Sequels are nothing new. They’ve been around for about as long as stories have. Film sequels, similarly, have been made since near the inception of cinema. One needs only remember the popular
Tarzan series, or
Son of Kong from the 1930s. Similarly, remakes have been around for almost as long, a famous example being the popular 1940 remake of
The Mark of Zorro.
Yet no one can deny that we live in a box office world today where sequels, remakes, spinoffs, and the latest craze, reboots, are more popular than ever before, and their numbers seem to grow with every passing year. Every film that has made a dollar of profit seems to have a sequel on the way. And I’m not sure why. Oh, of course, if one film in a film made good money before, a follow-up can be expected to do it again. But that has always been the case. So what is it about now that makes them so much more popular? Are studios just increasingly unwilling to take risks on newer properties? Whatever the reason, that’s the way it is these days.
On the one hand, this can be truly exciting. If people really loved a film and its characters, they can be very eager to revisit them and see the continuation. Which is why said films make money. On the other, there’s definitely a point where it becomes reaching on the studio’s part, really just trying to make an extra buck off of something that was more popular once, whether or not it makes any artistic sense.
Here’s where I ask myself a question I call the “Capitalism question.” Capitalism works because the need for money drives a producer to create the goods the buyer wants, therefore satisfying both (the “invisible hand,” to economists). Under that logic, the whole “They’re just making it for the money” protestation shouldn’t really hold up, as they would only make money if people continued to want to see it. The“dollar votes” of the audience tell the studios to keep making more. And when the dollars stop coming, it’s a sign the audience doesn’t want it more. Thus, the corporate producers and the audiences can live in harmony.
But, that being said, we know that’s not exactly how it works. After all, consumers will often put money towards something whether it’s good for them or not. Otherwise, McDonald’s wouldn’t still be in business. Far too often, a blasé and uncaring audience will often feed the films with their ticket purchases, and the film wil make serious money, even though it seems to get nothing but trashed in the media. What’s worse is that when people know it’s a pointless sequel, but pay to see it anyway just out of sheer curiosity. Everyone knows The Godfather Part III was made for money, but who could have really resisted seeing it?
Now , I’d like to take a look at the franchise continuations of this and next year, and share my own personal thoughts on which ones are worth making, and which ones are really “reaching.” Of course, thse are just my personal opinions, and as a usual moviegoer, there’s plenty of filsm here who’s predcessors I’ll own up to having never seen. You’re more than welcome to share your thoughts as well, in the comments below.
Jul. 11:
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
Without having actually seen the original Planet of the Apes films, I was always under the impression that it was meant to take place in the far, far, far future, where apes had just naturally evolved, and mankind had gradually fallen. Making a film about the “secret origin” of the Planet of the Apes, and making all happen due to one event, definitely seemed like reaching to me. Then again, the idea initially started with the writer’s idea, not with the studio wanting another film. Then the film met with such positive reaction, I shrugged it off. And now this film is apparently meeting with just absolutel yglorious reviews. So good for it.
I guess what this shows me is that, even if a film seems like real franchise-reaching rather than telling a story that really needed to be told, if you put it in the hands of the right people, it can still turn out to be a pretty good movie.
Jul. 18:
Planes: Fire and Rescue
Children’s films are a tricky thing. Should I be hard on something that’s meant for little kids? Well, actually, yes, I think. Studios like Disney, Pixar, and DreamWorks, really try to make quality entertainment that the whole family can enjoy. This is not that. This seems more like those same studios, knowing what the kids liked, using their spare time and spare money to throw out watered-down spinoff /sequel, forcing the parents to sit through all of it so they can make a buck off of their kids.
Pixar didn’t apparently have any interest in making a
Cars spinoff, which is why
Planes was produced through a separate Disney side-studio and kept off of their official canonical list of films. Of course, only one year later, there’s now a sequel to the non-canonical spinoff. The speed of this process is what really makes me doubt it was made with quality in mind.
Perhaps I shouldn’t be so harsh. After all I haven’t seen the films. They might be decent, and it is possible the people at DisneyToon studios really believe in these films. But to me, it definitely feels like reaching.
Jul. 18:
The Purge: Anarchy
Horror film. They always make a lot of them, it doesn't really matter a whole lot.
Jul. 25:
Hercules
This isn’t really a “franchise” but it’s definitely a character and a mythology that has been done multiple times before. So I’m including it.
