New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Bruce Hall: I guess it would be disingenuous to try and say that it doesn't bother me when films we all know were roundly panned receive sequels. But I also know that the entertainment industry is a business, and one where where pure artists and pure businessmen coexist side by side, each with a responsibility to deliver a profitable product. Otherwise, nobody has a job. Each of the three movies Kim mentioned was a follow-up to a film that a lot of people just plain hated, but they all made a lot of money anyway. And if a film lends itself well to a franchise, and makes a sizable enough profit they will keep making it again and again until the well runs dry. And then, at least once more after that just to be sure. It isn't always art, but the world needs entertainment and most of us just can't afford to look away.

Felix Quinonez: It doesn't bother me. If a movie doesn't look interesting to me I just don't watch it. To each their own and at the end of the day, it is a business.

Jason Barney: I don't mind. It is part of the business. Sometimes you accept a film just may not be great, but you go ahead and see it anyway. I did that recently with Wrath of the Titans, and was actually presently surprised. Same with MIB3. I know that not every movie experience can be "awesome," and just want to be distracted.

I agree with your point on the Transformers franchise, though. I wish that would just go away.

Shalimar Sahota: Difficult. I guess it would be nice to know that the profits from such films are going towards original ideas, but who is to say for sure? Studios don't really make such films thinking, "Hey, lets fast track Wrath of the Titans, and if it makes enough money then we can finally afford to make Strippers in a Mosque." In most cases the studios are going to greenlight anything so long as they felt it was going to make money. Even if the original was a poor film, so long as it made enough money then a sequel just happens to be an easy idea with a built in audience. If the first film made $400 million, and they know that they can make at least $300 million on a sequel, then why not?

Reagen Sulewski: First off, I think that Journey sequel title is a crime against the English language. I agree that it's a complicated issue, in that a lot of these successes help smaller films - although that appears to be more in theory than in practice, since all we seem to be getting are sequels. I do wish studios would try harder to be original, not just as a movie watcher, but also as someone who write about movies. It's getting more and more difficult to find interesting things to say about these soulless productions.

David Mumpower: My prevailing thought on the subject is that I will never understand why sequels are treated with such disrespect by the studios who covet those dollars. I'll go off the board here and mention Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, a Marvel property that didn't need a sequel per se. Had some effort been placed into the project, however, it could have fed off of the building buzz for The Avengers, catapulting it higher on the box office food chain. Instead, audiences were given a garbage movie, and this sort of laziness offends me. If these movies are intended to be cash cows capable of sustaining a distributor during weaker periods when original fare may struggle, why not maximize profit by placing a sustained focus on quality? Better movies hold better in theaters, sell more on home video and play longer on television since they are beloved. There is tremendous opportunity cost revenue loss each and every time a movie such as Ice Age: Continental Drift or Men in Black 3 fails to satisfy audiences.

Continued:       1       2       3