» News
Video Blog: Does Any Movie “Need” A Sequel?
In a post did earlier today about Bradley Cooper announcing that they would probably start shooting a sequel to “The Hangover” next year, someone in the comments section asked the question: “Do we really need a sequel to that movie”? Let’s face it, we’ve all said that about one movie or another. But it did raise the question in my head… does ANY movie ever “need” a sequel? Here’s my video blog on that:
Not every movie needs a sequel, but some beg a sequel or sequels by their very nature, like comic book films.
I think in the past it was may have been more likely that a sequel was made because the powers that be had an interesting story to tell.
Today I think its more likely done to take advantage of what amounts to a free marketing campaign, or to see what audiences liked about the first one and try to improve on it to make more money.
Very interesting post John.
I think it is an interesting observation. But did they “need” (text version of the air quotes) to make the movie in the first place?
Same results apply.
Some films that I often say they don’t “need” to make a sequel to are ones where the story is so well told in a neat little package. Extending that story may feel unnecessary. Like Goldblum’s character in Jurassic Park says “You were so concerned about whether or not you could that you never stopped to consider whether you SHOULD”
My all time favourite comedy “Whole Nine Yards” was a hell of a lot of fun. I really wanted to see more of that. Freaking awesome movie. Whole Ten Yards freaking sucked ass.
Sometimes when people say “that shouldnt have been made” they do so with a nice tall glass of hindsight freshly consumed. Would their opinion of whether they “should” be affected if the movie was great??
Off the top of my head, there is only one situation I can think of where a sequel is ‘needed’ and that’s in the rare situation that the first film does not deliver the goods but, whether it makes money or not, the powers that be decide to take another shot because they believe they have a great premise for a series that can entertain millions and bring in lots of money.
‘Star Trek: The Motion Picture’ NEEDED ‘Wrath of Khan’ because it was only after the second film that Trek became a viable and thriving film series. The new Trek film is not in that position.
“The new Trek film is not in that position.”
Um… yes it is. Star Trek rocked. I saw it six times.
No I mean it’s already viable. It doesn’t NEED a sequel.
I think the two criterion: 1 – Do people want it?. 2 – Does it have potential? are two excellent factors in determining whether there should be a seque.
Some films have endless sequel potential, such as comic book films. Comic book mythtos are often so large that they leave a lot of room for interpretation and tons of events and situations the characters can encounter.
Although, I think it’s always a risk when determining whether there should be a sequel for other movies. For example, the idea of a Matrix sequel at first was huge and it perfectly matched the two criteria. But then it came out and it failed to live up to expectations. In situations such as those it is difficult to judge whether a sequel would be of any benefit.
I also find that some of the most successful sequels come when their predecessors have left open endings (Not cliffhangers) or have always planned to have a sequel.
Does any movie need a sequel?
Well, not really. Movies don’t beg to have a sequel to them. Now of course if it’s set up to be a sequel, but I mean movies, some of em, are kind of like this: One and done. Look, the Hangover was very funny, but I have to wonder, say this one opened at 10 M, I’m not sure they would make a sequel. Due to the financial success, in their eyes, why not? But I have to wonder if they are kind of rushing into the next one, i mean it JUST came out
Hell yhea we need sequels , i like to see bigger things in movies they couldnt do in the first movie.
Well, if there is more story to tell. If it is a big story to tell like Star Wars and LOTR, then yes, sequels can be necessary.
To be fair, only the Hobbit is a true “sequel/prequel”- as the LOTR films were all shot “as one”. Likewise, in the case of Kill Bill, the films were shot as one but were split off due to length.
Unfortuneately, most of the time it’s not about “more story to tell”, it’s about “more money to make.” If “X” makes a tone of money, then they will make “X2″.
That’s why I said more story to tell, since most sequels that suck are the ones only out for money.
There’s no trick to making sequels work. Some seem brilliant at first but then they disappoint. There’s no real way to ensure that a sequel is going to be any good or even better than the original.
yeah i agree that comic book movies and the like need sequels. there are just so many stories to tell with those characters.
I think we as an audience need to stop trying to dictate what a director or movie studio needs to do with their intellectual properties. We are the audience and by definition our role is simply to sit back and watch. If we don’t like what is being offered, we’re under no obligation to throw our money on the table and subject ourselves to it. I say if a director/writer/studio decides that they want to take THEIR creation and continue it until the end of time, then that’s their prerogative.