I know this film has its share of skeptics based on director Brett Ratner’s reputation. But regardless of that, the question remains, is another film based on the Hercules character worth it? I’d say yes. Definitely. First off, we must exclude the film from earlier this year, which was essentially a direct-to-video B movie that snuck into theaters. That aside, when was the last time anyone saw a good live-action representation of Hercules kicking butt on the big screen? I’d say it’s high-time we saw him again, and this is one hero I’d say was ripe for the plucking.
Aug. 08:
Step Up All In
Essentially the same as a horror movie. Low-budget franchise devoid of any famous names (I’m not saying famous names equal quality, but it does show how under-the-radar the film is) that always manages to make a profit without causing really any degree of hype or noticeable presence.
. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Again, we must try to put aside our personal feelings about the (apparent) quality of the film itself, the turtles designs, the casting, and such, and simply ask if it was a good idea to make a TMNT reboot. I would say yes. I would also have been perfectly content with the films we have, but this idea isn’t bad.
But I must also say that in any reboot of this series, it should, from the inception, avoid the origin story. In this case, I count April O’Neal’s first meeting with the Turtles to essentially be an “origin” of sorts. People have been saying for a long time now that if a superhero franchise is rebooted, it should just start in the middle, and avoid retelling the same old story. To me, this is what makes this film feel like just another retread of old territory, and a pointless remake. If they had avoided that story, they would have avoided that problem.
Aug. 15:
The Expendables 3
This is a pretty much harmless action franchise that people continue to like to make, and others continue to like to see. The fun of this franchise is seeing just how many old action stars they can continue to cram in to each passing film. When it comes to just good-old-fashioned sequels, not reboots, remakes, and spinoffs, a good action movie can usually justify one or two. After all, everything’s about trilogies these days. It’s when they hit four films that you really have to start questioning if it’s worth it. It's been fun to see how different action stars keep getting added to the cast. But I think they've reached their limit here.
Aug. 22:
Sin City: A Dame to Kill For
The first film was, of course, based on a series of graphic novels. It introduced a big wide sandbox for filmmakers to continue to play in, and the fact that some of the stories this time are written directly for the screen really just shows that. The only surprise is that it took them this long to make a sequel.
Sept. 12:
Dolphin Tale 2
Again with the children’s films. To quote Kevin Smith “didn’t we really say all we needed to say…” with the first film? I mean, is this really something that anybody is demanding? Or is it just essentially what Planes 2 is? Making money off something children might want to see.
Oct. 17:
Dracula Untold
I touched on this with
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, but these “secret origins of…” movies kind of get under my skin because they just smell of reaching. They really try and hype themselves up with summaries like “see how he became the man you know” or stuff like that. Admittedly, Dracula’s origins in the book are apparently shrouded in mystery, and a new adaptation of the novel would be a bad idea, as there has already been a relatively popular version made only in the ‘90s. My little nitpicky side wants to say , for a character who has been around for over a hundred years, what is it about these particular writers’ idea of his origin that should have me hyped? Well, I suppose the answer to that is, they’re the ones with the budget to make a big movie. So I’ll admit that this is at least trying to do something new with the character, and for that, I give it a pass. If it’s a good and entertaining origin story, then it might not be the worst idea. But it may be that the best way to treat the
Dracula franchise would be to just leave it alone, and the film just feels like reaching.
Nov. 21:
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1
Yes, one Mockingjay movie is a necessity. But let’s talk about the whole splitting-it-into-two fad. When it was done for Harry Potter, it was for completely legitimate reasons. In fact, when I heard the news, I pretty much felt like there was no other way to do the book justice. And they
still cut stuff out. But people I have spoken to who have read
Breaking Dawn and
Mockingjay have very firmly told me that there is no point in splitting them in two, and in fact, such would require sufficient
expansion on the story.
And here is where the whole “capitalism question” falls into disarray. Here, you have people who are fans of the book, who very much want to see the film adaptation. So because you know that they will have to see two movies if you produce them as such, they are essentially a captive audience. You’ve
forced your fans to spend twice as much money for a reason that had
nothing to do with art. And that sickens me. I’m not even a fan of this franchise, heck, I have serious issues with this franchise, and it still sickens me.
Nov. 26:
Horrible Bosses 2
Another thing that bugs me is sequels to films that essentially had a one-shot premise. After all, how many times can you try to kill your horrible boss? When the premise has such a one-time-only appeal to it, making a sequel seems like the king of all reaching.
