Sequel-itis

Subway - Also A Franchise

How many sequels does it take to break a series? The answer is perhaps unknown, I would always say a third iteration is more than enough, but one thing is for definite, the endless line of films, TV shows, games and anything entertainment related seemingly has more follow ups, 2s, 3s, 4 and even 5s than ever before.


The reasoning behind such a growth in endless rubbish and watering down of the entertainment industry (Final Destination 5. Really? 2 was bad enough, but 5? Did no one understand the irony of having more than one "Final" destination?) is so. We are in uncertain times. Money is tight and when people's marginal perpencity to consume is down (like in a recession for example) the first things that they tend to cut back on things that are not necessary. In an economy like this, our good friend Maslow shows us that keeping warm, fed and protected form the elements is at a much higher priority than popping down the shops and picking up the latest Fast & Furious (Again, the first was bad, the second worse, ditto 3, 4 and 5. In Five, they laughably think it is a serious film, the writers and actors seemingly oblivious to the over-blown and over-weight blubbering mass the series has become.)


As a result studios are nervous. It is seen as a much greater risk to invest in a new, original and up and coming writer/director than it is an established brand. Yup, brand. I always think that a film should be made because within someone there is a burning desire to create a story worth telling. Yet, money dictates and without money, there is no film. Now we use terms like "franchise". Films shouldn't be a franchise, they shouldn't be made simply because the first made lots of money. They shouldn't be made because there is a gap in the market. They should be made because there is potential for something new, different, touching, hilarious or thought provoking.

Puss In Boots - No Need.

In the past a film had a marketing department that had the sole responsibility of promoting the film to a wide audience. Now the marketing departments, after their research and focus groups, now help to decide if a project is green lit of not. The classic case is Transformers, for more of that visit Kermode's rant here. Having said all of that, if spinning out 97 Shrek movies helps to fund more interesting films then I really don't mind. But the fact remains, there is never, ever, under any possible circumstance for the 4 Scream films or 4 Scary Movies to exist. By plumping for a film that has already been a success, the risk is lower, investment needed lower and the rewards (potentially) larger. I just wish that it wasn't so obviously cynical at times.