Maxwell Lord posted:

Yeah that's the thing, a lot of the sequels were to movies that really didn't leave much room if any for a sequel.

Granted this is a common thing with comedies. Most comedies are written with some kind of character arc in mind and there's usually a happy ending involving character growth for the protagonists and a new, more sustainable status quo. So to make a sequel you have to say "actually, no." The Hangover sequels are a good example (I still think the first was a good movie but man they beat that premise into the ground), arguably even Austin Powers which has to completely undo Austin's arc from the original so he can still try and shag everything in sight.

The balance has partly shifted somewhat to sequels to movies that actually were made with sequels in mind.

One thing I think may have changed- and again this may require statistical analysis- was that diminishing returns were almost always a given. A sequel would make less than the movie that spawned it, because not everybody who saw the movie will see the sequel and the people who missed the first movie won't bother with the second. Nowadays everyone can catch up via streaming so that assumption is less true, and it's not uncommon to see sequels outperform the original (though that may be balanced out by there still being plenty of sequels that outright flop.) Sequels didn't used to be among the top grossers of the year because they were never meant to be, they were more of a safe bet and schedule filler (and sometimes a way of amortizing costs from a film that was very expensive.)

If studios seem more risk-averse than ever these days that may be more owing to the shrinking of the mid-budget slate, where many of your surprise hits and original stories come from- Robocop wasn't supposed to be a big film and Orion didn't really know what they had until the first test screenings, for example. But then we just had Knives Out last year, so it's not like those are dead either.

Maxwell Lord posted:

Yeah that's the thing, a lot of the sequels were to movies that really didn't leave much room if any for a sequel.

Granted this is a common thing with comedies. Most comedies are written with some kind of character arc in mind and there's usually a happy ending involving character growth for the protagonists and a new, more sustainable status quo. So to make a sequel you have to say "actually, no." The Hangover sequels are a good example (I still think the first was a good movie but man they beat that premise into the ground), arguably even Austin Powers which has to completely undo Austin's arc from the original so he can still try and shag everything in sight.

The balance has partly shifted somewhat to sequels to movies that actually were made with sequels in mind.

One thing I think may have changed- and again this may require statistical analysis- was that diminishing returns were almost always a given. A sequel would make less than the movie that spawned it, because not everybody who saw the movie will see the sequel and the people who missed the first movie won't bother with the second. Nowadays everyone can catch up via streaming so that assumption is less true, and it's not uncommon to see sequels outperform the original (though that may be balanced out by there still being plenty of sequels that outright flop.) Sequels didn't used to be among the top grossers of the year because they were never meant to be, they were more of a safe bet and schedule filler (and sometimes a way of amortizing costs from a film that was very expensive.)

If studios seem more risk-averse than ever these days that may be more owing to the shrinking of the mid-budget slate, where many of your surprise hits and original stories come from- Robocop wasn't supposed to be a big film and Orion didn't really know what they had until the first test screenings, for example. But then we just had Knives Out last year, so it's not like those are dead either.

Tars Tarkas posted:

I believe this is real

muscles like this! posted:

The Austin Powers series was also a weird outlier. While the first movie didn't exactly flop it certainly didn't blow up the charts. It didn't find an audience until it went to home video and then the second was a massive success.

Prowler posted:

I loved the first movie and was immensely disappointed in the second: it reused so many jokes it felt like like they didn't even try. For as much poo poo as the third one gets, I found it it better than 2 simply because at least it was fairly original, comparatively, and had a lot of good gags that weren't poop jokes.

Sirotan posted:

Clifford the Embiggened By Bad Forced Perspective Red Dog

Maxwell Lord posted:

So to make a sequel you have to say "actually, no." The Hangover sequels are a good example (I still think the first was a good movie but man they beat that premise into the ground), arguably even Austin Powers which has to completely undo Austin's arc from the original so he can still try and shag everything in sight.

The balance has partly shifted somewhat to sequels to movies that actually were made with sequels in mind.

The Klowner posted:

This is an interesting idea, and it's probably why studios have shifted away from numbered sequels in favor of using a colon and some words to differentiate from the originals. "X: Y of the Z" is a lot more approachable by viewers than "X 2" because it lessens the baggage, in a sense. It seems to indicate a shifting in thinking by studios of movies as points in a continuum (or instances of a franchise) instead of self-contained stories.

muscles like this! posted:

The Austin Powers series was also a weird outlier. While the first movie didn't exactly flop it certainly didn't blow up the charts. It didn't find an audience until it went to home video and then the second was a massive success.