I also don’t think very many people just really want to see these characters again. But the studio still thinks that a sequel will make money. They may be right. After all, an audience is more willing to gamble that a sequel to a film that made them laugh will make them laugh than a wholly new comedy. Bu I think it’s high time we invest in some of those new comedies.
The Penguins of Madagascar
Another children’s film spinoff. Such can be a good idea, like with
Puss-in-Boots. Also, I’ll admit to not having even seen the first three films. The penguins feel like they were the gimmicky side characters, without a lot of depth, but who the kids liked, and who proved the most marketable. Therefore, giving them their own film is justifiable from a marketing angle. But the film having any quality family entertainment to it doesn’t seem to be the main priority.
Dec. 12:
Exodus: Gods and Kings
Let’s call a spade a spade here. Whether it calls itself
The Ten Commandments or not, this film will be seen as a remake. And that does feel somewhat strange. It seems strange to say that there should be some sort of unspoken patent on a Biblical story, that once that filmmaker has made his film version, especially one rife with so many liberties (and one I’ve yet to see), no one else can. But films that retell the same stories as classic, classic movies, can often just feel like rehash. I’m actually harsher on remakes than I am on reboots because it’s the same
story being retold. But if there’s some new angle to the story that can be given justice, then that can be truly fascinating, and the best reason to make a remake.
However, I also just see some remakes as trying to take the place of the classic film. And the part of me that hates change doesn’t want anything to steal
The Ten Commandment’s place in history (Even when I haven’t seen it. Isn’t that odd?).
Dec. 17:
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
Here we are again with the splitting go the book into multiple movies. Of course, everyone’s already talked about how ridiculous the splitting of the book into three movies is. But what I find surprising is that there are plenty of people who still defend the decision, and talk about how good all the original material is. I wouldn’t know, as I still haven’t seen the second film. But I will say this: No matter how good it may be, fans of this book weren’t looking to watch five hours of fan fiction. They wanted the book. At least, that’s how I feel.
Dec. 19:
Annie
Completely unnecessary, but basically harmless, remake. For some reason, remaking a musical seems less inflammatory than remaking a classic action film or Biblical epic. I certainly don’t see this as trying to take the original’s place.
.
Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb
Again, completely uneccesary, but essentially harmless. Did we need or really want to see Night at the Museum be turned into a trilogy? No. But the premise itself is open enough for that possibility, so I’ll let this one slide.
Dec. 25:
Hot Tub Time Machine 2
Definitely something we don’t need. What is the appeal here? This is where I honestly start to question if the audience that the studios expect will truly be here for this film. I suppose the premise eisn’t one-shot, but it just seems so stupid. Who wants this?
2015
Jan. 02:
Amityville
This may be a horror film, but more than most, this really deserves a red. First they made a remake, now they’re making a…reboot? Sequel? I mean, come on, let’s just let it rest!
Jan. 09:
Taken 3
Just. Not. Needed. It would be one thing if this was just the continuing adventures of a badass CIA agent. That wouldn’t be bad. But the first film had a fairly one-shot type of premise, and because of the title, the series feels the necessity to repeat that premise as it continues. I mean, how many times can people get taken? I know the second film left it open fo r a sequel, but you know what, that was it’s mistake.
Jan. 16:
The Man from U.N.C.L.E.
This kind of thing I don’t see anything wrong with. Old TV shows certainly do have the potential to be turned into awesome movies. Just look at the Fugitive. The fact of the matter is that this show was once popular and loved, but has fallen into relative obscurity in the past forty years. So if a filmmaker can bring back the premise and the characters for a film audience, and make a good movie out of it for a new generation, why not? Frankly, it sounds kind of exciting.
Feb. 06:
The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water
Again, why not? It’s a very popular show with very popular characters that people like to continue to watch. I can’t say I’m a big watcher of the show myself, but it seems to have serious staying power.
Feb. 13:
Poltergeist
Another remake of a classic horror film! Honestly, all this says to me is “We really are out of ideas!”
Feb. 27:
Hitman: Agent 47
Another one I’m on the fence about. On the one hand, it seems sort of silly to have made one film about this videogame, and then pretty much immediately reboot it, and it sort of screams “reaching!” But then again, I’m not a fan of the video game, and if I was, maybe I’d love the idea. I know what it’s like to see a favorite character get butchered onscreen (Hulk, Fantastic Four) and I’ve welcomed reboots for those franchises. Why? Because I want to see the characters get portrayed the way they should. So actually, I feel that’s one of the really good things that has arisen from the whole sequel/remake/reboot craze: That if Hollywood doesn’t get it right the first time, they can just try again. So as someone inexperienced with this mythology, I’m not in a really good place to judge.