I liken it to how for decades we have story arc upon story arc published of our favorite superhero comics. We hardly ever say “Boy that was a great Batman story, do they really need to keep printing them?” Just because movies are bigger and more in the spotlight doesn’t make the concept any different.
An artist has the right to continue their art for as long as they see fit, whether the critics agree with their creations or not.
I would agree with the; “If we don’t like what is being offered, we’re under no obligation to throw our money on the table and subject ourselves to it” except that they are liars. If they make a crappy movie, they will still show us the only three goods scenes in the trailer to trick us into paying our money to see the movie, only to be disappointed and ripped off. We often don’t get an honest chance to accurately determine if we will like what is being offered because they strive to deceive us. This isn’t the kind of fair game where we get to “vote with our dollar” because they are able to trick us into voting for something we end up disliking. We want to provide them with our input because we want to increase the chance that the product will be something we are glad we voted for with our dollars.
Artists today are nothing like the artists of the past. Old artists often would not get the promised payment if they did bad work, they did not get to claim payment up front. Neither did they get to continue being paid for they’re work long after they had completed the project. But this is a tangent that is more appropriate to John’s video from about a year ago during the writer’s strike, so I will relent.
there are some movies that leave themselves open for a sequel such as terminator salvation, the incredibles, or dark knight
sorry just watched the video, my computer went mute and so i just decided to right down what i thought, didnt realize you touched on that topic in the video
I haven’t seen The Hangover, but I’ve understood that it’s about a bunch of guys who get really drunk and then have to figure out what the hell they did last night. Now, that sounds like a decent idea for a comedy. It has potential to be funny.
The question is, where do you go with a sequel? Do they get drunk again somewhere else, or what? Wouldn’t that basically mean making the same movie again? Does the premise really have the potential to be funny a second time?
I’m not talking about The Hangover in particular here. What I’m saying is, a lot of films are based on ideas that can’t really be developed much further. In those cases, a sequel is pretty much going to amount to a remake of the original.
I think the question should be: do comedy films need sequels?
The question isn’t so much if we NEED a sequel so much as do the people making it really WANT to make a sequel for any reason beyond “we have a strong brand, let’s make money.” Do they actually have a good idea to extend the franchise or are they just making it arbitrarily.
For example, I think Sam raimi legitimately had a good idea when he set out to make Spider-Man 2, so I’m glad he made it. Conversely, I don’t think he had good ideas when he made Spider-Man 3, that script only got produced because making another sequel in that franchise was a foregon conclusion.
An even better example is probably Indiana Jones 4, I thought The Last Crusade ended on a perfect note, that movie brought perfect closure to the character and the series. the fourht film just destroyed that sense of closure, thus I’d say that was the all time most uneeded sequel ever (and yes, I was saying that before KOTCS came out).
The perfect example for a movie that probably didn’t “need” a sequel was Terminator 2. Granted, the action stuff in T3 was decent, but story-wise and generally, I don’t think anyone really wanted it THAT much. Just my opinion though!
Of COURSE most films are made to make the studio money, but there’s a fair distinction between directors/writers who love the art and want to entertain, vs movies driven entirely for profit.
In the first camp, lets say Spielberg, Tarantino, Raimi, Cameron, Burton, and others. These guys would keep doing it even if they weren’t getting payed for it. They’re like student filmmakers forever. These same guys approach making a sequel with love and care, especially when its a sequel to a film they had nothing to do with… Cameron and Aliens for example.
… and then there’s sequels which are just studio produced filth (Inspector Gadget 2, Son of the Mask, Meatballs 4, just about all of the disney sequels), where they didn’t even TRY to make a good film, instead opting for speed and cheapness for maximum profit on franchise recognition.
I think its fair to despise the latter category.
Hey Mladen,
You said:
In the first camp, lets say Spielberg, Tarantino, Raimi, Cameron, Burton, and others. These guys would keep doing it even if they weren’t getting payed for it.
HAHAHA… I’m sorry man, I had to pick myself up off the floor from laughing so hard. You’re kidding right? Show me a movie they directed where they didn’t collect their million dollar paychecks.
Spielberg donated his money from Shindler’s List to the Shoah foundation
tarantino would keep doing it and you know it. he’s absolutely obsessed and he loves it. the thing with all of them is, they’d only keep doing it (maybe) NOW that they’ve had six or more paychecks.
Oh come on John.
I’m talking about the guys (and girls) who do it first and foremost because they love it, and ever since first picking up a camera were never able to put it down.
I have no doubt that even if they never hit it big, they’d STILL be making cheap student films, showing them to their friends and families and local theatres, and loving it.
