Let's Talk About Sequels

I can't help but laugh when I hear people rip on sequels. "Doesn't Hollywood have anything original anymore?" That's the most commonly heard complaint I come across; the loathing of sequels as well as remakes.

But the question is a ridiculous. Hollywood has never made anything original. Since feature films have existed you've had people plundering through every medium to find material to put on the screen. Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror was a thinly veiled (and illegal) adaptation of the novel Dracula. It was very much it's own thing and I don't really regard it as a Dracula film because the alterations and the implementing of new ideas are far more plentiful than the similarities. And it's regarded as one of the finest examples of early cinema.

To further cement my point, I'd like you to look at the first 30 movies on imdb's top 250 films. The link is here: http://www.imdb.com/chart/top

Go ahead. I'll wait.

Notice anything unusual? Almost all of them are adaptations or sequels. The ones that aren't are derivatives of other films.  Not only that, but they are primarily films that are widely enjoyed and have had good reactions from audiences. So sequels aren't as bad as the trolls online would like to believe.

Another myth I would like to put to bed is that financially successful and well-received sequels were unheard of until the last 10 years. WRONG!

I'll list off a few sequels that surpassed their predecessors.

Dracula Has Risen From the Grave (couldn't find the figures, but it was the most profitable movie that Hammer Films had ever released)

Moonraker- $210,300,000 (tenth sequel in the James Bond series)

Sudden Impact- $67,642,693 (fourth film and most successful in the Dirty Harry series)

Rambo: First Blood part II- $300,400,432

Aliens-  $131,060,248 (second film in Alien series)

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home- $133 million (most successful of the original 6 films)

A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master- $49,369,899

Terminator 2: Judgment Day- $519,843,345

None of these movies are particularly low-budget, particularly in relation to their preceding films. These made big bucks. The fact that they're "genre pictures" is irrelevant. Typically, those films are smaller in budget as each sequel is produced. If anything, that makes an argument for their high grosses. There are plenty of other movies I can add on here, but I think this says enough.

Consider how far back we're talking here. Dracula Has Risen From the Grave was released in 1968, more than several decades ago. And let's not forget that every James Bond sequel has surpassed the first installment, Dr. No, at the box office. That's starting from 1963 to the present. It's an absurd claim that surpassing lucrative sequels are, by any stretch of the imagination, a new phenomenon. These are expensive movies that made back their budgets and beyond. And most of them are cemented into the public consciousness.

Hey, as long as it's a good sequel, I say keep them coming and let them all be huge money-rakers. After all, there's been a set precedent in the industry to look to.

- L. Travis Hoffman