Mar. 06:
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel 2
What the… This is about the
last movie I expected to see a sequel to. I would say “Hollywood’s getting really desperate now,” but actually, given that this was a pretty under-the-radar film, I’d say it’s more likely the filmmakers really have something they wanted to do with a sequel. So let ‘em have it
Mar. 13:
Cinderella
There is definitely an appeal for this! A live-action big-screen version of Cinderella, especially one from Kenneth Branagh, with this cast, sounds kind of wonderful. The only thing that bothers me, oddly enough, is that it’s Disney making it. If any other company was making it, it would just be another version of the tale. But with Disney, it more of a remake, and feels like they’re trying to replace their animated film. Like “Hey, you thought that was good? Well forget that, we’re doing it in live-action this time!” And that’s a film classic that doesn’t really need replacing.
Also, it should be noted that Disney seems to now want to turn all of it’s classic animated films into live-action. They did One Hundred and One Dalmatians ages ago, but in recent years have given us new versions of Snow White and Alice in Wonderland, and are currently also working on The Jungle Book. So yeah, that’s a bit eyebrow-raising. If they want to make some of them into live-action, that’s fine. I just hope this craze doesn’t get too out of control. I don’t want to see
Oliver and Company with CGI cats and dogs. Oh no, I hope I didn’t just give anyone an idea.
Mar. 20:
The Divergent Series: Insurgent
Well, duh. Whatever you think of the books, it a series
Apr. 03:
Fast & Furious 7
So here I am complaining that Hollywood is making too many sequels, and at times just seems to have run out of original ideas. So you would think that the
seventh, I repeat
SEVENTH film in a series, would be ripe for the criticism. Well, actually, not so much. Hey, look, some series are just fun, and they continue on for a long time. Back in the day, there were about twenty Tarzan films. More recently, look at the Star Trek franchise. I’m not saying this is on that level. But it’ the films are fun enough and harmless enough that it’s just kind of cool to watch them keep going. Unlike Taken, the premise, about a group of high-speed thieves, seems always open for more, and the screenwriter seems to have a good sense of what should happen next. So I’ll be frank, I’m looking forward to it.
Apr. 17:
Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2
On the other hand, who, oh who, really wanted this? This is definitely not a film I would ever label with franchise-potential, or would ever guess would have sequels. And neither did anyone else, I feel. Just because the first film made money, and may have been fun, does not mean it merits a sequel, or that a sequel will be good. Again, I don’t know that the audience will actually be there for this film, and perhaps Hollywood will learn that lesson from this film.
May 01:
Avengers: Age of Ultron
Yup.
May 15:
Mad Max: Fury Road
This seems like one of those scenarios where you should just let sleeping dogs lie. It was a popular series when it ran, but they don’t all demand retelling. However, I must again confess to never having watched the old films. If I had, maybe I’d be hyped as heck about this, just because they weres o awesome.
Pitch Perfect 2
Okay, so this film probably has it’s fair share of naysayers. But I’m not going to lie. I loved the first film, and I’m pumped for this one. I certainly feel that it’s a notch above
Paul Blart: Mall Cop in sequel potential. The film had the same feel as a sports movie, really. Like
The Mighty Ducks or any number of sports movies, the film will no doubt feature the characters moving on to an even greater competition. The fact of the matter for me was that the first film really made me like it’s characters, and I legitimately want to see more of them. I think, at the end of the day, perhaps that should be all that really matters.
May 22:
Insidious Chapter 3
Horror movie.
Jun. 12:
Jurassic World
Jurassic Park was one of the most groundbreaking and popular spectacle films
EVER. So naturally, it had franchsie potential. But maybe not as much as the filmmakers would like to think. A second film isn’t a bad idea. It certainly wasn’t a one-shot idea. But by the time the third film rolled around, it felt like they had done about all they could do with the idea of dinosaurs hunting people. Sure, it could still be entertaining enough to kill an afternoon. But was it really worth making more, putting them in the same company as the legendary original? Apparently they thought so, because they’ve been trying to get this film made for ages.
I personally feel perhaps the series should be left alone, so that we can simply appreciate it as is. But who knows, they may have some truly great surprises in store for us. I think we will have to wait at least for a trailer to truly judge.
