The Return of the Returns

Those who decry sequels have a lot to decry about right now. Summer 2007 marks the release of a dozen sequels or franchises (up by five from the previous summer!).

But is it Really so Terrible?

Do sequels toll the death knell of originality and creativity in Hollywood, as we've all heard or read or written? After all, there's nothing new under the sun (this sentence included). Sequels have been around forever. As Howard Suber, author of The Power of Film points out, "There's a little play called Oedipus at Colonus, which is the sequel to Oedipus Rex; that was 2500 years ago." Antigone was apparently the first threequel, rounding out that particular franchise. Suber, who is also the founding co-chair of the Producers Program at the UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television, went on to list Shakespeare's sequels, the Henrys IV and VI - which suggests, that perhaps studios should go back to classing up their acts with Roman numerals.

In the less rarefied world of film, sequels are older than the Hollywood sign. Stars like Abbott and Costello and the Marx Brothers churned out movies in which they played themselves again and again. The little tramp was revisited by Charlie Chaplin. Bob Hope took all those roads of his. Saturday serials were a big hit with the kids. And the cinematic heyday of the '70s could boast of The Godfather I and II, and it would be well-nigh impossible to knock that sequel. The Star Wars saga that began in 1977 also continued into the ’80s to nobody's apparent distress.

The Descent to Duplication: Death By Video

Things started to get ugly as the '80s also saw the rise of the sequel-in-name-only. Back then, "the independent world was all over sequels," says David Davis, head of the entertainment practice at the financial advisory firm FMV. Davis, who has been studying sequels since 1989, cited Kickboxer 2 through 5 and Teen Wolf Too among many examples of a scorched-earth kind of filmmaking - exploiting a small brand without the original stars to make some quick cash and take advantage of the new video market. Sequels got a bad rep, and for good reason.

Back then, a film's original creators usually didn't work on the sequels. "Historically, it's been almost a rule that if you had any integrity as an artist, you don't repeat yourself," says Suber. "So who could you get? It was part of the attitude of the creative community that only hacks would step in to continue the story told by somebody else." This only added to the sequel stigma.

Meanwhile, the big studios were blinded by the bright lights burned to memory by the success of the Star Wars trilogy. But the results were mixed. "You had movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark, Ghostbusters, Beverly Hills Cop," says Davis. "In that kind of world, the sequel tended to cost 40 percent more than the first film, as stars and directors raised their fees, and it would perform only about 60 percent of the revenue that it did on first one."

Cult Culture

Indeed, studios might have lost interest had it not been for the rise of the "cult" movie. Davis cites the first Rambo, called First Blood upon release, as one of the earliest examples. The film made only about $50 million in theaters. "It became a cult hit on video and television, so by the time the second movie comes out, and Stallone's star is rising, it does $150 million theatrically," he says. The Terminator fared similarly: more than $38 million for the first, $205 million for the second. Throughout the '90s, this trend held for Lethal Weapon, Austin Powers, and the The Matrix, and carried them into the new century.

Filmmakers' attitude toward working on sequels changed as well. According to Suber, Tim Burton's return to work on Batman 2 surprised many in the industry. But it simply made sense. "If you want to work, and you're working in an industry that makes remakes, you've got to get off the highfalutin horse and make peace with reality," Suber says. The decision can't be too painful, considering the profit they can expect to participate in. Four movies coming out this summer are a virtual lock to gross 800 million worldwide, according to Davis: Shrek, Pirates, Spider-Man and Harry Potter.

(Consider: Shrek the Third, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, Spider-Man 3 - these three hit theatres in May, and, even though this article went to press before their release, it's not going out on a limb to say they probably made some record-breaking bank. As this is written, Ocean's Thirteen, Live Free or Die Hard, Evan Almighty, Hostel 2, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, The Bourne Ultimatum, Rush Hour 3 and 28 Weeks Later will showcase more top names as they unspool on several thousand screens near you.)

These days, sequels are staffed by A-listers like Tom Stoppard, Paul Greengrass, Sam Raimi, Christopher Nolan, Alfonso Cuarón and Mike Newell. This is not a bunch lacking in originality or creativity.

Of course, there are still atrocious sequels, just as there are atrocious movies being churned out by studios in general. "From a corporate point of view, every film is a cynical endeavor, because they're trying to determine if there's a market," says Ed Solomon (writer, Men in Black). "You can't bash all sequels, just like you can't bash movies made from television shows or novels. If it's made well and it's fun and it's worth seeing, it's a success." Solomon, who wrote Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure and its sequel Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey with Chris Matheson, adds, "The key question for me is, is there more story to tell?" Presently working on the script for Tokyo Suckerpunch for Tobey Maguire, Solomon said, "I feel about this character the same way Chris and I felt about Bill and Ted: Put the characters in any room, and I know what they would say. So it would be fun to write a sequel."

Fun ought to count for something. Behind all those big box office numbers are millions of moviegoers. In fact, if it weren't for sequels, the audience might not be at the theaters at all. Suber lists a number of sobering stats from the MPAA: one-fourth to one-third of the American public never set foot in a movie theater. Another one-fourth to one-third attend once or twice a year. "So, are these tentpole films good for exhibition business?" Suber asks. "The answer to that is, ‘You betcha!'" And isn't that the point, to get people in the seats?

Audiences have become savvy. All that competition from the Internet and video games means these films have got to deliver. That leads to some exciting results, as Media By Numbers film tracker Paul Dergarabedian points out. "It's impressive to see the retooling or re-imagining of franchises" such as Batman Begins and Superman Returns, said Dergarabedian. "Casino Royale is another example of a sequel where they are not resting on their laurels, just trying to capitalize on their brand name recognition. These films have to be bigger and better and more appealing than their predecessors."

And if they aren't, the audience catches on quickly. Steve Mason, creator of the online game Fantasy Moguls, a kind of fantasy football for movie fans, (www.fantasymoguls.com), anticipates a couple of losers this summer. Live Free or Die Hard? "It's been too long, I cannot imagine that's going to work," he said. Rush Hour 3? "That's got trouble written all over it. The first one wasn't all that successful, and to do a sequel of it now, years later, doesn't make sense at all. It's destined for disaster." Likewise concerns for Hostel 2, because "there's some real horror fatigue out there." But tankers aside, he predicted, "this is probably going to be the biggest summer in history."

Mason, who also owns a small independent theater chain called Flagship Theatres, knows what the studios want: safety. That's what he wants, too. And that's what the sequels deliver. "It takes so much money and so much marketing and so much luck to get the moviegoing public aware of a film," he said. With a sequel, or a series based on a graphic novel or television show, much of that work is already done. "I'm looking for sure things. It's great when out of the box, an incredibly original picture comes along like, say, 300," he says. "But I can tell you that, as a theater owner, I can't wait for 301."

The head of Warner Bros. probably feels the same way.

Yes, it comes down to money, as it always has (you should have seen the deal Homer got for The Odyssey), and studios are going to continue shoveling it into hoped-for blockbusters while the middle-budget movie is in danger of becoming an endangered species. But can that really be blamed on franchises? According to Solomon, any reported death of originality wasn't brought about by sequels, but "by studios throwing a bunch of MBAs into the filmmaking process. The problem is that studios try to turn every original movie into a movie that we've already seen. So audiences go to movies expecting something fresh, and can essentially sing along to them, and get bored. At least with a sequel you know what you're getting into."