Image Credit: Craig BlankenhornWith Sex and the City 2‘s poor showing at the box-office and the quote-unquote underwhelming performance of Shrek Forever After, some pundits are already asking, Are Moviegoers Tiring of Sequels? If so, Hollywood could be in for a rough summer, since the slate is full of them, like Twilight: Eclipse, and reboots, like The Karate Kid. Certainly, there’s a part of me that would welcome the demise of rehashed hokum, but for every 25 Ernest Saves Christmases, there’s always the hope for one The Dark Knight.
As for the beancounters’ fears that movie audiences have wised up and graduated to more original material, I say: Relax. There’s nothing really to indicate that as a trend. Iron Man 2 opened even bigger than the original, and six of 2009′s Top-10 hits were sequels or reboots. On the other hand, the girls from Sex and the City have been around since 1998, and the most recent incarnation was universally reviled by critics. Shrek‘s not exactly fresh anymore either (though Forever After is still bound to make $250 million or so). Maybe moviegoers are simply tired of tired sequels, as they always have been. (See: Batman & Robin, Ocean’s 12, Beverly Hills Cop III). For better and worse, sequels are here to stay.
…unless Eclipse crashes and burns at the box-office. Then all bets are off.
Can we agree that sequels do not need to be placed on the endangered species list? How many of the summer films you can’t wait to see are sequels or reboots?
Iron Man 2 is doing just fine. Toy Story 3 is gonna kill it at the box office.
Sequels are fine. It’s the scripts that suck.
Gotta be one of the worst years for summer movies… as I still haven’t seen Iron Man 2 nor Persia nor Robin Hood…. gonna wait for Inception for what looks like a cool movie…. and Piranha 3D!
Save your money, Iron Man 2 was a huge disappointment. I have no interest in Persia or Robin Hood. Toy Story 3 and Inception are the only films I’m looking forward to.
Sequels are fine. I actually enjoy them. However, every movie doesn’t deserve a sequel. For SATC2, it appeared as if cast and crew just wanted a paycheck. I mean, who signed off on having the girls leave New York City? Shrek Forever After is a case of it being too long since the last film. Sequels are good, as long as they are both creative and justified. Studios went through the same thing when it opted to release a second Tomb Raider. The question isn’t ‘how great was the original?’ The question is ‘Do audiences want to experience it again?’ Until studios wake up to that they will be in for a long and disappointing summer.
I pretty much agree with you. If the story justifies a sequel then yes, go ahead. But please do it well. Too many sequels are so poorly thrown together to make a quick buck that the scripts and the quality are often way below the original’s. What did we love about the first “Pirates of the Caribbean”? It was unique, funny, and fun. What didn’t we like about the sequels? They were overly complicated and expended more effort on the effects than on the characters.
Movies based on book sagas, such as Harry Potter, are a different category altogether, and are usually better.
Yeah, sequels aren’t going anywhere. Revisiting an established property is simply the easiest/safest/laziest thing Hollywood can do, so they’ll be around for the forseeable future.
The key is making sequels people actually want to see. Did we really need another “Sex and the City”? (Set mostly in the desert?) Did anyone want another “Shrek” after the turd that was “Shrek the Third?”
On the other hand, I’m fairly sure “Toy Story 3″ is going to be just fine, as will “Eclipse” with its rabid fan base.
Sex and the City 2′s previews of these women and their outrageous clothes look as if some horrible drag queen’s closet was blown up and the cast just happened to be standing around when the garments came floating back down to earth.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with “Ernest Saves Christmas.”
There will always be good and bad sequels. Some of the best films, books and plays are sequels and ditto some of the worst. Sex & The City is the sequel to a relatively weak film and that seems to have no reason to exist. As for Shrek 4, a lot of people hated Shrek 3 so it was always going to be tough for it to reach the hights of 2 or 3, even if it was a good as the first 2.
Iron Man 2 is going to make more than Iron Man (worldwide and maybe in the states too) despite much greater competion and the dollar exchange rates lowering international grosses.
plot contrivances, deus ex machina, trite writing, and michael bay are what’s ruining the movies.
Eclipse isn’t a fair comparison. It’s like HP & the Deathly Hollows. This is a series of films based on a series of films for which there is a rabid fan-base (on both counts). I think you need to look at those “sequels” differently than a SATC2, a Transformers 2 (or 3), Shrek 4 et al. I’m sure Eclipse will do big business, even if the public at large is tiring of true sequels.
*series of films based on a series of BOOKS that should say.
And I agree with what others have said above, there’s plenty of room in the market for a GOOD sequel. But a movie that is as thrown together as SATC2…well that’s just another story all together.
I agree, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Twilight (though I haven’t read Twilight) are parts of a bigger whole and not really sequels.
i’m more fatigued by remakes than sequels.
I agree, Hollywood, leave old movies alone. I wasn’t all that interested in a lot of them the first time around, so you can bet my attitude won’t change if they get the remake treatment.
The only sequels I’m looking forward to this year are Toy Story 3 and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. And I don’t think Harry Potter counts as much since it is an adaptation of a book. I was also looking forward to Iron Man 2, but it didn’t quite live up to its predecessor.
There are bad sequels aka transformers 2 and anything from the twilight series and there are also good sequels aka the dark knight. but no one is ever going to be 100 percent satisfied. usually sequels are made because the original was so good or successful, so its hard to raise that bar even higher. some get lucky but most of the time the sequel isnt better. i think the harry potter films and lotr definitely count because if the fans were disappointed would not continue to watch them. a good example of a series that let its fans down is his dark materials or narnia. that said, the only sequels im looking forward to this year are deathly hallows and maybe toy story…i want to see toy story but im not dying to see it. im not looking forward to any of the reboots.
Especially in the case of Shrek 4, I think a lot of sequels now want to jump on the 3D bandwagon. They only want to get a sequel out there in 3D because they think it will make more money. For me, sequels need to continue the story in order to be necessary. Toy Story 3 looks way different than Shrek 4 because because although it’s in 3D as well, it definitely seems like a continuation of the story (Andy is all grown up now). Same with Eclipse even though I have no desire to see that.
And as for SATC 2, there was so much potential for it to be a good continuation of the story, but it fell flat.
I have to say SATC2 was not as bad as the critics are making it out to be. There are so many priceless moments in the movie it is hard to recount, and the Gay wedding has to be the best piece of comedy written in forever.
Check Out generationgossip.com
The wedding may have been humorous, but the best piece of comedy written in forever? Are you serious? I’m guessing you haven’t seen any other movies or TV shows in forever.
Now hold on. Let’s not get all superior over “Ernest Saves Christmas.”
1. I really liked SATC 2
I guess I’m a loser or something! Boo!
2. I agree with pop, I am more tired of “reimaginings” than sequels. New Karate Kid? No way. New Toy Story? Heck yes please!!