Jun. 19:
The Fantastic Four
As I said with Hitman, there are mythologies that deserve to be put onscreen in the best way possible, and the good thing about the reboot craze is that Hollywood can get a second shot at it. But it still feels kind of strange that these series are all getting rebooted soon. Whether or not it’s worth is truly dependent on the quality of the film (and we certainly have our own opinions on where that’s headed)
Jun. 26:
Ted 2
This film certainly had more franchsie potential than Horrible Bosses and Paul Blart: Mall Cop. What’s the difference? A memorable character. Those other two films were more well-known for their premises, and that’s magic you just shouldn’t try and repeat. The appeal of Ted, however, was based on a foul-mouthed teddy bear, and that’s a concept you could build several premises around. I won’t say I’m super-hyped for it, as I didn’t see the first film, and I’m not a big fan of raunch humor.
After all this talk of comedy sequels, I should really point out that they’re nothing new. Just look at City Slickers II, or Legally Blonde II. Oh, I’m not saying they were always good. But even outside of the current sequel craze, they’ve been around.
Jul. 01:
Terminator: Genesis
Of all the needless, sequels, of all the pointless attempts at franchise resuscitation, of all the bad things that are the reason I am writing this article, THIS is the king! I can get pretty worked up about this franchise, and my friends tend to know me for my “Terminator speech.” So I’ll try and keep it to a minimum.
Over twenty years ago, James Cameron made a great film, and then he made a great sequel. Between those two films, he told a great story that had a truly wonderful, artistic, emotional, and memorable conclusion. And that was it. He was done with it. Then, many years later, someone
else decided they should try and make their own film. And since then, James Cameron’s vision has been the victim of filmmaker after filmmaker trying their best to milk it for all it’s worth. Sometimes a story is told, and that’s it, and that’ s all there ever should be. But I have heard it said that the problem with being a visionary is that other people will try and use your work to show what a visionary they are. And that certainly seems to be the case here.
Jul. 03:
Magic Mike: XXL
Ugh. Yeah, we all know the appeal here. Let’s move on.
Jul. 10:
Minions
Again with the using the cute supporting characters from a popular franchsie, and giving them their own films. I just don’t think it’s fated to work. See my reasons under
The Penguins of Madagascar.
Jul. 17:
Pan
Another “secret origin of” movie. But I’m a little bit more merciful towards this one. Oh, everything I said about
Dracula Untold is still true, and this does still feel like a waste of time. But the Peter Pan franchise doesn’t feel quite as overdone as Dracula. And to be perfectly honest, I actually always wondered about Peter Pan’s origin, his arrival in Neverland and such. It was something I thought and fantasized about it as a kid. It’s possible that, in another time, I wouldn’t be as skeptical about this, and would even be excited about it. But because we live in this time period, where everything else is getting this treatment, I have to question if this is really something inspired, or just another attempt to jack up the franchise. However, as the Planet of the Apes franchsie show us, even it if is the latter, it can still be good.
Aug. 07:
Point Break
No. Just no. Where was the demand for this? Who ordered this? Seriously!
Sept. 25:
Hotel Transylvania 2
Well, it’s a children’s film. And to be honest, the original kind of had a great premise. A monster mash of classic movie creatures as protagonist. To be honest, I think making multiple films out of that idea sounds like something great for kids, if done right. Especially if they continue to expand the roster with more classic creatures. That would be interesting.
Oct. 02:
London Has Fallen
The main reason this surprises me is that I didn’t even realize the first film was even popular enough to merit a sequel. So either Hollywood is way more desperate than I suspected, or this was a major sleeper hit.
Of course, this film had a one-shot premise. So did Die Hard. But I think the main appeal for a sequel to Die Hard, which continues to be the appeal of any more sequels that come, was it’s central character. America loves John McClane. I don’t think this film has anything remotely approaching that. Honestly, I think we should leave the sequels to the major, major hits, and let the subtle hits go.
BTW, the title is just completely uninspired. The first film at least had a cool code-name with “Olympus.” This time, screw it, we’re just going with the name of the city.
Victor Frankenstein
The official plot synopsis for this film sets it up as another “secret origin of…” “How he became the man you know” type of film. But as someone who has actually read the novel, Victor Frankenstein’s “origin” is basically all there in the original story! So that sounded especially ridiculous. But I think that’ just a poor synopsis. Essentially, this is another version of Frankesntein.