The money is a bonus to the types of people I’m talking about. They get more of a thrill from a packed excited audience than they do their paycheck.
Hey Mladen,
You’re missing my point dude. I CLEARLY said in the video that not everyone involved with a movie is just in it to make a “cash grab”, but that the people who put up the money in making these movies do it completely in the hopes of making money.
Speilberg (my all time favorite director) has never put up one penny of his own money in his released films.
Hey MJS,
Yes, the multi millionaire donated his directing fee to that charity… because he’s already worth more than New York.
However, if you look it up he still collected (and continues to collect) his residuals from the movie… which are worth a whole lot more.
As much I love movies, technically, no movie is a necessity. Such things like job, food, clothes, and place to live under earn that title, but I don’t think thats really up for debate anyway. Plus, one could say that entertainment is a necessity to keep spirits high in rough times.
This may not apply for every sequel that gets made, but every time we go out and pay for a movie, we cast our vote on whether or a not a sequel will get made, often unintentionally. Honestly, though, I don’t think it’s a big deal. If we see a movie that turns out to be really bad, but made a ton of money, just don’t see the sequel(s).
Does John “need” to use hand gestures to illustrate double quotes? LOL! Good God John enough with the hand gestures already! j/k :)
Does any movie “need” to be made period?
“Show me a movie they directed where they didn’t collect their million dollar paychecks.”
Clearly you’ve never seen “Ambiln’” or “The Sugarland Express.”
In my view, if a genre film makes money to line the pockets of the producers and/or the studios, AND it could made on the cheap (lookin’ at you SAW) and those that make them have nothing else to do (see Highlander) then yes, those films needs sequels until the well is dry. In some cases, they can help keep a studio alive, such as the SAW films (Lionsgate’s ‘get out of bad box office jail free card’ so to speak) or Nightmare On Elm Street (which made New Line Cinema, then backed by the Turtles and the House Partys…before getting sucked up by WB…and then sucked near dry themselves)
I know I make it sound a wee bit sinister. Sorry about that. But when a studio gets a franchise, they have a “proven” concept and an audience for that film. If it is a good genre film, merch flies off the shelves; they have a “brand” they will own or have a part of for, oh let’s say ten years.
Yes, there are some films that aren’t successful that don’t get follow ups -hey, I still want my Innerspace 2- but y’know, lets be careful what we wish for. You may get your Matrix Revolutions, know what I mean?
But I don’t blame Joel Silver and Village Roadshow for making the sequels to the Matrix (just a matter of time, methinks, when “4″ comes down…the..pike…( oh come on you want it and want that sucker bad! ) because there was a public demand for them.
However, I also think that the longer a sequel takes to get made, the check for demand has to be there. In the case of Lucas and Spielberg behind, say, Indy 4, a demand for it was there.
And there has to be more story to tell. Rocky Balboa had story to tell. That was a surprisingly good film. When James Cameron walked out on the Terminator franchise, he felt there was nothing more to tell. While there was some good things about Terminators 3 and 4 (and to a lesser extent, the ill fated TV show)…there wasn’t much more to say.
And said well, with some sort of rulebook, and not going overboard with wild concepts that…well..
I’m sure there’s more for Jurassic Park- but lizards with AK-47s isn’t it.
First off I want to say that I have absolutely no issue with sequels at all and I am one of the few people that I know that views a sequel as its own entity instead of judging it by its predecessor.
That being said, no movie “needs” a sequel; but as some in the comments section have noted, some movies beg for a sequel (comic book movies are an excellent example) and some movies (i.e. Lord of the Rings) are made to have sequels (although i dont technically consider Two Towers or Return of the King ’sequels;).
I think the real reason for the question of “Does this movie ‘need’ a sequel?” is the fact that the studios, producers, directors, etc. are all putting up their money for a movie that doesn’t need to happen when they could be investing that money into something new and much more creative. I personally believe that Hollywood has lost most of its creativity seeing as how most of the movies that come out are either sequels, remakes or film adaptations. Granted there is nothing wrong with these movies (for the most part) but I personally prefer a more original movie such as The Hangover, most Judd Apatow movies and anything that pops out of the minds of the geniuses working at Pixar over a movie that has been made multiple times already.
The end of your video blogs always make me chuckle!
I forgot to say, John are you making your film of profit?
If not then why spend 50,000 dollars when you could make a film on a lot lower budget using cheaper equipment and free locations, and cheap if not free actors?
