Open Forum Friday: Are Studios Too Focused on Building Franchises Instead of Making Good Standalone Films?

Posted by on August 10th, 2012   Filed under: Open Forum Friday

At this point we’ve heard plenty of bitching and moaning over all the remakes coming out of Hollywood as of late, and perhaps justifiably so. You can’t show up at your local multiplex anymore without thinking you may have been accidentally transported back to the ’80s. But it all ties into a bigger issue in the entertainment industry that has to do with the power of establishing brands and building franchises. Movie fans have proven time and again that when they enjoy a particular movie, they immediately want more of it. Studio execs have responded by choosing to greenlight primarily movies that could potentially yield sequels, and in many cases, by planning for a trilogy right off the bat. On the one hand, you can’t blame them… but on the other hand, are the movies themselves suffering because of it?

One of the results is that we get storylines that carry over from movie to movie but do not deliver a satisfying conclusion in and of themselves (Prometheus and The Amazing Spider-Man being a couple of recent examples). We also get sequels shoehorned in where they were never intended and properties that outlive their original cast and creative team (ie. a Bourne movie that does not have Jason Bourne in it). Perhaps most importantly, it means that self-contained stories with definitive conclusions are much harder to get made. What do you think? Does every successful movie deserve a sequel? Is it a good thing that feature films are becoming serialized like TV shows? Is corporate greed to blame or are fans just feeding into the phenomenon? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.



  • Bob

    Of course. It’s the same reason board games are turned into movies. A brand that is known (and not hated) is easier to sell than a brand that is unknown in most cases.

  • The more I look back, the more I see that this is nothing new.

    Starting from the ’80s, sequels/add ons/reboots are always preferred, and have been for some time.

  • el ohroy

    Reboot Vertigo! Fresh on the heels of becoming the best movie ever. They could make a trilogy out of it. Gone with the Wind. Citizen Kane. Trilogies for everybody!

  • Shanesbeard

    Damn, el ohroy – you should have an executive producer credit on all of em!

  • Kasper

    I love revisiting my favorite characters so I’m not complaining. I feel there’s a decent mix of both types of movies.

  • Niklas

    I don’t mind franchises or sequels but I do think movies should work as stand alone unless its understood that another movie is coming, like LOTR.

    I don’t know why more franchises can’t be like James Bond where each movie is a story but featuring the same character.

  • The sequel craze definitely started in the ’80s, but back then I think they still told stand alone stories.

  • anonymiss

    they are but we will all still go see them, so there is no point in complaining.

  • scott

    Yeah, there’s definitely an unappealing trend of not telling complete stories. Big turn off for me. That’s why Nolan’s DK movies stand out. He only tells a story if he has one and never counts on getting a sequel. I like the way he does things. That’s how it should be done.

  • bullet3

    Ya, I think the biggest issue lately is that the movies themselves are in-complete, and feel more like TV show pilots, which I cannot stand.

    The whole “hoping” for sequels thing is nothing new, and I have no problem with it, there’s something really special about seeing the “James Bond will Return in…”
    text at the end of the bond movies, or something like Buckaroo Banzai. That’s totally fine, as long as each individual movie tells its own complete story.

    I think this kind of self-contained story-telling within a series is what has allowed the Bond franchise to survive for so many years.

  • Kamen Liew

    I would prefer each entry in a franchise to be a good standalone story that has a complete arc.

    Nolan’s Batman Begins is a good model, it has a satisfying conclusion yet teases enough excitement for what’s to come (the Joker card) for both the audience’s imagination and the character itself. So it works both ways if it’s implemented well.

    I think DKR contradicts the standalone model a bit as it relies on foreknowledge of the previous films for maximum dramatic effect.

  • I wonder how often the author of a book that spawns a successful movie gets under contract to write a sequel so a sequel movie can be based on it. I can think of two examples: Arthur C. Clarke’s “2010”, and Michael Crichton’s “The Lost World”. The Lost world is a strange case because a key character died in the first book but lived in the movie, becoming the main character in the sequel. He must have replaced the actions of another character from the book sequel.

    I think the more people that stay on board from the first film, the more credibility the sequel will get. The script is the main thing though. It has to be more than just a re-hash.

    I’d certainly like to see more original ideas in genre films. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of ideas out there just from existing novels that could be adapted. Perhaps trailer-makers need to step up their game. A good trailer should be able to convince anyone of something new and cool. Slap on the names of well-liked stars and director and you’re good to go.

  • scott

    It would be cool if, instead of sequels, they’d just have the entire cast, crew, and creators come back to make a film with a totally different story. That would be awesome! “From everyone who brought you The Bourne Identity: RASPUTIN!”