Now, of course, Frankenstein has already been done to death, it seems, and I would argue that there really isn’t any need for another version. However, what is kind of intriguing about this is that it is apparently a mash-up of all the different versions of the tale that have come before. It actually takes advantage of the fact that the story has been told multiple times, and uses different aspects of those different versions. (Igor, for instance, was never a character in the original novel, and was created for the 1931 film). So that actually sounds intriguing. Once again, we will simply have to wait and see.
Oct. 09:
The Jungle Book
As I said with
Cinderella, this is part of a wave of live-action remakes of classic Disney films. And this one I’m not so much in support of. Cinderella, of course, is a classic tale that has been told many times. So is the Jungle Book. And we’ve already had a live-action version of the tale, from Disney nonetheless, in the ‘90s. But that was simply another adaptation of the original books. This, however, seems to be a direct remake of the animated film, complete with the talking animals. I’m sorry, but I truly don’t see the need for that. The Jungle Book is another film that should just be left alone.
Constantly trying to recapture former glory really just damages the integrity of the original, of I’t place in film history. Not all of them do this. The remake of King Kong, I feel, merely exacerbated it. But for whatever reason that you just feel inside, it can seem wrong. And making live-action remakes of animated films feels like replacing them. They were animated in the beginning for a reason. They don’t need to be retold in live-action.
Oct. 23:
The Conjuring 2
Horror film.
Nov. 06:
“Bond 24”
There’s always room for more Bond.
Peanuts
You see, not every franchise, not EVERY mythology, not EVERY cast of characters demands the big screen treatment. Peanuts has been popular as a comic strip, and as a series of half-hour long short films. Can anyone really see it making a very intriguing full-length film? Does it need to be made into a film? No. But what really concerns me about this is that will take the classic animated look of the original, and try and beef it up with modern-day CG animation. That is very troubling to me indeed. Why can’t we just have what Charles Schultz gave us, and be happy with it?
Nov. 13:
Friday the 13th
Even for just another installment in a slasher series that has always been silly, THIS is fairly ridiculous. It’s literally a reboot of a reboot. It’s the
third film called simply “Friday the 13
th .” I mean, that might be passable with a truly beloved mythology. But Friday the 13
th? Oh yeah, we should all be very conerned they get the legend of Jason Voorhees correct.
Nov. 20:
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 2
See my comments on “Part 1.”
Dec. 18:
“Star Wars Episode VII”
In terms of totally needless sequels that continue to capitalize on franchises that are essentially over, this is really no exception. The Star Wars trilogy concluded over thirty years ago. The prequels expanded that story into an even greater story about the rise, fall, and ultimate redemption of Anakin Skyalker, with Palpatine being the true villain of the entire arc. And
that is the Star Wars saga. So how exactly is this “Episode VII” of that saga?
Not only that, but the story of the trilogy characters has already been continued on in literature that very much has it’s own strong following. In order to make this film work, the filmmakers had to completely ignore that mythology that has been established over the past twenty three years, and make up their own. That, to me, is an insult to those fans made just so that they can make their own fiction.
Buuuuuuut….Then again…. It’s STAR WARS! And the original cast is all coming back! I mean, seriously, we’re gonna see Harrison Ford as Han Solo again! So yeah, I have somewhat mixed feelings.
Above all, I just wish they would change the title. It’s not really “Star Wars Episode VII.” Maybe “Star Wars II, Episode I…”
(BTW, I know this is article isn’t supposed to be about the talent behind the actual film, but I have to point out that J.J. Abrams and Lawrence Kasdan’s involvement is what truly convinces me this will be a quality film).
Dec. 23:
Kung Fu Panda 3
Eh. I suppose if you like the series…
Dec. 25:
Mission: Impossible 5
Here’s another franchise that is just fun, and very open to continuing indefinitely.
2016
Jan. 15:
The Nut Job 2
Now that we come to 2016, we’re getting into dark times. This is where it becomes truly ridiculous. Some films you can just tell from the title that there shouldn’t be a sequel. Was the premise anything more than a one-shot? Were the characters especially memorable? Was the film even especially loved? No, no, and no!
.
Ride Along 2
On the same day! See the above film. I supposed this is where we come to it, where just about any film that is even a mild success, with no potential for continuation, still merits a sequel. That’s scary territory to be in. Pretty soon, it feels like you won’t be able to go to the theater to see any film that you won’t expect a sequel from.