The MSJ posted:

https://twitter.com/mariebardi/status/1331079667504312321?s=20

The Klowner posted:

This is an interesting idea, and it's probably why studios have shifted away from numbered sequels in favor of using a colon and some words to differentiate from the originals. "X: Y of the Z" is a lot more approachable by viewers than "X 2" because it lessens the baggage, in a sense. It seems to indicate a shifting in thinking by studios of movies as points in a continuum (or instances of a franchise) instead of self-contained stories.

The MSJ posted:

https://twitter.com/mariebardi/status/1331079667504312321?s=20

Snowman_McK posted:

They probably learnt that one from video games. It's a lot less ridiculous to buy 'Call of Duty, Black ops 4' that admit that you're buying Call of Duty 15. But if you're not careful, you end up with Dark Forces 4: Jedi Knight 3: Jedi Outcast 2: Jedi Academy

Prowler posted:

The way Call of Duty works, with it's 4-5 development teams and two main title series (Black Ops and Modern Warfare), it honestly is more akin to the Marvel Universe.

Really, if we're talking a lack of ability to take hints from what worked in previous installments and obtain actual story/franchise cohesion, releasing things as planned without huge technical hiccups and mistakes-- let's say the Fox X-men universe.

Actually, this kinda tracks. There's X-Men 1-3, the "modern warfare" timeline, and X-Men: Past Hijinks, the "Black Ops" timeline.

Mywhatacleanturtle posted:

Isn’t the black ops series pretty solid across the board? That’s the gist I got from osmosis, anyway.

The Saddest Rhino posted:

Maxwell Lord posted:

If studios seem more risk-averse than ever these days that may be more owing to the shrinking of the mid-budget slate, where many of your surprise hits and original stories come from- Robocop wasn't supposed to be a big film and Orion didn't really know what they had until the first test screenings, for example. But then we just had Knives Out last year, so it's not like those are dead either.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY posted:

This movie is more crazy than the poster implies.

Vandar posted:

Oh my god you weren't kidding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prWBrMJOg2k

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY posted:

This movie is more crazy than the poster implies.

Vandar posted:

Oh my god you weren't kidding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prWBrMJOg2k

Mywhatacleanturtle posted:

Is this supposed to be pre or post traumatic brain injury

Lid posted:

EXCLUSIVE: NBC is developing Finding Forrester, a drama series based on the 2000 Gus Van Sant movie that starred the late Sean Connery. It hails from The Chi co-executive producers TJ Brady & Rasheed Newson, director Tim Story, NBA star Stephen Curry and his Unanimous Media as well as Sony Pictures Television.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPjvDE-rKo0

marshmallow creep posted:

Outside of the YTMND bit, I like this film for the "punch the keys" bit, which I sometimes bring up with students. When writing, the blank page is your enemy. Put literally anything there. You can fix it later, but you can't fix what you don't write in the first place.

Mywhatacleanturtle posted:

Isn’t the black ops series pretty solid across the board? That’s the gist I got from osmosis, anyway.

marshmallow creep posted:

Outside of the YTMND bit, I like this film for the "punch the keys" bit, which I sometimes bring up with students. When writing, the blank page is your enemy. Put literally anything there. You can fix it later, but you can't fix what you don't write in the first place.

AceOfFlames posted:

Cold War at least tries to "both sides' the whole thing by having the Macguffin be a series of neutron bombs buried by the US in European capitals to deny them to the Soviets in case of an invasion which the Soviets are trying to detonate and frame the US. Meanwhile, the PC is revealed to be a Soviet operative who was captured and brainwashed by the CIA via MKULTRA and controlled Bioshock style. The "bad" ending has you lead the other "good guys" including the CoD BLOPS protagonists to a trap and kill them all, be welcomed by the Soviets like an old friend, blow up the nukes and expose Reagan and Bush as the worst war criminals in history. The "good" ending has you stay loyal to your captors and stop the nukes but the guy who brainwashed you suddenly decides to kill you because you're a loose end. From the looks of things, most people prefer the "bad" ending.

Groovelord Neato posted:

Buying Call of Duty for the campaigns lol

Vince MechMahon posted:

Hating sequels feels like a mindset totally set in the nineties to me. Weird, outdated thinking that's not backed up by any actual facts about the quality of sequels.

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

It's from the 70's, where sequels were not only often much more cheaply made but were often just TV movies.