I’m absolutely making it for profit. Totally! It’s not the ONLY reason, but if I knew for 100% sure that there was NO WAY I could make my money back and maybe make some profit from it, I never would have invested money in it.
Oh my god, stop doing the quote gesture every time you say need; unnecessary and annoying.
When it comes to The Hangover…a sequel seems a bit ridiculous. Are we to imagine that they will have another crazy bachelor party? Maybe Ed Helms’ character is going to get hitched so it’s party #2! I don’t know…this movie seems like a one-shot deal but it would be interesting to see what they come up with.
It’s called “The Hangover”, not “The Bachelor Party Hangover”. Trust me, people get hangovers events other than bachelor parties. And yes, often times the same group of people will have crazy shit happen to them on more than one occasion. The effects of alcohol can be quite unpredictable. Did the end of The Bachelor give the impression that these people would never party again? I have not seen it yet, but I highly doubt it. Logically speaking, a sequel could be easily done and plenty of new adventures could follow in the wake of a hangover. Trust me, I speak from past experiences in that regard.
The only films that “need” sequels are ones that have stories designed to carry over multiple films (LOTR, Harry Potter), not as an after thought because the first one was successful (Matrix, Pirates). There are exceptions to this, because Aliens was a damn good follow-up to Alien. Sequels that have the same characters in a totally different situation unrelated to the first film can potentially be great (Toy Story 2; The Dark Knight), but are often not (Ghostbusters, Star Trek).
Johns point was that if a movie is made to have a sequel, then it kinda needs to have the sequel made; otherwise, sequels are not “necessary”. That does not mean that a sequel cannot or should not be made, nor does it mean that said sequel will be good or bad.
I think only classical movie need a sequel. But some sequel will destory first film’s feeling.
“I’m absolutely making it for profit. Totally! It’s not the ONLY reason, but if I knew for 100% sure that there was NO WAY I could make my money back and maybe make some profit from it, I never would have invested money in it.”
You’re dead inside, my friend. Stop making movies today.
Dear god Tapley… how naive are you? Show me one investor who put up the money to make a movie who didn’t hope to get it back or make money from it??? Show me.
I’ll have to take John’s side on this one. On a very rare occasion a movie is made strictly to get a point across, more often than not these are documentaries or such films as Schindler’s List. Even then these movies are still hoping to at the least recoup their losses. Other than that there are only two reasons a movie gets made:
1. To make money. Takes a lot of different jobs to make a movie and each job requires pay. The people that work these jobs do as a way to make a living. If they aren’t getting paid, then they aren’t making a living. Not to mention investors are not going to put their money into a project just to break even or lose money. They want a piece of the pie as well.
2. To make a name for yourself so you can reach reason number 1. There is still a hope to make money here, as they are putting time and effort into the task, but the end result is to get bigger and better projects to make more money.
Like anything in life, why would you sink money into something without expecting to get it back in the end with hopes of getting a large return in the process? I like to get paid, if I can get paid doing something I like then all the better. People in the movie industry are doing what they like and hopefully making what they want, but if they weren’t getting paid for it they would not have the means to continue doing it.
“Having said that, Spider-Man 3 still sucked ass”
obviously the only movies that actually “need” a sequel are those designed for them. open-endings, loose ends and such are made for the plan of a possible sequel. the only movie i find as an exception to this rule is the Matrix. the Matrix wasn’t designed for a sequel but after i first saw it, it deffinetly needed on to tie up loose ends. such as “what the hell does Neo actually DO to stop the computers exactly?”
then there’s the other kind of movies that need sequels due to fan demand or just public demand. if you can make money off a sequel then i don’t see why not make it. if it’s bad, it’s bad. but they still got your money so they don’t care.
unless it’s the rare time when a movie doesn’t need a sequel and they make one and it’s actually good. as long as you get good writers and story you can still tell (or stretch for a new one) you’re going to get a good sequel. if the WRITING is good.
I’d have to research it, but I am pretty sure Matrix was originally planned to be a trilogy. I could be wrong, but I could swear I remember reading that somewhere prior to its release.
To my knowledge it was originally planned to be a stand alone film. I’m not completely sure though.
I was hoping, and thought john made this movie, because he had a huge passion for film, and wanted to share his movie with the world. no matter how much money or recognition he got.
upsets me thats its just because he need the money.
People that have a passion for film can also want to make money from their creations. If that was not the case then there would never be any movies made as those with passion for film would have to do something else to make money other than make movies. Your acting like each are mutually exclusive, which is absolutely not the case.