Feb. 26:
Ben-Hur
Wow! I mean, really, wow! So far, gotta say, NOT looking forward to 2016! You know what I said about how
The Ten Commandments just shouldn’t be touched again? Yeah,
Ben-Hur doesn’t have the luxury of being based on a story everybody knows anyways. And while I’ve tried to stay away from talking about the actual talent involved, there’s just no avoiding it here. There’s no avoiding mentioning that this is a remake of
Ben-Hur from Timur Bekmembatov, the director of
Wanted. There’s just no wrapping your head around that! OH well, at least it will just be forgotten in the years to come. It won't put up competition against the original. Still, there will still be people who will have to say "You know in Ben-Hur, I mean the original..."
Mar. 04:
Prometheus 2
It sounds silly. But hopefully that won’t be the official title. The fact is the first film not only left itself open for a sequel, it was essentially meant to be the first in a two-part story. And this film has the potential to be better than the first. The main character will be diving deeper into the mythology, exploring new alien worlds behind what she encountered in the first film. With the right writing, that has the potential to be the kind of sequel that make the first film feel like it was just made in order to get to the sequel.
Mar. 18:
The Divergent Series: Allegiant, Part 1
Yeah, of course.
Mar. 25:
Beverly Hills Cop IV
Objectively, yes this is an awesome idea. Yes, these decades-after-the-fact sequels feel a bit strange. But it’s also something I think many people would love to see. Speaking of memorable characters, I don’t believe that film characters get any more memorable than Axel Foley, and anyone who love d the first two films should adore the idea of seeing him again after all these years. That is, if, if, if, IF it is done right (which the third film wasn’t) .
Apr. 22:
The Mummy
Really? Man, EVERYTHING is getting rebooted. I mean, just making another film about an ancient cursed mummy, depending on the writing, may end up being a good. But it’s the idea of it being a “reboot,” with the same title, nonetheless, as the 1999 film, is just complete reboot-overload. That wasn’t even based on anything beloved, which is the main reason to make a reboot! 2016, you are making me worry!
May 06:
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Now here we are talking about reboot overload. And yet we all are going to give yet another Batman film a pass. Obviously, Batman is about as iconic and fascinating character that exists in all of fiction, and his constant rejuvenation really doesn’t seem any different than that of James Bond.
Of course, even with all that said, these reboots would be totally unwelcome if they were just repeating the same thing over and over to make more money. The great thing about Batman’s franchise is that each version brings something new about the character to the screen. In this case, of course, it is his interaction and relationship with his fellow DC characters.
I mean, come on, it’s BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN!!!!! Who can’t be excited for that.
“Captain America 3”
Yep. Another well-deserved trilogy.
May 27:
X-Men: Apocalypse
Speaking of trilogies, there WAS an X-Men trilogy. And they just keep going. This is now the eighth film in the franchise, and it just keeps going, actually being the longest consistently running superhero franchise in history. And good for it. The mythology of
X-Men is so immense, that every film they make brings out something new from it. I’m not sure how I feel about making this film focused on the
First Class versions of the characters, but that’s getting more into my personal preferences.
Jun. 10:
“3rd Amazing-Spider-Man-related film”
So we have no idea if this is actually “The Amazing Spider-Man 3. It very well may be one of the two spin-off films. Which is definitely, DEFINITELY reaching. Here’s what it seems has happened: The folks at Sony looked at what Marvel had done with combining multiple characters into
The Avengers, and thought to do the same thing with their own superheroes. But they only own Spider-Man and Ghost Rider. So they decided to do it with Spider-Man, and just make films about his
villains.
Then again, a
Venom film was in the works a long time ago, and if
The Sinister Six are intended as the villains for future Spidey films, a film of their own may actually help develop all those characters. Still, how on Earth do you make a film with comic book villains as your protagonists? Maybe that will be the true genius of these films, and they’ll end up being great. I doubt it, though. But since we don’t even know what this film is, it gets a pass. But
Venom and
Sinister Six do not.
Jun. 17:
Finding Dory
On the one hand, this feels like the typical can’t-leave-it-alone attitude of Hollywood, like the studio simply cannot accept that they made a wildly successful, beloved film, that should be left alone.
On the other hand, Pixar has always been about quality. So there’s a definite possibility that Andrew Stanton really has a terrific story here that he really truly wants to tell, and that will only expand on the legacy of
Finding Nemo. Again, only time will tell.
.
How to Train Your Dragon 3
The concept itself definitely has franchise potential. After watching the second film, however, I am beginning to doubt that a third film can really offer anything substantial to the foundation. But we’ll see.
Jul. 01:
Independence Day 2
This is just reaching to the ultimate extant. This is the epitome of can’t-let-it-go syndrome. The film was popular twenty years ago. It was an entertaining-enough film with a very definite conclusion, so just let it the heck go!
