01 March 2013

Franchise Film Making

The Economist | The Academy Awards: An indictment of Hollywood

So where are the terrific Hollywood movies which should have come out in 2012? Crowded out, it seems, by all the remakes, sequels and superhero blockbusters. As for the coming 12 months, we can look forward to “Thor 2”, “Captain America 2”, “Wolverine 2”, “GI Joe 2”, “Despicable Me 2”, “Monsters Inc 2”, “The Smurfs 2”, “Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs 2”, “RED 2”, “300 2”, “Grown Ups 2”, “Percy Jackson 2”, “The Hunger Games 2”, “The Hobbit 2”, “Anchorman 2”, “Iron Man 3”, “The Hangover 3”, “Scary Movie 5”, “Paranormal Activity 5”, “Fast & Furious 6”, “Superman 6” and “Star Trek 12”.
These are all sequels but don't think they ought to be lumped together. Some of these properties, like "The Hunger Games," were originally conceived as multi-part stories. It would be weird not to make the second and third installments. Others, like "Thor," or "Star Trek" were always serial in nature. Those properties exist as story generators, not individual stories. I think there's a big difference artistically between making more movies in those series than in churning out a follow-up to things that were originally stand-alone like "300" or "Monsters Inc."

PS Cranking out new installments in series is not exactly a new thing.

It's not even a film thing. Were people looking at Conan Doyle and whinging about him writing another Sherlock Holmes story?


  1. Hell, the Odyssey is the sequel to the Iliad...

    1. Too true!

      Can you imagine people muttering at their bards "Oh Gods! *Another* Labor of Hercules?! This uy just keeps milking the same franchise over and over."