These films are approached narratively from a stand-point of, "we want this to be a franchise, so hold off some things for the sequel and don't complete all of the threads so we have something for the sequel." This is very messy WRITING and screen writing and that is why those films fail - the writing. They didn't fail because something was tagged onto the end of them. They failed because they were perceived to be bad films.

As said, find a GOOD film that has failed that has a tag on the end. Can you? Can you even name one good film that has failed? And if you can, can you think of two or more than the GOOD films with an end tag that did extraordinary well?

It's a NEUTRAL thing. A tag is neutral in regards to the total overall film. It doesn't raise it up nor does it tank it (and it's quite obvious at this point you can't even name one GOOD film that had a tag and failed because it had a tag - as if a tag had any weight on the current film and not on the sequel). The tag serves - if the film is good, then it hypes up what's to come next. If the film is bad, who the hell cares about a tag and who in their right mind would see or want to see a sequel to a film considered to be bad?

The thing that you're incorrectly stating is MARVEL films teasing sequels. The ONLY films to do this was Iron Man 2 for The Hulk and Captain America for The Avengers. Or maybe RDJ and General Ross was in the Hulk... point being these were NOT strong "have to do this" restrictions in phase one. The ONLY thing that transferred into the Avengers film was the cosmic cube -- a power source seen and presented differently each time we saw it and the characters. Hardly strict guidelines for the film. Anything else of IMPORTANCE? Any other strand? No? Exactly. They are together yet apart. It's fluid. Where's the sequel teaser in Iron Man 3? Did they tell us what Avengers 2 was going to be about? Did they tell us what Thor or Cap was going to be about? No? Then how exactly did it tease a sequel. Or to go to another film -- Iron Man 2, all it teased was Thor's hammer being found which it would be in the Thor film -- is this seriously a huge thing that has huge weight? Like, any weight at all or just a nod to the fans and a footnote for those who see it to see more into it? Or you could say Thanos -- but do we know anything really at all about Thanos at this point, anything at all? No? Well, then that's fluid and beyond beyond beyond easy to shift around and mold.

 

[Lord]

And as I said - films that beg for sequels fail for a whole other reason that has very little to do with a tag. These films are approached narratively from a stand-point of, "we want this to be a franchise, so hold off some things for the sequel and don't complete all of the threads so we have something for the sequel." This is very messy WRITING and screen writing and that is why those films fail - the writing. They didn't fail because something was tagged onto the end of them. They failed because they were perceived to be bad films.

Well, The Amazing Spider-Man was aproached that way and it succeeded, it's inevitable that a franchise that's supposed to last for as long as they can keep it to fall into that mistake. Iron Man 2 was kind of a lucky mistake, since it was their weakest film, but still didn't reach that "Bad" line

As said, find a GOOD film that has failed that has a tag on the end. Can you? Can you even name one good film that has failed? And if you can, can you think of two or more than the GOOD films with an end tag that did extraordinary well?

There's none because the good films that had that tag were made by big studios, therefore were able to put a lot of people in the cinema and sell tickets do get the next film done. Big budget films that had the end tag/ scene but were bad had a good amount of people in the first sitting but because they were bad there was a negative word of mouth reaction. Now imagine if the MCU does a real missfire like X-Men Origin: Wolverine or Green Lantern, it falls apart due to that word of mouth reaction, this of course depends on the franchise, Iron Man for exemple would need 2 or 3 terrible films to make people disinterested.

It's a NEUTRAL thing. A tag is neutral in regards to the total overall film. It doesn't raise it up nor does it tank it (and it's quite obvious at this point you can't even name one GOOD film that had a tag and failed because it had a tag - as if a tag had any weight on the current film and not on the sequel). The tag serves - if the film is good, then it hypes up what's to come next. If the film is bad, who the hell cares about a tag and who in their right mind would see or want to see a sequel to a film considered to be bad?

My point was never that the tag is what makes the films bad, i already said this in least 3 times, the problem is when the film itself is bad, and advertises the next film, yet it was so bad that it doesn't make enough money to make that storyline a reality.

The thing that you're incorrectly stating is MARVEL films teasing sequels. The ONLY films to do this was Iron Man 2 for The Hulk and Captain America for The Avengers. Or maybe RDJ and General Ross was in the Hulk... point being these were NOT strong "have to do this" restrictions in phase one. The ONLY thing that transferred into the Avengers film was the cosmic cube -- a power source seen and presented differently each time we saw it and the characters. Anything else of IMPORTANCE? Any other strand? No? Exactly. They are together yet apart.

That's because everything worked in their favor, it's doubtful Marvel can keep that up for a decade or more, possible? Yes, but there's still much room for failure. There's still that thing with the Leader though, he was created in THe Incredible Hulk but that didn't pay out yet.

 

[Lord]

I never said you were wrong. I just said I didn't see what point you were trying to make.

In this particular case (The Wolverine), the question or not of whether there will be a sequel is already answered. X-Men: Days of Future Pastis filming and will be out next summer. The end-credits scene in The Wolverine just gave us a neat tease to show what's coming.

Ok, then i don't think we disagree about anything here. I didn't watch The Wolverine yet though.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Amazing Spider-Man has. That is correct. But that is one of the very few films that have gone that route and was warmly welcomed, it wasn't seen critically as better than any other Spider-Man movie though except the third one. MARVEL hasn't gone that route with its MARVEL films - Spidey is SONY. When I say MARVEL, I mean MARVEL produced.

If a Green Lantern happens that would be easy to fix since everything is fluid. Let's say Thor's film is beyond words terrible. Will Thor be cut from Avengers 2? Nope. They'd just make sure to have a great Thor in it. Also Thor is accompanied by Captain America, Iron Man, The Hulk, among others. Thor would cause no dent in Avengers 2. Also the ONLY thing that's transferred is the characters. Say THOR films individually don't do well at box office - well, keep Thor to Avengers and no solo films (look at the Hulk, for example).

The thing is - you didn't state that until later, that's you back-peddling light as day for everyone here. You said films with post-credit scenes fail in general.

Dude, only comic fans would like to see The Leader -- the mass audiences have absolutely no idea who he is. For all they know or care he could be locked away or died. That's the thing, these 'tags' are so fluid you can do ANYTHING you want with them. Literally ANYTHING you want. They're that fluid. MARVEL is being smart - they are "together, yet apart" - making sure that they all stand on their own two feet without anything you need to see to enjoy any of the films. This is why you're "but, but, but -- strands!" will never come to fruition because MARVEL has thus far made sure that these strands are remarkably small so that these solo franchises have no real major baring on one another except for when they all come together. Name ONE strong stand outside of the cosmic cube that's not the same characters. They are going after things specifically that have no major impact on one another for a reason. You could state the World Expo in IM2 and CAP, but other than fans who have seen all or know -- what big importance does it have? It's a brilliant background detail, but it has no major long continuous impact one way or another.

 

[Vapor]

With regards to Amazing Spider-Man and the talk about them building to something big in the 4th film I don't think it's going to be about them introducing someone to team up with Spidey... I think it is going to be the rumoured Sinister Six story line and I think Sony will do this as a kind of "reverse Avengers" and hype it as the first time villains from multiple films have teamed up in one film..