Tarzan
This is a curious one. There’s no doubt that there has been a lot of Tarzan films throughout history. But the last real substantial live-action adaptation was 1984’s
Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes. So, it’s been thirty years. Still, does it really need to be told again? Is there anything really missing from the previous version? Well, when it comes to franchises like this, I think that different filmmakers through the years can try their own hand at it, and offer something different. And as long as it’s been thirty years, I guess it’s not too bad.
Jul. 15:
Ice Age 5
Oh, sure. Go ahead and keep makin’ em! It’s just a cute kids film series! It still seems a bit much though.
“Bourne 5”
Speaking without having actually gotten around to viewing it yet,
The Bourne Legacy certainly seems some of the most desperate reaching I’ve ever seen. I mean, when you don’t even have the character whose name is the title of the franchise anymore, and you’re still continuing it, that’s pretty hardcore. Like they really, really wanted to make another film. But again, there may actually be some genius in it (especially considering the cast), as there may be to this film.
Jul. 22:
King Arthur
King Arthur has been done multiple times, yes, but aside from the 2004 “real” version, it’s been a long time. Even the 1981 film Excalibur was hardly a very “definitive” version. And let’s face it, like Hercules, he’s an about as legendary a hero as you can get. The story has been featured in everything from Walt Disney animation to BBC television. I think he certainly deserves to have a big-screen adventure with modern-day effects.
Word is that this is the first in a planned series of six films. That sounds a bit extreme. But if they truly have enough material they want to weave in order to make each of those films worth being made, it could be friggin’ epic. And I think that thought merits attention, the thought of a massive, epic King Arthur film series for our time. It’s actually really kind of exciting.
Jul. 29:
“Planet of the Apes 3”
See my thoughts on “Dawn” above. If that is part of a three-part series leading into how Earth became the Planet of the Apes, then that’s fine by me, I guess.
Aug. 05:
“Smurfs Reboot”
A….A REBOOT? Of the friggin’ SMURFS movies? I mean, I could understand continuing a popular children’s franchise, but…a REBOOT?!! Wh…Why?!!! More 2016 ridiculousness.
Sept. 23:
LEGO’s Ninjago
Not sure if this counts as a franchise, as it doesn’t feature any returning characters. But it is what it is. I don’t really care.
Nov. 18:
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
Any personal feelings about the Harry Potter series aside, this does feel like trying to reach back into a franchise and pull out something that could possibly make more money. That doesn’t mean, of course, people won’t be entertained by it.
Dec. 16:
“Alvin and the Chipmuncks 4”
Yep, okay.
“Star Wars Spinoff #1”
No.
I’m a little on the fence about “episode VII, but this is just a slap in the face to the integrity of the six-part Star Wars saga. Disney is just trying to absolutely milk the brand name for everything it’s worth. So why not just market out the universe to have innumerable films made by just about everyone, all around the same time, just because we can?! Soon, the “saga” will have no meaning to the casual observer. Can we really deny this is a bit of a shameless ploy?
2017
Mar. 03:
“Wolverine 3”
Awesome, as long as they go with the right story arc.
Mar. 24:
The Divergent Series: Allegiant, Part 2
See previous comments on
Mockingjay, Part 1.
Apr. 07:
Pacific Rim 2
The film seems to have a pretty definitive ending and works perfectly well as a film on it’s own. I’m really not seeing the need for a sequel other than that that’s the thing to do these days.
Jun. 30:
Despicable Me 3
Eh.
Jul. 14:
“The Fantastic Four 2”
Yep.
Nov. 03:
The Croods 2
Really? Again, not a huge hit, but as long as it turned any profit whatsoever, they’re making it.
Nov. 17:
Dr. Seuss’ How the Grinch Stole Christmas
Even more pure ridiculousness. It’s not enough that we have the classic version and a live-action remake. Now we have to have another animated remake. These people are really making me want to cry. Just LEAVE STUFF ALONE!!!
May 04:
"4th Amazing-Spider-Man-related film"
See comments for #3.
May 18: Madagascar 4
This series should just be done by now.
Nov. 02:
Puss in Boots 2: Nine Lives and 40 Thieves
I liked the first film, but would doubt it has franchise potential. But I have to say, that tile has me intrigued!
Well, there you go. Those are all the sequels, reboots, remakes, and spinoffs coming out this year! What are your thoughts? Sound off in the comments below.